• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because of Patty's degree of realism...and resulting ambiguity...the only position, default or otherwise, which is appropriate is simply..."Patty may be either a man or a real Bigfoot".

You were doing so good until you said that. Again, I want you to quantify "degree of realism". You keep using that term as some form of proof or evidence but can not even identify what that means. To me it is a subjective value assigned by you and can bear no weight in discussing the PGF or any evidence.
Additionally, you seem to want the position to fall exactly in the middle 50-50. That is not the case as demonstrated by the ambiguity in evaluating the evidence to date. The probability is far more weighted towards the hoax scenario (IMO greatly weighted) than the "bigfoot is real" scenario.
 
Livescience.com

Surely they don't believe that still is from the PGF? If so, it clearly demonstrates their lack of investigative skills.

RayG

That's the creative style of Livescience's resident cryptoskeptic, Benjamin Radford. He regularly displays that photo yet refers to the PGF.

Livescience has a great archive on human evolution/migration, neanderthals, apes, monkeys, and all branches of science.
 
That's the creative style of Livescience's resident cryptoskeptic, Benjamin Radford. He regularly displays that photo yet refers to the PGF.

Well that's not right. I just left the following comment at that Livescience monster page:

You refer to the Patterson-Gimlin film, and the still you show is labeled 'Shot from the Famous Bigfoot Film', yet it's actually a still from an Ivan Marx movie. What's up with that?

RayG
 
Seems the old Patty thread is still going strong.... so I'll keep butting in...:)

1. To those who keep repeating the same dumb stories about the BBC doc having a suit made by Vulich... please stop that. It's ridiculous. NO ONE attempted to make a "Patty suit". Vulich gave the guy a red ape suit that was hanging in the studio because IT DIDN'T look like Patty. That was the point. The still photo that BFRO and others are using is just an image from another camera that shows the suit clearly.

The producer's point was that from the Patterson camera you could film any old suit and make it look like a decent bigfoot. I don't agree, but that was the guy's idea. Vulich had nothing to do with making any bigfoot at all. He and his guys commented on the film and loaned a goofy suit out. That is all. Once again... here's what the Patterson camera POV looked like:


2. So in the tradition of Patty photography and Bigfoot enhancing, here's that footage of a guy with hair safety-pinned around a thigh pad. No butt pads or anything else. Just a leg with a pad showing; an early test but not too far off the mark:


3. Since the idea of investigating the suit angle is to look back at who was doing what that might fit Patty, here's something worth mentioning...

... the curve under the armpit that's often pointed to as if it could only be a muscle happens to follow the pattern of the typical two piece smooth skin wetsuits that were used to build monster suits in the 60's. It also follows the pattern of soft foam (as seen on the bottom left). The two pics on the right are from LOST IN SPACE; the show Janos Prohaska used to provide wetsuited monsters to.

The green outline on Patty's arm show EXACTLY the same stitch pattern that I found on Janos' ape suits. His wife sewed it. The same wife who told me she'd never heard of the Patterson film (even though I have film of her being interviewed about the Patterson film with Janos).

Like the kneecap seen below, this was a common technique. Notice the stitching above and below the rubber kneecap pad. That is what created the "hernia" injury bubble on the thigh when it pushed upward. Check it carefully.



4. Below is a close up of a mask that has seen better days, but I decided to stick a fake eyeball in the right eye socket and wear it to see what it would look like on camera. It would work. I'm looking at the camera lens through the left eye hole. (Hello Roger)


5. Below is the first time I tried to simulate those irritating thigh pad lines seen so clearly in the film. This is what is under the faux fur in the animation. Also, I recently painted OVER THE TOP of some fur to see what that would look like. I pinned a strip of fur to the top of my sleeve and painted a couple of stripes over the hair. I wasn't trying to copy Patty's hair pattern, I just wanted to see if it would work. I think it might be useful for a cowboy with a camera. It's not how Patty was made, but it would still work. Just shows that it's not impossible for the home Bigfoot enthusiast.


6.Below is Janos in a couple of his suits. The reason the top of the thigh pad is so obvious on Patty is because the suit should have been worn by someone under 6 feet tall.... like a Janos type. Then you'd never see the top of the thigh pad as you do on both me and Patty.

