Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diogenes said:
I just had no idea they made rebar in 3 foot diameter ..

Why bother with the rest of the building materials ?
Click to expand...

That all came from a lunatic truther on one of the 9/11 conspiracy threads. Can't remember his name right off hand, but he was a real case.
 
Diogenes said:
Time to repeat my theory that I lay out every 100pages or so.. I suggest this footage was not the result of a pre-planned hoax.. Patterson was trying to make a documentary about hunting for Bigfoot ..

The screenplay called for the scenario we see in this film, along with the backstory.. i.e. .. Horse fell, bent stirrup, decision not to shoot, tracked for three+ miles, etc., etc., etc .. Patterson had put together the costume, not initially intending to film it, and claim it was the real thing.

He films the encounter, perhaps a few weeks earlier than Oct 20..

When reviewing the film, he decides - Hey ! This is just blurry and jerky enough that I might get away with claiming I filmed a real Bigfoot .. Tour the country - sell the rights to multiple parties - and clean up ; without going to the trouble of actually putting together the documentary that may or may not pay off.. He put together the Oct 20 fiasco - the principles like Green were hooked - and the rest is history ..

It was like the Emperor's new Clothes ... The people who wanted it to be a real Bigfoot were not, and will not, admit they were suckered in.. If no one had swallowed the bait, Patterson could laugh and claim that it was all a joke after all, and continue on with his Bigfootery nonsense ..

I don't think there was more than one take, or much fore footage tahn waht we see in the 60 seconds we see today .. If we are going to believe BH, it was filmed in one take.. If anything was edited out, it would be more stuff like the lumpy left leg seen in only a couple of frames , and maybe BH jumping into the hole at the end of the take..
Click to expand...

I've read your theory before and it is interesting. It does have a certain appeal, though there is no evidence that RP didn't start out with intent to hoax the audience. Your theory leaves room for BH to be the guy in the suit (his confession is true). But, if your theory is correct, then BH's testimony is suspect in an important way. He tells the story of his involvement (at least beginning some time after he was filmed in Washington - i.e. 'actors shot' + riding scene) being one that was always requiring secrecy. If RP initially decided to film a man-in-a-Bigfoot-suit as a reinactment (Roe encounter?), he would not have a need to present the subject with any pretense of being genuine. He could even tell everyone who the guy is and how the suit was made. There should be no reason to keep anything hush-hush or covert.

Bob Heironimus talks of RP's desire for staying quiet and keeping a low profile. Roger didn't want to be seen with BH in the small town near Bluff Creek. When BH arrived at the camp, they covered his mother's car with foliage to hide it. After the filming, BH was instructed to mail the film on his way back to Yakima. He took the suit with him and intended to keep it hidden. His mother discovered it in the car when she went to the trunk. His family ended up seeing the suit before P&G came to retrieve it. BH was supposed to keep quiet, but it still leaked out in a few ways.

So it seems that according to BH, there were circumstances and directives that are consistent with intent to hoax... from the onset of involving BH in the hoax. Note that BH does not say something like, "After Roger saw the footage, he decided to turn it into a hoax."

I think that if you are compelled with this theory, and the true confession of BH, you need to wonder why Bob would tell the story as if it was designed to be a hoax.
 
I should also say that the promised $1000 payment to BH was far in excess of what you would pay some friend to wear the suit in a non-hoax documentary. The $1000 payment was hush money for an implied commitment to keep it secret. People have said that $1000 in 1967 has the modern equivalent value of $10,000. That is ridiculous money to pay some non-professional guy to wear a suit for a few minutes. It would still be a ton of money even if you filmed all day trying to get at least one great take.

BH was to be paid as a participant in a hoax, and this was understood from the start. That's the way I am interpreting his testimony.
 
Interesting. BH is a wild card. He is the likely man in the suit. As you say, he does maintain that subterfuge was a major part of the plot. What does appear certain is the efforts to produce either a straight out movie based on a story, or some sort of fictionalised documentary of Patterson's Bigfoot endeavours. Did the project morph, until it became the cut-down footage hoax? Perhaps he did drop the movie/doco plan, and take up the hoax, but earlier? There was some intention to include a "Bigfoot" in at least the "recreation" movie, as well as the "Roger's search" doco? The concept of an acted monster appears to have been the starting point, yes? Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
It's comparison time....thanx to Dfoot...:)...


Here is 'Paddy Stiffy'....

stiffpadding2.gif



...and here is 'Patty Flexy'...;)...

Pattywalk56.gif
 
SweatyYeti said:
I'm taking the time to defend myself against your personal attacks on me....calling me a liar.
Click to expand...

You're making excuses. A good defence would be something crazy, like answering the questions and addressing the arguments. Wouldn't that be special?

I noticed that twice I've asked you a very simple "yes" or "no" question....and both times you've failed to provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it.

Could it be that you're evading the question...and afraid to answer it directly, scaredy-kitty? :)
Click to expand...
Sweaty, there's not a question that your mind can conceive that I would be afraid to answer.

Anytime your ready.
 
You make some good points WP - Makes more sense now, than what I proposed.

Your take makes the documentary more like a cover story, with the hoax being the Goal ..

How about the documentary being something to fall back on if the hoax didn't float ?
 
Big Les said:
Apologies if this has been addressed, but searches didn't yield it if so.

