Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right at the beginning, I see Patty in the distance at the top of the frame very similar to later PGF frames we have discussed here.

Who would splice that onto the beginning of the film and why?
 
LTC8K6 said:
It starts with the leader so the film they were using must have been that way. I dunno.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but...

You know what I suspect is going on with this clip? I think MK Davis may have put this bastard together himself. This clip loops back on itself multiple times, in addition to having scenes removed. I don't think that this clip came directly from National Geographic.

This clip is posted on Henry May's (bf2006) website. May is 'good buddies' with Davis, and speaks highly of him at every opportunity.

May titles this clip as, "Entire Patterson/Gimlin Movie 1-Inch Tape Scan from the Original Courtesy of National Geographic."

Courtesy of National Geographic, my ass! This is just more manipulated PGF propaganda from the Patty Scammer Borg Unit.

I don't think that NG presented this clip as we see it here. Henry May has some explaining to do.

I hope I am wrong. I don't think I am wrong. I hope I am wrong.
 
That's why we need to see the NG program where this aired.

If it's true that NG did a scan of a master copy of the PGF, and that clip is it, then that would be very interesting.

I'm certain I have seen the clip with the leader on another show about mysteries hosted by Michelle Trachtenberg.
 
I must be crazy. All these people know that the PGF is fake. They pretend to believe for fun and profit. This is nothing more than a game - like Dungeon & Dragons.

I'm the crazy one. Poor Parcher, and his Patty Skepticism Overkill. Chill out and let the Bigfooters have their fun. Boys will be boys.
 
Drewbot wrote:
2. Can you demonstrate with facts, not arbitrarily placed heads and angles that a head with a 50's type helmet arrangement wouldn't fit inside Patty's head?
We have testimony of the person who wore it, so don't come back with 'Can you show that it WOULD fit?
Click to expand...



I plan on....some fine day...when I have the time to...:(...showing that a human head (in correct proportion to the body)...would barely, if at all, fit into the space available inside Patty's supposed suit.
I think it's obvious to see that there simply isn't enough space for any kind of a helmet...even a thinly padded one...to be on the head of whoever was supposedly inside the "suit". Patty's head is sharply sloped inward from all sides, leaving very little room for a head that has a straight vertical forehead, and sides.

Of course, until I can actually demonstrate that...it's only my opinion...and is worth a grand total of 2 cents. :)
But I plan on backing it up with something of substance.
 
Last edited:
You know what was actually going through my head all day, and this might be kind of morbid, but let me get it out there.

I was curious as to what will happen when the relatives of Patterson and others potentially involved in a hoax begin to pass away. And as Gimlin gets older and older, do you think at some point he may make a confession or "take it to his grave" like Patterson did? I wonder if there comes a point where it just may not even matter anymore and he'd want the world to know?

In any case, I hate to say it but years from now when that time comes it will bring about more discussion (assuming it hasn't been resolved). Assuming it's a hoax do you think Gimlin would reveal this if he had no relatives left to look out for? Does he have kids or anything to "pass a secret" to? Curious as to what are your thoughts on that everyone?


Also I was wondering if Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin have ever spoken publicly together and "debated" in a sense. God that would be so good, would either be up for it? I just don't understand how such a contrast can still exist. One man swearing that it's a hoax and he was Patty, and the other swearing it was real. If you got the 2 together, had a debate with panel and press, something would give.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
I wouldn't put it past Roger, to have borrowed a prop musket for the photo shoot.

Geno, it was you who has the Argosy magazine right? Do they give a photo credit for the cover? I'm wondering if that there is an archive of Argosy's old photos. Back then, I think the magazines bought the pictures outright, and the photographer gave up his rights to them.
Click to expand...


Credit: "cover photographs by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin". The article is written by Ivan Sanderson who slobbers all over the film and calls the subject the "adorable woodswoman."

WP: here are the maps drawn by Green and Dahinden:
 

Attachments

  • maps (Large).jpg
    maps (Large).jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 14
LTC8K6 said:
IIRC, Gimlin told a British TV producer that Patterson could possibly have hoaxed him. Can't find the interview, though.
Click to expand...

You mean this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film ?

Gimlin too maintains he did not falsify the film, but in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham, he said that for some time, "I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now...and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."
Click to expand...
Which in turn is taken from Greg Long (2004). The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, page 166.

RayG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom