Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Gentlemen..Let's suppose for a moment we are back in 1967..We are constructing a monkey suit in our garage, in an attempt to fool alot of people when we film our buddy walking in the suit in the middle of no where, in an area that Bigfoot has been reported..Fine a plausible, distinct possibility that this may have happened. Now, as they are constructing this suit, did Patterson say to Gimlin, "Hey Bob, whatta ya say, let's throw a cuppla tits on this thing,..." Absolutely NOT... Reason #1. Why complicate matters. Fabricating fake breasts takes time, money and a high degree of difficulty. Reason # 2. Why dress up like a female Bigfoot, if there was the possibility that a Male might show up..could be a very painful event for the guy in the suit, if you get my drift. I sure as hell wouldn't wear a female gorilla suit while strolling through the jungles where male Gorillas may be present.

Zooman, this line of thinking you present has been addressed many times in the past. Both reasons you list do not work when trying to reverse the breasts to helpful for the veracity of the film.

1.You should have a look at the book Patterson published only the year prior to the his creation of the PGF in which we can see his hand-drawn illustration of a female bigfoot not unlike the PGF subject. This illustration was related to the illustration of the large-breasted, pointy-head bigfoot from the alledged William Roe encounter. When we look at the PGF subject we can see certain similarities to both illustrations. We know Patterson had female bigfoot's on his mind. The kind of incredulity that someone would think to make a female bigfoot would certainly be on his mind when designing such a hoax.

2. This is highly problematic thinking. For one, we have to accord the possibility that Patterson has no worries about encountering a real bigfoot whatsoever. The other is that if he was following some type of Chuck Jones logic, he'd have really scored if he made a girly bigfoot get-up and a horny male showed up. He can go ahead and film it as it tries to violate BH or whoever's in the suit or go ahead and spare Bob the ordeal and just shoot the thing. Either way, if you really wanted to prove bigfoot's existence then the aforementioned choices just become secondary.

 

[WinstonCountyWildman]

maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs

 

[Drewbot]

Bill,
A couple questions I have for you
1. Do you have a vested interest in Bigfoot being accepted as real by a percentage of the population? i.e. upcoming TV shows, a book, etc...

2. If you saw something on the Patty film that stood out to you as a standard flaw of costumes of that era, would you publicly admit that Patty was a man costume?

3. As an expert on Costumes, your opinion is valued here, but do you think your opinion would be accepted on BFF if you did find evidence that it was indeed a costume?

 

[bruto]

maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs

I would add to that the possibility that he figured breasts would be easier to carry off than male genitalia.

 

[LTC8K6]

maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs

Yep. Quick way to cover that up and account for lack of height.

Then when you talk about filming the beast, you keep claiming that the breasts were floppy, pendulous, droopy, etc., even thought they weren't, to sell the "female" idea.

"because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved."

She was covered with short, shiny, black hair, even her big droopy breasts.

 

[kitakaze]

maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs

I would add to that the possibility that he figured breasts would be easier to carry off than male genitalia.

Excellent points which alone or together make short work of the oft-repeated "Who'd think of breasts?" question.

Yep. Quick way to cover that up and account for lack of height.

Then when you talk about filming the beast, you keep claiming that the breasts were floppy, pendulous, droopy, etc., even thought they weren't, to sell the "female" idea.

It's really interesting that Patterson stresses this point so much when we see it is non-existant in the film. The description is more in line with the illustration of the female bigfoot he drew for his book the prior year. It is rather like he was trying to dramatize for effect an aspect that was already established in his imagination but was unable to execute on film. Of course footers will invent some reason to dismiss this but no matter what they say, they can't deny that this is consistent with Patterson's shown, proven, factual, undeniable flare for the dramatic.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Aepervius wrote:

The 'scientific method' involve far more , it involve falsification. And this is where you process of elimination fails utterly.

'Scientific analysis' is science...pure and simple...whether or not it involves falsification.

*ALL* you can say after your process of elimination is "I eliminated a bunch of possible explanation".

What that "process of elimination" does allow.....is a better assessment of the weight of the evidence which has been analysed.
Whether or not it proves something is irrelevant. It should, at the very least, indicate a greater or lesser probability of Patty being a guy-in-a-suit.

Let the analysis continue!

 

[kitakaze]

What that "process of elimination" does allow.....is a better assessment of the weight of the evidence which has been analysed.
Whether or not it proves something is irrelevant. It should, at the very least, indicate a greater or lesser probability of Patty being a guy-in-a-suit.

Let the analysis continue!

Sweaty, I've already posted a list of some of the established facts that make the PGF far, far more likely to be a person in a suit. I've already asked you to address that. Neither you or anyone else has offered any information that makes a person in a suit less or as likely as living bigfoot.

It seems that you were unable to handle the debate I had with you on page #305 and have chosen to abandon it. That is not a surprise.

Just tell me, Sweaty, if the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit, why are we moving into months of you not explaining why?

 

[Crowlogic]

How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF? Men, especially men that inhabit cultural, professional and geographical masculine archtypical regions think and direct their actions ideas and energies in the masculine. The consideration of the feminine revolves almost exclusively around sex, child rearing and the home. While some of that has moderated in more recent years in the American West of 1967 men were men and the masculine archtype was still undiluted by the "cultural enlightenments" that followed within the next decade. One only needs to consider the image of the Malboro Man to appreciate how deeply masculine the West was and still is in many respects.

The leap that Patterson and his cohorts would have needed to make in order to present thier idea in the feminine form was, in my not so humble opinion, beyond their thinking. The creation that they came up with as a male or gender neutural would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.

 

[kitakaze]

How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF?

There have been a completely negligible amount of reports mentioning any aspects of female anatomy or characteristics. I can dig up a report on an old hag lady bigfoot who was talking trash to her bigfoot family that I posted here sometime ago.

Men, especially men that inhabit cultural, professional and geographical masculine archtypical(archetypal) regions think and direct their actions ideas and energies in the masculine. The consideration of the feminine revolves almost exclusively around sex, child rearing and the home. While some of that has moderated in more recent years in the American West of 1967 men were men and the masculine archtype was still undiluted by the "cultural enlightenments" that followed within the next decade. One only needs to consider the image of the Malboro Man to appreciate how deeply masculine the West was and still is in many respects.

The leap that Patterson and his cohorts would have needed to make in order to present thier idea in the feminine form was, in my not so humble opinion, beyond their thinking. The creation that they came up with as a male or gender nutural(neutral) would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.

I have taken the liberty of correcting some of your spelling, just to help. Now could you please clarify what it is that you are trying to say? You are saying a female Patty was beyond Patterson's imagination? You've not read the immediately previous posts on the subject?

On a side note, William earlier made a post with some questions, all of which you answered except for the last which was about if you thought Chico being at the film site was important. Could you please answer that?

 

[Crowlogic]

Kit

Patterson clearly did imagine female Bigfoot as wittness in his drawing. However sketching one out cost him only the paper and the writing impliment. Selling a female suit to a bunch of rodeo riders of which one of those riders would be called upon to wear would have needed a lot more effort than sketching. Not that this this isn't a suit. But it didn't come from Roger Patterson and his band of merry men.

 

[LTC8K6]

The creation that they came up with as a male or gender neutural would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.

Nope. The story was about a family in the area, and about being afraid the male would show up. This is the reason given for stopping Gimlin's immediate pursuit of Patty on horseback with the reloaded camera. The story of the filming revolves around the encounter being with a female bigfoot.

A male bigfoot would have presumably defended his family aggressively, according to the story. The idea was that a female would calmly lead P & G away from her youngster. This is presumably why she supposedly sat on the hill and watched.

Only an encounter with a female fits the stories told, imo.

Don't forget that Patterson was making a documentary. The female fits perfectly into that, along with the suit chest problems.

 

[kitakaze]

Kit

Patterson clearly did imagine female Bigfoot as wittness in his drawing. However sketching one out cost him only the paper and the writing impliment. Selling a female suit to a bunch of rodeo riders of which one of those riders would be called upon to wear would have needed a lot more effort than sketching. Not that this this isn't a suit. But it didn't come from Roger Patterson and his band of merry men.

log,

DeAtley.

At least we agree that it's a man in a suit.

(How smart is she now, Sweaty?)

 

[William Parcher]

Mr Parcher: from your post #12282

(Quote) "Bill, from what I gather in reading your many posts, you seem to want to approach this using scientific methodologies. I'd say that it a good thing. Peer review is a very important part of this process. That means presenting a concise and coherent hypothesis to the community of costume designers. The members of BFF and JREF probably do not constitute proper peers for this sort of review."

You are correct. And I don't plan on offering any final conclusion without such peer review. But I'm still formulating the research agenda and looking at logistics of accomplishing same. So peer review is a ways off.

On your appraisal of the BF community, I am becoming more aware of people's agendas and their attempts to take my work and bend it to their own advocacy (for or against BF). You, in all fairness, were the worst (gotta call it as I see it). But you are now demonstrating yourself to be a reasonable person willing to talk, and I thank you.

Bill, you seem to be an old-school cryptozoologist with a self-promotion thing going on. The BFF is perfect for you as you give them what they want. Why on earth do you think the world will care about your 'final conclusion' on the Patty suit. Do you think that people in general have been waiting for such an analysis, or that maybe they deserve it coming from a professional costume designer?

Calling me "the worst" is a high compliment, as I give special skeptical attention to Bigfootery and cryptozoology in general. Your 'work' on BFF is a prime target for skeptical attention. After all, you are talking about the subject in the PGF. Whether you know it, or can even imagine it, Bigfoot is really quite a joke outside of the cult of Bigfootery. If your pending thesis converges upon Patty being a real Bigfoot, you should prepare yourself for blazing public criticism and a whole lot of ridicule. I can't imagine how you would find any refuge from that within the community of 'Hollywood' costume designers. These people are real people after all, and are not burdened with quasi-religious fantasy beliefs in Bigfoot or Patty. However, if you stick closely to the Bigfooter circles, they will ask you for your autograph and buy you a beer. That is unless you change your present course.

For example: You have a thread on BFF titled, "Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab". The term "flab" was a good and safe choice over there. Flab denotes visible fatty deposits on a living animal. Had you chosen something like "material folds or bunching on Patty", you would have put up a scare situation and caused fervent actions from the crowd. OMG, Bill is not saying he sees costume flaws is he? We thought he wasn't going to go there with us. We thought he was a good guy. We thought he was a Patty believer.

Bill, it's really hard to read your posts here because you are not using the quote function. It looks like you don't use it on BFF either. It really helps readers if you use that function to put the words of others (which you are responding to) into the light blue quote boxes.

But you are now demonstrating yourself to be a reasonable person willing to talk, and I thank you.

I was never not willing to talk.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It seems that you were unable to handle the debate I had with you on page #305 and have chosen to abandon it. That is not a surprise.

Things are not always what they seem...isn't that right, kitty?

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?

Just tell me, Sweaty, if the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit, why are we moving into months of you not explaining why?

It's part of the question of "Patty's realism", isn't it?
I'm working on a post, explaining why I think there is a high degree of realism to Patty's so-called "suit". It'll include something about the Hoffman video.

 

[Belz...]

Are those yeti discussion threads STILL going on ?

Kitakaze, fill me in. Has Sweaty made ANY progress whatsoever in the last 6 months ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It seems that you were unable to handle the debate I had with you on page #305 and have chosen to abandon it. That is not a surprise.

Things are not always what they seem...are they, kitty?

Do you know that I'm "unable to handle the debate", and that I'm evading questions.....or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?

Just tell me, Sweaty, if the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit, why are we moving into months of you not explaining why?

I'm working on a post explaining why I think there is a high degree of 'realism' to Patty's so-called "suit". It'll include something about the Hoffman video.

 

[Astrophotographer]

How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF?

How many bigfeet (bigfoots? what is the plural?) have been filmed since PGF that is accepted by the bigfoot proponents as "authentic"? Feel free to list them. I don't think there are any and the lack of any films better than PGF makes one begin to question the authenticity of PGF. As I have stated previously, why hasn't the technological advancement in the past four decades allow us to record a bigfoot clearly on film or video that does not turn out to be a fake? Is it because PGF is a probable hoax or is there a better answer? Any other answer requires one to assume things like:

a) There was only one bigfoot and Patterson got very lucky
b) Bigfoot creatures are very smart and can avoid being caught on film (but somehow always leave tracks/impressions/feces/nests/etc. for bigfoot proponents to find).
c) The population of bigfoot creatures is very small and a rare sight. Filming one takes a great deal of luck.
d) Researchers aren't very well equipped and just don't know how to go about recorded bigfoot creatures. Yet, they are very good at setting bait to record bigfoot impressions in mud.
e) Bigfoot creatures (like UFOs) emit e/m energy that makes cameras and video equipment go dead at the time they are used.
f) etc. etc. etc.

Again, the more likely scenario continues to be a person in a suit until proponents provide better evidence that bigfoot exists. In forty years since the PGF, proponents/researchers haven't advanced their research beyond the PGF.

 

[kitakaze]

Things are not always what they seem...isn't that right, kitty?

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?

I know that I've been given no reason to think otherwise. Feel free to prove me wrong and pick up the debate from where we left off. For one thing, I've shown that what you called a lengthy explanation as to why your position regarding bigfoot is not based on belief was scarce on content and erroneous in its reasoning.

It's part of the question of "Patty's realism", isn't it?
I'm working on a post, explaining why I think there is a high degree of realism to Patty's so-called "suit". It'll include something about the Hoffman video.

Let's keep them separate. How you define the 'realism' you attribute to the PGF subject is a separate question. Let's talk about the Hoffman video. It's a simple question. Just go to the part about the Hoffman video in this big post you've been working and copy and paste it at the end of this:

What makes the Hoffman video easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit?

Again, simple question, Sweaty. People wanna know. If it's so easy, so instant, then it should be a very simple matter for you to answer that question above. Of course, if you haven't been able to think of an answer for that question yet, you're free to admit it. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

 

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze, fill me in. Has Sweaty made ANY progress whatsoever in the last 6 months ?