What do you guys make of zoologist Darren Naish's take on the film?
Click to expand...

Haven't heard of him before but he obviously didn't study the film that closely ..

He makes all kinds of unfounded claims about how natural the apparent
musculature looks.. Including :
Its large breasts bounce and sway in a manner which looks realistic compared to how unsupported human breasts move during locomotion.
Click to expand...

The breasts do no such thing..

I keep wondering if there is another film out there, that these guys look at, and we can't..

Or maybe Roger sent out some Patty viewing glasses with his Bigfoot Club memberships ...
 
Big Les said:
Apologies if this has been addressed, but searches didn't yield it if so.

What do you guys make of zoologist Darren Naish's take on the film?
Click to expand...


They're going to say that Darren Naish is a simpleton or a pie eyed footer grasping at straws. If a Sasquatch type body is ever recovered and DNA is obtained they'll say that the DNA was produced in a lab somewhere as a hoax.
 
Well Naish is a scientist. "With six years of tedious phd work on theropod dinosaurs behind him..." I guess he is a paleontologist or tetrapod zoologist (his term used).

He is really into the cryptozoology thing. I suspect he is a geek scientist with a soft spot for cryptids. He's no more qualified to say that BF exists, or that Patty is real, than anyone else. Just another guy after all.

What does he do? Hard to say. This is from his blog profile: "He remains desperately in quest of an academic job that'll last more than a month, and - with a background in TV research, e-learning development, academic editing, popular writing, teaching, landscape gardening, parenting and the wonderful world of retail - he still holds out hope of becoming a dedicated academic."
 
kitakaze wrote:
Sweaty, there's not a question that your mind can conceive that I would be afraid to answer.

Anytime your ready.
Click to expand...


Here is my question, again...and one of your previous responses (non-answers) to it...

kitakaze wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:

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?
Click to expand...

It's natural for me to think that way, Sweaty. You take the time to post with excuses when you could just answer the question or address the debate.
Click to expand...


A better version of that question would be....do you know for sure that I've been dishonest in stating that I haven't had enough free-time to answer all of the questions I've been asked, and instead, have been evading questions?
 
Last edited:
Crow, I hope your comment on skeptic's reactions to a (reliable) DNA is a joke, since its completely incorrect.
 
Here you go kitty...:)...the question I was "afraid" to answer...

The Harley Hoffman suit...

Hoffman1.jpg



The HH suit isn't seen well enough (i.e. "out in the open") to determine that it's a suit...based on such things as body proportions, body contour, and flexibility. None of those things can be measured, or evaluated, with the limited view of the subject.

But it can be easily determined to be a suit, based on the nature of the video itself.
Specifically...the fact the video is so short, despite the fact that the guy shooting the video was only a matter of 20-40 feet away from an unconfirmed APE-MAN :eye-poppi....and also the fact that the guy made no attempt to get a more complete view of the creature (APE-MAN :jaw-dropp) out in the open.
The video is an obvious hoax....based on that alone.

If this suit was videotaped in a comparable way to the Patterson subject....in full view...so that body proportions, body contour, and apparant muscle movement could be measured and evaluated...then it would be, as they all are, easily determined to be a suit based on the characterisitcs of suits themselves.
 
Sweaty, I can't believe you don't get an ice cream headache or something having such a stupid conversation. Don't you even feel the tiniest bit ridiculous carrying on this way knowing that everyone is acutely aware that you're ignoring the elephant in the room?
SweatyYeti said:
Here is my question, again...and one of your previous responses (non-answers) to it...




A better version of that question would be....do you know for sure that I've been dishonest in stating that I haven't had enough free-time to answer all of the questions I've been asked, and instead, have been evading questions?
Click to expand...
Here's what I see, Sweaty. What you call a non-answer is what I call a confirmation regarding your question about knowing you're evading my question. A confirmation and an explanation why I think so. That's a non-answer? What's the matter with you? You ask really silly questions. You want a 'yes' or a 'no', I give you a 'yes', and then you change the question. This is not an intellectually honest way of engaging someone.

Do I know you're being dishonest about having enough free time to answer all the questions you've been asked? What's the matter with you? Why are you asking me such an idiotic question? That would be a classic straw man, Sweaty. Did you really think such a childish ploy would go unnoticed? I never said a single thing about you lying about having enough time to answer all questions asked of you. Why would I do that? That would be an idiotic thing to say. No, Sweaty. I do not think you're being dishonest when you say you don't have enough time to respond to all the questions.

What I do know, what you know, what everyone unfortunate enough to have been paying attention knows is that you have been evading a question. There are others, have been others. But let's focus. A simple question. An easy question by your own definition. A question asked of you countless times. A question asked in discussion with you, when you are here, when I am here. A question stressed to you and the fact you evade it.

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

Just copy and paste the answer from your epic work on 'realism' where it is addressed. Do this, Sweaty. Show the people you intellectually corrupt bigfoot enthusiast who prefers to engage skeptics in a discussion that he believes there's an opportunity to score some points and play with semantics.

You will not do this. You're next post will have no such answer. There will be excuses, further dithering. This I know. I know it as I know your evasion. I know it like the sun rising tomorrow.

Rock the universe, Sweaty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERdW5IiWHGA

ETA: I will not delete this. I see Sweaty has opted to rock the universe. Now I shall read it and post a response.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom