Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

From WP's linked article:

An associate of the deceased filmmaker is challenging the veracity of Heironimus' story. The Post says it was contacted by Tom Malone, a Minneapolis lawyer, working on behalf of Bob Gimlin, an associate of Patterson's.

"I'm authorized to tell you that nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit and that Mr. Gimlin's position is that it's absolutely false and untrue," Malone told the paper.

Yeah! It was a bigfoot suit, you cheap a simp!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

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.

As far as Patty's "degree of realism" goes, Astro...it doesn't need to be quantified...it was just a manner of speaking. It's a little different than "degrees, or percentages, of probability", which relate to the weight of a given piece of evidence.

In this statement, I made earlier....

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".

...I could have phrased it differently...like........"Because of the extent to which Patty looks "real"...and resulting ambiguity..."......or something to that effect.

Basically...there are some things about Patty which, to some people, look more like a real animal than a suit...while the opposite is true, as far as some things about her looking more like a suit.
Patty certainly looks a little more "realistic" than the 'guy-in-a-suit' on the right.....to most people, that is...

I'll respond to more of your post later this evening, Astro.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Patty certainly looks a little more "realistic" than the 'guy-in-a-suit' on the right.....to most people, that is...

Again, I am unsure of the more "realistic" quantity you state. It is like two guys arguing over which girl is "more beautiful". It is a subjective evaluation of the evidence.
We know the image on the right is a fake because of it's origin. However, it is shot under different conditions and with different equipment and the image has much greater resolution than the PGF. Using it for a comparison is invalid.
You still have not established what standard (i.e. yardstick) is considered "realistic" for the PGF. Therefore, using such phrases over and over again is pointless. If you want the bigfoot crowd to cheer you on, that will probably do it. However, if you want to objectively evaluate the evidence of the PGF, you need to do better than claim it looks real therefore it is.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Again, I am unsure of the more "realistic" quantity you state. It is like two guys arguing over which girl is "more beautiful". It is a subjective evaluation of the evidence.

There is a major difference, Astro...between "more beautiful" and "more realistic".

'Beauty' is, by definition, a subjective thing...
....."the qualities that give pleasure to the senses."

What happens to be pleasing to a person's senses is, of course, subject to that particular person's senses.


But 'real', on the other hand, is not a subjective thing...by definition...
......"3. Being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary."

You still have not established what standard (i.e. yardstick) is considered "realistic" for the PGF. Therefore, using such phrases over and over again is pointless.

One way of judging, and determining "realistic"...in relation to Patty...is simply by collecting data related to people's opinions about, and interest in, the Patterson film.

As ONE piece of data....have you noticed the number of views (currently 327,949) and replies to this thread....ALL ABOUT PATTY?? The very large interest in this film, and the never-ending discussion of it, all revolves around her "realism". If Patty looked like the guy in that BBC film....there wouldn't be anywhere near the number of threads, and replies that there are about the PG film.

In fact, I bet they'd be approximately 1 thread....with approximately 4, maybe 5, responses to it.....in total......I reckon!



Edited to add:

Here is the first line in this thread...from Greg...

I believe the Bigfoot - serious, not follies is getting a little unwieldy so I thought I would submit this spinoff..

Gee, this spin-off is getting a bit unwieldy...ain't it?! I wonder why.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Your definition of ' real ' just shattered your position..

Before you can judge something as being realistic, you must have a ' real ' something to compare it to ..

We'll be waiting...

 

[Astrophotographer]

There is a major difference, Astro...between "more beautiful" and "more realistic".

'Beauty' is, by definition, a subjective thing...
....."the qualities that give pleasure to the senses."

What happens to be pleasing to a person's senses is, of course, subject to that particular person's senses.


But 'real', on the other hand, is not a subjective thing...by definition...
......"3. Being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary."

We know the film is an "actual thing" (therefore real) but what of the subject in the film. We know that is "real" too but we do not know if it is a "real" bigfoot or a "real" man in a suit. It still is a subjective measurement unless you quantify what you mean.
If you are going to use opinions to measure how realistic it looks, this may not be a good method either. The opinions are diverse and nobody can agree. Some say it looks fake and others say it looks real. Where does that leave you? The same spot you started.
A careful and objective evaluation of the evidence is what I think you stated you were trying to do here in this forum. Saying something looks more real or less real without providing something that can be quantified/established (i.e a zipper is showing, the suit is coming off in a location, etc.) is still a subjective evaluation.

 

[Hitch]

We know the film is an "actual thing" (therefore real) but what of the subject in the film. ...

We do? Can anyone produce the film? Even a copy not many generations removed from the original, complete, and with a decent provenance? I'm not sure the PGF exists. I think it probably did at one time. But I don't know what it looked like or how accurate any of the recreations or reproductions we see today are.

 

[kitakaze]

Post #13064 brought to you by MABRC Senior Analyst.

 

[George]

Supposing a pistol duel were to take place and one of the pistols fails to fire,
Who take’s the rap for the miss-fire? Is it the ‘second’ or the referee?
Again I wonder, if the ref fails to notice one of the worthy adversaries turns and fires before the call, can the ‘seconds’ shoot the ref?
Enquiring minds need to know.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

Before you can judge something as being realistic, you must have a ' real ' something to compare it to ..

It's absolutely idiotic to say that we can't make any judgements concerning Patty's 'realism' until we have a Bigfoot to compare her to.

What if Patty was a real Bigfoot...and she had walked up to Roger and howled at him, from about 2 feet away. Would we then be able to make a judgement on Patty's "realism", without having another Bigfoot to compare her to??

Of course we would...very easily.....but, according to what you just said, Greg, we wouldn't be able to.

Your statement was wrong, Greg....100%. Try THINKING before you write, next time....maybe you'll have better luck!

 

[SweatyYeti]

If you are going to use opinions to measure how realistic it looks, this may not be a good method either. The opinions are diverse and nobody can agree. Some say it looks fake and others say it looks real. Where does that leave you? The same spot you started.

It leaves us with useful information, Astro....because people simply won't spend large amounts of their valuable time discussing something that doesn't look the least bit real.
Like this guy, for example....

A careful and objective evaluation of the evidence is what I think you stated you were trying to do here in this forum. Saying something looks more real or less real without providing something that can be quantified/established (i.e a zipper is showing, the suit is coming off in a location, etc.) is still a subjective evaluation.

Analysis of the details of Patty's body is definitely the best way to try to determine what Patty really is....but I was just saying that people's intense interest in the PG film is one indicator, or evidence, of Patty's 'realism'...because people know what real animals look like, without having to take actual measurements.

 

[Hitch]

It leaves us with useful information, Astro....because people simply won't spend large amounts of their valuable time discussing something that doesn't look the least bit real.
Like this guy, for example....

Analysis of the details of Patty's body is definitely the best way to try to determine what Patty really is....but I was just saying that people's intense interest in the PG film is one indicator, or evidence, of Patty's 'realism'...because people know what real animals look like, without having to take actual measurements.

THIS doesn't look the least bit real:

I've never known anyone other than a Bigfoot enthusiast who thought it does. I occasionally tell people about the stuff I read here and they can't believe anyone thinks it's real. They've seen video clips of the PGF. They've seen still frames like this. They can't believe anyone claiming to think it's a real creature isn't just pulling our leg to see if we'll fall for their joke.

ALL of those other pictures you've shown are every bit as REALISTIC as this one.

 

[Crowlogic]

It leaves us with useful information, Astro....because people simply won't spend large amounts of their valuable time discussing something that doesn't look the least bit real.
Like this guy, for example....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/HH2.jpg[/qimg]




Analysis of the details of Patty's body is definitely the best way to try to determine what Patty really is....but I was just saying that people's intense interest in the PG film is one indicator, or evidence, of Patty's 'realism'...because people know what real animals look like, without having to take actual measurements.

One thing I know and that's I would have fired the clown that made the costume for the 1998 BBC "recreation"? What was it a recreation of a hairsuit Archie, or perhaps a harisuit Richie Cunningham or even Alfred E Newman?

 

[kitakaze]

One thing I know and that's I would have fired the clown that made the costume for the 1998 BBC "recreation"? What was it a recreation of a hairsuit Archie, or perhaps a harisuit Richie Cunningham or even Alfred E Newman?

Psst...

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:

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, can you please address post # 13051 and answer the question it contains? It's rather simple and I was hoping it wouldn't take another several months to get some kind of answer.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, can you please address post # 13051 and answer the question it contains? It's rather simple and I was hoping it wouldn't take another several months to get some kind of answer.

I take it you're refering to this question...

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?

No, it's not. I base my answer on the weight of the evidence contained within the film itself...as I see it.

The combination of Patty's body contour, flexibility, and apparant muscle movement...along with her exceptionally long arms, with moving fingers.....all add-up to something I've never seen in a thickly-padded suit.

I have yet to see even a picture of a 'man-in-a-suit' that looks anywhere close to as real as Patty does...let alone a suit in motion.

 

[Crowlogic]

If the BBC was trying to prove that under the same filming conditions that the PGF was made under that any old suit would have looked real then they managed to prove that they underestimated the task at hand. That BBC thing reminds me of a human wearing painters overalls that got tarred and freathered but it dosen't belong in any representation of Sasquatch research be it on either side of the fence. It not only dosen't look the part but it looks just like the fake it is. I think they did prove that the English should stick to making Brit coms and PBS dramas based in the glory years of the Empire. But that thing sucks pure and simple!

 

[captain koolaid]

We do? Can anyone produce the film? Even a copy not many generations removed from the original, complete, and with a decent provenance? I'm not sure the PGF exists. I think it probably did at one time. But I don't know what it looked like or how accurate any of the recreations or reproductions we see today are.

Agreed. When taken into context with the damning assortment of associated contradictions, hoaxes, related promotions and tendency to collude, willingly or otherwise, by all the principles of the PGF and those that sought to endorse it after the fact... Not having an original to authenticate now, or then, negates the PGF and any supposed "weight" given to it. Perceptions of "realism" included.

The perception of it's appearence to represent a "real Bigfoot", is based on the testimony of the principles and promoters to have been captured in a single take and shot, while on a "tracking expedition", that involved only non-essential secondary footage, apart from the sequences on the copies.

Taking RP and BG at their word, that is how it the entire original rolls were shot. Including the "walk", in a single take and shot. BH's account supports this story. The footage stands or falls on this testimony. Perceptions of "Bigfoot realism", and "no evidence of a suit" rests on the notion of a single take and shot. There is no way, believers propose, that such an image could have been managed, in 1967, in such a way. Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, factor in either a 2nd take (which BH does not recall)... or... stoppages while shooting, or, editing post-development, and the argument that it "is Bigfoot", let alone that "it could not have been done" in 1967, by the principles , collapses under the weight of unavailable frames. Then there is question of what else was on the original rolls, apart from the secondary footage seen on copies.

Even the copies (of who knows what generation), show indications of stoppages, and possible editing, at an earlier generation. The original developed footage did exist. But it was never authenticated, and may never have actually been witnessed by anyone other than a principle. Has Chris Walas, who is not only a top make-up and fx pro, but an experienced and quite able director, examined this avenue of the PGF? Or just the suit angle?

If the film itself cannot be verified, then measuring frames from copies is meaningless.

 

[captain koolaid]

In a recent exchange between William Parcher and myself on Gimlin WP wrote:

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.

Is there also a summary of the timeline of events relating to RP's actual known attempts at film-making, and also proposed attempts at same? Regarding the Gimlin Tracker-wig character- is there a chronology of this, in summary? The cover of Argosy, with Chico and the wig... what is known of the origin of this shot? Is this possibly from an Olson project, or more likely from Oct 1967, or earlier?

 

[captain koolaid]

261 pages about Bigfoot.

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

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?

None of it is as fascinating as the various Cults that are built around the belief in the Boss O' the Woods. Not knocking those who pursue the subject out of crypto-interest, who realize that, at present, there is no real evidence, and little to no chance of obtaining any. It's the creduloids, the zealots that maintain the interest. And keep it rolling.

The singer, not the song.