Janos' DoDo bird I included because he mentioned that Patty's hair would have been "glued on". Which is odd because few people would have thought that back then. If you can see it clearly you'll notice the puckering around the fake fur Janos has glued to the wing of his creature. Very much like the puckering we see on Patty. It's as if someone had glued patches of fake fur on her wetsuit-skinned/foam-padded body.


BTW - I made the shoulder above upside-down on purpose in order to match what is seen on Patty. Like the jutting thigh, such things don't work in real life and no one would deliberately build a suit like this if he thought the whole world would judge it. Who knew what was considered a joke suit would go this far?
 
261 pages about Bigfoot. :boggled:

Wait, not even that: but ONE brief clip that allegedly shows one.

Wait, not even that....one of the least believable of all of them. Even as a kid, I kind of gave it the :rolleyes:

The skeptics protest too loud methinks; y'all have a nagging belief this might be true don't ya?? Admit it; be honest w/yourselves at least.


;)

Seriously though wtfo? ie why the extreme obsession w/this one?
 
Ultimately the joke is on the first hoaxer Ray Wallace. Wallace sent Patterson to Bluff Creek where Wallace had laid down some of his wooden tracks. Bet ol" Ray had himself a real hoot thinking about that he'd just sent that little weasel con Roger all the hay down to Northern CA. What Ray haden't counted on is that Roger who was lucky enough to be cheating his cancer death for quite a long time was also lucky enough to catch on film the last of the red hot Sasquatch. Never try to kid a kidder they say.
 
If, in fact, and in opposition to all logic, the figure in the PGF was a real creature, the single most remarkable thing about that creature is how amazingly strongly it resembles a man in a suit. Science will be dumbstruck at how thoroughly nature was able to imitate and artificial construction.

(Edited to add: I just gave Sweaty more ammo for his "skeptics admit Bigfoot could be real" argument. Sorry.)
 
261 pages about Bigfoot. :boggled:

Wait, not even that: but ONE brief clip that allegedly shows one.

Wait, not even that....one of the least believable of all of them. Even as a kid, I kind of gave it the :rolleyes:

The skeptics protest too loud methinks; y'all have a nagging belief this might be true don't ya?? Admit it; be honest w/yourselves at least.


;)

Seriously though wtfo? ie why the extreme obsession w/this one?

Now bigred, you force me to quote Dr. Evil: "You just don't get it do you Scott? You just don't." Okay... your name may not actually be Scott, but you get the idea.

I prefer real-life mysteries to novels. I also consider this one to be the Ultimate Woo. Sure, JAMES RANDI can show you how URI GELLAR does his spoon trick and that makes it hard for him to fool you with it. He could test SYLVIA BROWNE or even record the secret radio transmissions of PETER POPOFF, but against "Patty" he and all others are helpless.

Patty is the Ultimate Woo because it is possible to have had some form of ape or human for which evidence has not yet been uncovered. It has a scientific edge to it. When real scientists get involved and begin making claims that the film MUST be real, then that also makes it an easy trap.

From my angle I happen to have worked with creature suits from all over the planet - yet I've never made one myself. So when I see the attributes of creature suitmakers from the 60's all over this thing and all of the evidence to support that I have to wonder why a group of scientists and die-hard believers from all over the world CANNOT allow themselves to see it.

I realize that one reason is that no one has really shown them anything. Top creature fx guys simply dismiss it as a suit and the handful of people who know (and at least one I know of who was there during the making of it) all refuse to comment publicly due to promises to allow a widow to keep making money.

Yet what about the careers that have been (and will be) put on the line? What about all of the marriages and relationships that have been torn apart over this hoax? So I decided that I'll check out some things from time to time and reveal anything I find out. It has been working bit by bit.

As far as belief in Bigfoot goes: I only know that the Indians claimed there once was a tribe of big hairy cannibal people (with a language) that lived high in the mountain areas. They say they faded away after the coming of the white man. Then in the 50's the Yeti followed by Bigfoot craze began and hasn't stopped. Each new decade brings a new scientist and fanatical researchers determined to prove that Bigfoot lives and Patterson filmed it. And like the Cottingley Fairies, simply telling people this is fake isn't enough. You have to physically show them something to take the blinders off. Though that comes slowly.

I'm in the middle of this novel right now. I'll let you know how it comes out.

But once I"ve shown how the Patterson suit was made I'll then spring upon the world my true motive; the fact that I have hidden in a cave the body of a Bigfoot I killed years ago. I'm only waiting for science to declare they aren't human before I reveal my find to the world. Please keep this part of the story quiet.

Anyway, this is THE mask that was used. Not one like it. THE ONE. That much I can promise is an absolute fact.

How the body was made I've almost got down. Who used those techniques I know already. But exactly who did what with regards to the body I can't say for sure as they won't tell me... yet.:cool:



Even if Patty had not been thrown away (as I'm told it was) and we displayed the actual suit it would not be believed. It works for the reason AL DEATLEY (Roger's brother-in-law) said it worked. It gives people who already believe Bigfoot walks among us something to point at to shore up their belief. Same thing happened with ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE and the Fairies. He refused to believe he could've been wrong all those years.

The power of the Ultimate Woo is just as interesting as the mystery of the hoax itself.
 
Anyway, this is THE mask that was used. Not one like it. THE ONE. That much I can promise is an absolute fact.
.
Dfoot, unless or until you present an actual costume piece that was used in the Patterson film, I shall remain skeptical of your claim.

You do have the actual costume mask/head from Patty? Yes?

RayG
 
So....to re-cap the skeptic's opinions on Patty:

Kitty says it's "an obvious hoax", and "it may not be a hoax"...

Anyone else have any other dual-positions they'd like to take regarding this "obvious hoax"?
Sweaty can you clearly explain how the statement I made in post #13027 qualifies as a dual position? Also, when attempting to paraphrase someone it is considered proper etiquette to indicate that you are doing so. Your above attempt is a misrepresentation and over-simplification of what I said. Again, it is intellectual dishonesty that you rely on to maintain your position.

See, now I'm going to turn your beloved semantic dithering back on you. If I say I consider the PGF to be an obvious hoax or that certain aspects of it are indicators of an obvious hoax, yet allow for the remote possibility that what lead me to that opinion could be accounted for by a real bigfoot, it in no way qualifies as a dual position. Someone who relishes in talking at length of the use of the word 'is' should be aware of this.

It represents a logical consideration given the fact that it has not been proven beyond a doubt to be a man in a suit. That lack of proof however, in no way represents a situation where a man in a suit and a real bigfoot are equal likelihoods. As explained to you countless times, the established facts of the PGF make a man in a suit far, far more likely. IMO one of your sole purposes here is to attempt to obfuscate that fact. And of course, it continually backfires on you. No matter how clever you think these games are or how many times you try to play them, they are quickly outted and dismantled every time.

If you can not clearly and logically define how my statements constitute a dual position then please withdraw the claim.

Also if you had any integrity, any intellectual honesty, any genuine desire for sincere critical debate, you would cease to employ the use of the word 'realistic' or 'realism' when trying to argue the veracity of the PGF until such time as you have clearly defined its use in context. You have been asked before to not continue that poor debate tactic yet still continue. It is my opinion that you do this because you are aware of the erroneous nature of your arguments. This board is a place for people who are interested in facts and the truth. You continually demonstrate your willingness to obscure the facts and the truth.

Again I ask you the same question I have asked you many times to no avail. Is the PGF far, far more likely to be a man in a suit than a living bigfoot? Yes or no? A 'yes' or 'no' question just like you enjoy posing. The difference being that this question is not flawed and poorly thought like yours. It's simply meant to get you to acknowledge the truth of the matter of the PGF and demonstrate intellectual honesty. As you have been told in the past when asked this question, if your answer is 'no' and employs the 'realism' angle, qualify it. If your answer is 'no' and involves a statement regarding the lack of reproductions of the PGF and its subject satisfying to its proponents then your are constrained to identify the number of concerted efforts made to achieve that goal.

I look forward to your sincere attempt to address this post.
 
Last edited:
You were doing so good until you said that. Again, I want you to quantify "degree of realism". You keep using that term as some form of proof or evidence but can not even identify what that means. To me it is a subjective value assigned by you and can bear no weight in discussing the PGF or any evidence.
Additionally, you seem to want the position to fall exactly in the middle 50-50. That is not the case as demonstrated by the ambiguity in evaluating the evidence to date. The probability is far more weighted towards the hoax scenario (IMO greatly weighted) than the "bigfoot is real" scenario.
Astro, this is just a suggestion and one that shouldn't be necessary to people uninterested in semantic side-quests such as ourselves but I would advise you be very careful when using the word 'proof' with Sweaty.

For me your above post is very straight-forward in its reason, its call to have Sweaty define his use of 'realism', and observation of Sweaty's attempt to represent suit and beast as being equal likelihoods.

The single problem is the use of the word 'proof'. Sweaty will seek to use that as an opportunity to obfuscate, to escape from addressing the argument. He will ignore the salient points of your post and give a response focusing only on that word. He will ask you where he said anything about his use of 'realism' proves anything. He will go on fretting about skeptics demanding proof all the while and if you do not fall for his deflection tactic he will either simply ignore it or say he'll be getting around to it later.

Because of the type of intellectual dishonesty Sweaty depends on when engaging (one reason why so many bigfoot enthusiasts are disgusted by him) I find it is necessary to choose your words carefully and do your best to deny him any avenues to obfuscate. He will of course never acknowledge the inherent flaws of any of his arguments regarding bigfoot or the PGF. Whether or not Sweaty actually believes in bigfoot (which is questionable), one thing he is well aware of is the fact that all the evidence regarding it to this point has been unreliable (upon seeing that word he will be tempted to obfuscate).

Knowing that he has no reliable evidence to support his position, Sweaty engages in a type of behaviour where he tries to play games with skeptics. If he can invent a perceived contradiction, if he can employ semantics in such a fashion as to obscure the arguments that he is unable to counter, if he can create diversions by posing poorly thought questions he believes to be clever, then he has made bigfoot live another day. Just look at his signatures, that behaviour defines his presence here.

Just keep in mind that in the game to score points on skeptics that Sweaty plays, he does not follow his own rules. Finally, I should point out that I don't actually think you aren't aware by now of most of these things but your post does provide me with the excuse to give others who may not be aware some perspective and to make a pre-emptive move against a particular diversion attempt Sweaty may choose to employ.
 
Actually, Astro....skeptics AND proponents (people in general)...leave that possibility open...because, as you stated, Patty hasn't been proven to be a human-in-a-suit.

But that is the big difference, Astro......Patty requires proof...while the others don't. ;)

And that's because of a crazy little thing called "realism"...
JR-1 Robo-skeptic #1 says:

"*bleep* *blop* Repeated employment of unqualified, unsubstantiated, deeply flawed argument. 1000 bigfoot game points deducted. Back to Stage 1. Debate tutorial recommended."

ETA: JR-1 Robo-skeptic #1 and footer bot should have a cage match or something. I'm guessing it would be more RoboCop VS ED-209 than T-101 VS T-X.
 
Last edited:
Colubus brought up a question on BFF, in the http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22179&view=findpost&p=452661 Bob Gimlin's Role Thread.

Colubus on BFF said:
I guess I'm wondering if it's possible the Argosy cover is not Gimlin at all, but rather a proxy in a wig. Are there any versions of the picture that could sufficiently resolve the facial features to see if it is indeed Gimlin? I mean as I recall Argosy's fact checkers didn't work real hard.

Anyone know for sure if that's Gimlin?
 
Anyone know for sure if that's Gimlin?

All indicators point to Gimlin.

Photographed with Patterson and dressed as the Indian Tracker with wig. Same horse as in the 'actors shot'. Probably the same shirt too.

In a question like this, somebody needs to bring a functional argument that that is not Bob Gimlin. The burden falls upon one who claims that isn't him.

You could ask the same of the other guy in the shot. Anyone know for sure if that's Patterson? Looks like he's sitting on Chico. Maybe it's Heironimus and DeAtley photographed by Olson.
 
All indicators point to Gimlin.

Photographed with Patterson and dressed as the Indian Tracker with wig. Same horse as in the 'actors shot'. Probably the same shirt too.

In a question like this, somebody needs to bring a functional argument that that is not Bob Gimlin. The burden falls upon one who claims that isn't him.

You could ask the same of the other guy in the shot. Anyone know for sure if that's Patterson? Looks like he's sitting on Chico. Maybe it's Heironimus and DeAtley photographed by Olson.
This is interesting because it's a pretty simply illustration of how bigfoot enthusiasts are uncomfortable with the idea of the 'American Legend' Bob Gimlin getting into costume play shennanigans with Patterson and cavorting around in a wig. It does make me wonder to what extent Patterson pushed the illusion and if he and Gimlin ever had any spats about when he had to sport the hair.
 
In a recent exchange between William Parcher and myself on Gimlin WP wrote:

It was only after BH confessed, that Gimlin admitted Chico was at Bluff Creek. But Gimlin never mentioned Chico to Green in his 1992 interview. In fact, he discussed the horses as if none of them were Chico. He spoke of Roger on the "little horse" (that would not be Chico), and himself on his big quarter horse (spoken of as his own horse - not one borrowed from BH).
I consider WP to be one of the main proponents of the theory of Heironimus being Patty. The above fact mentioned by WP, while not being conclusive of anything, certainly begs explanation by Gimlin. One that I doubt will be asked of Gimlin by his fans anytime soon. I also find that Gimlin will not face Heironimus in any interviews while BH is eager to do so to be suspicious. Of course, bigfoot enthusiasts will say that BG is simply tired of defending himself. This is simply a convenient out for the creduloids to give their 'American Legend'.

Heironimus has stated that he has been in communication with Gimlin and that while they are on friendly terms, BG has indicated that he will not drop his story of the PGF being legit.

My question for WP is I would like to know if he can summarize in point form the words and actions by Gimlin that lead WP to the opinion that he is lying and additionly if he chooses, to do the same with Heironimus and why WP believes him.

I think it would be helpful to have such a recent summary in such a massive thread, especially for anyone new to the conversation.
 
I consider WP to be one of the main proponents of the theory of Heironimus being Patty. The above fact mentioned by WP, while not being conclusive of anything, certainly begs explanation by Gimlin. One that I doubt will be asked of Gimlin by his fans anytime soon.

You can start with some background info on this from BFF (mostly Roger Knights postings):

Scroll down.

Here too.


Gimlin confirms that Chico was at Bluff Creek. We see a scene that appears to show him (without wig) riding Chico at Bluff Creek. Why would Gimlin leave his own horse at home and instead borrow Heironimus' horse to take to Bluff Creek? Regardless of the reasoning, this does show just how close of friends the two Bobs were. Close enough to let your buddy take your horse to California for "a couple weeks" on a Bigfoot hunt. According to BH, they didn't have Chico for more than a week at Bluff Creek. Probably more like 5 or 6 days.

You asked for some other things. I'll get to those later.
 
WWJS? (What Would Jane Say?)

In September 2002, Jane Goodall announced in an NPR interview that she believes that Bigfoot and Yeti exist. The Bigfooters took keen interest in that and have used it as a sign of support from an important person in a related field of study (so to speak). I've already said a lot about how she is taken advantage of and is habitually quoted out of full context. Just when you thought you had heard it all...

When Bob Heironimus went public with his confession it caused quite a stir in Bigfootery. It was covered by a number of media venues, but I don't think it ever was given a priority. Maybe the Washington media outlets were more likely to give it a feature segment. Interestingly, World Net Daily contacted Jane Goodall (March 2004) to get her opinions of the BH confession.

Article here.

The news doesn't change the view of an open-minded Jane Goodall, a well-known primatologist.

"She's spoken to people whom she respects who say they have seen one of these hominids," said Nona Gandelman, an aide to Goodall, according to the report. "And to many other people she respects who have heard strange calls they thought were made by Bigfoot. As a scientist, she has a very open mind about this and has yet to close the door on the possibility."


I guess that sorta means Jane accepts the confession as being true, or that it doesn't matter if it is true or not (for the existence of BF). Maybe she never did think the PGF was authentic. She had the chance to say that she thinks Heironimus is lying, but she didn't.

Some comments in that article from Gimlin's lawyer too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom