Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[captain koolaid]

Parcher do you have any evidence of the 'Fake' Bob Gimlin in an Indian Wig, that Those on the BFF are claiming Roger Patterson drug around after the film for interviews?

I had never heard of the imposter Bob Gimlin before that.

Also, do you have any evidence that Gimlin went around after the film in a wig doing publicity?

BFF Thread
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22179&view=findpost&p=452883

Colubus is really trying to push that the Argosy Cover is not Gimlin, Can you think of a reason for that?

Am not finding the BG as Indian Tracker after the big shoot, nearly as intiguing as prior to, and during it.

I've got Long's book here at home, and I remember the photo of Gimlin and others taken during Patterson's attempt to make a bigfoot movie. That Mr. Patterson tried to make that movie was never a secret - but that was before the film at Bluff Creek was shot. Many a modern day bigfoot enthusiast with camera has punctuated filmed witness accounts with recreations complete with actors, and furry suits. So I don't think the attempt at a film with folks in dress up is really that egregious, or suspect. Modern television programs on the subject do the same thing today.

It appears that there is one photo of Gimlin in a wig from that docu-drama film attempt from the Spring of 1967. Fair enough - if it is indeed him.

This is an aspect that is interesting, even if it has been covered before, and been passed. It relates to both how it may have begun as an outright movie cum fictional recreation, and became a premeditated hoax later. If RP was actually putting together this "movie", prior to the big one, "complete with actors, and furry suits", it places the PGF in a different field altogether, to that of RP and BG just happening to film Patty, while filming a "doco" of their "tracking adventure", over those 2 days only. There is a fine correlation between RP's recreation/s with actors, including BG as "indian tracker", in earlier attempts, through to post PGF appearences, even if another actor, other than BG... and the likely looking attempts to utilize a "furry suit", in earlier shoots, through to the PGF... and beyond, into Olson's movie.

The public is being asked to believe, that RP was making, or attempting to make, an early Bigfoot movie, with an Indian Tracker, and monster. A Bluff Creek PGF that includes a monster. A later Bigfoot movie, with Indian Tracker, and a monster- All the subjects are "just acting- recreations. But not the Patty. That one is real". This demands an enormous degree of credulity.

Good post by RayG, regarding the footage, BTW. #142 of that thread. It is interesting that there is a noticable lack of response to the Merritt photo. Seem to recall that happening before?

 

[Roger Knights]

Here's sad for you ..

Roger Knights once argued that you couldn't call the ~25 feet of Patty footage ' edited ', because he had googled up a definition of film editing that described it as cutting and splicing ...

So much for that argument ..

What a misrepresentation--and how typical of "Diogenes". I never used the word "edited." Instead, I pointed out that splicing [his word] means joining, not cutting, and thus that the original film would have shown traces of any resequencing, etc. (In Kodachrome II film there is no negative: the original film becomes the print. And originals have a distinctive matte finish.)

Posting as SG, he claimed that because we see only 25 feet it raises suspicions about where the rest went:

There is a beginning, a middle and and end; with clutter in between[:] that does not rule out splicing. We see ~ 60 seconds of footage, with nothing to document where it occurred in the 100 foot roll, or if it was all on one roll..."

Here's the link to the start of this exchange. (Which is intermixed, or spliced in, with other interesting byplay.)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15846&view=findpost&p=334787

If you'd like to go back earlier in the thread, to SG's first post (last line), here's the link:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15846&view=findpost&p=334534

It's mentioned in that thread that the original film was examined by several neutral or hostile (Dahinden, initially) persons who'd have noticed and reported a splice. There's no way the original could have been manipulated (by swapping segments within it or by combining segments from separate rolls), which is what SG was suggesting, without splicing it. (A cut alone would have meant that the film lacked a trailer and wasn't the required 50- or 100-foot length, which would also have been detected.)

 

[Roger Knights]

Regarding Gimlin's wig, here's some background:

Gimlin is dressed as an Indian scout. Partly of First Nations heritage, Gimlin dressed this way for Appaloosa horse shows in which he frequently participated. The photograph was taken by Patricia Patterson for personal purposes before the Bluff Creek event.

So Patterson, wanting to enhance the theatricality of his road show, encouraged Gimlin to continue to dress this way. (I guess.) It wasn't his creation, but just something he opportunistically latched onto.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

You are in error. I asked if the PGF is far, far more likely to be a man in a suit. It's not a subjective question. You said "No, it's not." That reply contains no qualifiers such as "I don't think so." or "Not in my opinion."

Also, I've asked you before without answer what you are talking about when you say 'body contour' and 'flexibility'. What do you mean in using those words and how do they identify something more likely to be accounted for by a living bigfoot than a man in a suit?

Arms are a bust. We know those are in human range. What analysis has the MABRC Senior Analyst done to show the arms are outside human range? Try telling Bill Munns they are out of human range. He did an analysis that determined they were not.

Why are you talking about apparent muscle movement? You know full well that suits can simulate that. My Hoffman video which you say is an obvious hoax has apparent muscle movement so you've just shot yourself in the foot.

You did exactly as I knew you would, Sweaty. I asked you to answer whether or not the PGF is far, far more likely to be a man in suit and you immediately fell on your 'realism' argument without doing a single thing to substantiate it's use regarding the film.

I have relieved you of your claim of 'realism' and until you do something that actually qualifies its use, you may not use it without showing that you are incapable of conducting a proper debate.

 

[kitakaze]

Roger Knights, since SweatyYeti was unable to substantiate his answer regarding my question on the PGF I would like to ask you. You are a proponent of the film and the existence of bigfoot in general and are knowledgable on the subject so the question should be rather easy.

Is the PGF far, far more likely to be a man in a suit than a living bigfoot? Yes or no?

If your answer is 'no' then I would ask that you please explain why that is the case.

 

[Correa Neto]

Seems this thing would have required measurments, fittings, adjustments and more than a few. I've long stopped believing that Patterson himself made the suit so Rorger and BoB H would have needed to travel to Holloywood a few times. Yet nothing is mentioned of this. Unless the suit maker made a few house calls to Roger, not!

I am not sure if the suit wearer was Bob Hieronimus. Without knowing the suit itself (all we have are speculations and best guesses), there's no way to know if it was designed for or adapted to a specific person. We also don't know how many different people could wear (or perhaps "fit" in to) it.

I am not sure who made the suit. There are, as you know, a number of possibilities already exposed here and at other places. They range from "Patterson did it alone" to "Hollywood FX folks did it". Despite of your personal opinions, I would like to use the opportunity to remind you to never underestimate what people can do when they have motivation, determination time and skills.

This put, I will assume for now that Bob Hieronimus was the actor and Patterson (obtained and eventually modified) a costume.

Personally I think Patterson could, if needed, make any adjustments needed (here enter the time, determination and skill factors) without leaving his home town. Hieronimus would wear it and Patterson would see where are the problems and start the work. Just like a tailor. Help could be avilable by a phone call.

Note that he could also just pass Hieronimus measures via phone to the suitmaker.

To sum things up, I don't think its an issue.

 

[kitakaze]

Regarding Gimlin's wig, here's some background:

So Patterson, wanting to enhance the theatricality of his road show, encouraged Gimlin to continue to dress this way. (I guess.) It wasn't his creation, but just something he opportunistically latched onto.

Knights,

1) What is Chris Murphy's source for that information? I have not read 'Meet the Sasquatch' but I know Murphy to be an unreliable source for factual information. One example of this is the 'Monster Quest' series to which he is credited as researcher and historian.

2) Even if the wig was not originally Patterson's idea, it does not change the fact that he had a penchant for presenting illusion. I don't think the idea of a hairy breasted female bigfoot was his either. I think the skilled illustration he made in his book just the prior year was based on the Albert Ostman account and its illustration.

I think yor effort to dismiss that fact that demonstrates Patterson's behaviour and casts due suspicion on the film shows unnecessary credulousness and a willingness to believe. This is only my opinion and I welcome you to show otherwise.

 

[kitakaze]

Chris Murphy, "Meet the Sasquatch," p 50, caption to the "Argosy" magazine cover:
Gimlin is dressed as an Indian scout. Partly of First Nations heritage, Gimlin dressed this way for Appaloosa horse shows in which he frequently participated. The photograph was taken by Patricia Patterson for personal purposes before the Bluff Creek event.

What were those personal purposes? It kinda reminds me of Heironimus' claim that Patricia was aware of the hoax from the beginning.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Arms are a bust. We know those are in human range. What analysis has the MABRC Senior Analyst done to show the arms are outside human range?

Actually, I was looking for some real numbers on how these values of "outside the human range" are determined by bigfoot analyists. I have been trying to reconcile them with my own measurements using the images from the film and I find them fairly ordinary. However, they may be using different standards or measuring points than me. I was hoping sweaty might have the ability to demonstrate this for us but he seems more bent on "the will to believe" than an actual evaluation of the PGF.

For instance, I am curious how tall everyone thinks "patty" is in the film. So far, I have seen varied numbers from human height to over 7-foot tall. The NASI says a precise number of 7' and change (7'3" I believe) but that is based on some assumptions that appear to skew the result from what I have read. I usually come up with something between 5 and 6 foot depending on the frame because "patty" is stooping a lot.

Of course, if the accepted value is 6-foot, it might explain (if it is a guy in a suit), why RP put breasts on the suit. If somebody figured out the height, they would say it might not be bigfoot because it was too short. As a result, he could show that it is female, which usually are not as tall/big as males.

 

[kitakaze]

Astro, I don't think Patty is anywhere near 7ft. I think your right about that part of his reasoning about making the subject female. That and the 'who would think of that?' type comments you get from believers. I'll have a look at my copy of 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science' and go over what numbers Meldrum mentions. I can certainly tell you that there is no consensus amongst bigfoot enthusiasts as is the case with the weight, as I'm sure your aware.

 

[kitakaze]

At least the UFO geeks stay fresh.

 

[kitakaze]

4.5 billion people across the globe, that's who.

So, you're just making stuff up now, huh? I'd like to hear why the BBC image is unrealistic.

You know, it's funny you talking about Patty and realism. I've shown the PGF to lots of people here in Japan. The benefit is that here in Japan many people have never seen the PGF and bigfoot is far less on the radar than in the States (bearing in mind that for most people bigfoot is a cute myth). Every single person I have showed it to has said it looks like a man in a suit. This is in response to being asked if it looks like a real animal or a man in a suit.

Does anyone think there'd be any use in making a poll? Can we make polls here?

 

[Drewbot]

Why do some of the pictures disappear?
I went back to reference some of the Rider pictures that Parcher and Dfoot posted, and there is just an 'X' in a box in place of some of them.

 

[William Parcher]

Drew, I think it's your browser. I've seen those red "x" as well. What worked for me was to delete all temporary internet files... then the pictures would show.

There is also the possibility that there really is a problem with the source of the image.

 

[William Parcher]

Colubus is really trying to push that the Argosy Cover is not Gimlin, Can you think of a reason for that?

Regarding Gimlin's wig, here's some background:

Originally Posted by Chris Murphy, "Meet the Sasquatch," p 50, caption to the "Argosy" magazine cover Gimlin is dressed as an Indian scout. Partly of First Nations heritage, Gimlin dressed this way for Appaloosa horse shows in which he frequently participated. The photograph was taken by Patricia Patterson for personal purposes before the Bluff Creek event.

So Patterson, wanting to enhance the theatricality of his road show, encouraged Gimlin to continue to dress this way. (I guess.) It wasn't his creation, but just something he opportunistically latched onto.

The resolution of this question (is the Argosy Indian really Bob Gimlin?) needs to be moved to those who would know and those who made declarative statements. There needs to be some kind of conversation between Bob Gimlin, Patricia Patterson, Chris Murphy and Owen Caddy. Gimlin should have no problem answering the question about the Argosy Magazine photo. That is either him or somebody else. I don't expect that '40 years passing' would deprive Gimlin's memory of that image which was the first significant popular media coverage and was the cover shot used in a magazine that was on newsstands everywhere.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What a misrepresentation--and how typical of "Diogenes". I never used the word "edited." Instead, I pointed out that splicing [his word] means joining, not cutting, and thus that the original film would have shown traces of any resequencing, etc. (In Kodachrome II film there is no negative: the original film becomes the print. And originals have a distinctive matte finish.)

Posting as SG, he claimed that because we see only 25 feet it raises suspicions about where the rest went:


Here's the link to the start of this exchange. (Which is intermixed, or spliced in, with other interesting byplay.)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15846&view=findpost&p=334787

If you'd like to go back earlier in the thread, to SG's first post (last line), here's the link:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15846&view=findpost&p=334534

It's mentioned in that thread that the original film was examined by several neutral or hostile (Dahinden, initially) persons who'd have noticed and reported a splice. There's no way the original could have been manipulated (by swapping segments within it or by combining segments from separate rolls), which is what SG was suggesting, without splicing it. (A cut alone would have meant that the film lacked a trailer and wasn't the required 50- or 100-foot length, which would also have been detected.)

Oh yes, that was the thread where Avindair was suspended .....
... and a perfect example of legitimate skepticism being met with derision
for daring to question the venerable saints of Footery ..

Yes, my use of the word ‘ editing ‘ in the post you quoted ( from this forum ) was used in error,
considering the context of the original discussion.
In the original discussion, you were taking me to task for using the term
editing more or less interchangeably with splicing.

In your pedantically charming way, that engenders high fives and back slapping
at BFF, you pointed out that ‘ splicing ‘ consisted of joining together, and not cutting.
However, you neglected to remember we were talking about film and not rope.
With the former, it is common to refer to the cutting and joining process, as splicing.
The really sad part, and continues to be; is that this semantics joust was your only
leverage, in a ridiculous contention by you and others at BFF that ~25 feet of film
from a 100 foot reel , was not a problem and of no consequence.. And even more ridiculous,
that as such, it did not constitute tampering or editing..

You felt it relevant to point out things like :

“ I've read or been told that the original roll has no splices in it. “

Lu gave you a few points for that .. Try it over here…


At the heart of this tale, is the story that roger ran out of film, and that is why
there is no further footage of the creature..

If the creature footage is not in fact, at the end of an un-edited 100 foot reel of film,
it is another glaring and suspicious lie in this pitiful tale; and has everything to do
with the credibility of the principles..

Yes, splices should have been detected .. But there is no evidence that anyone
without a vested interest in the perpetuation of this hoax, ever examined the original,
complete footage..

Want to kick this around some more, in a venue where John Green’s Footery credentials,
and Bob Gimlin’s honesty, are not sacred, unquestionable icons ?

Or was this just a hit-and-run, with me back on ignore, and no intention of honestly looking
at the evidence ?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Did anyone ever see the ORIGINAL film? From what I gather, even at the moment it was shown to scientists for evaluation, it was not the original. I found this article in the newspaper archives:

Abominable Woodsman? California 'Monster' sought
Independent Star-News Pasadena California November 5, 1967

The pertinent section states:


I walked with Houck (My note: Warren Houck, vertabrae anthropologist at Humbold Stae College at Arcata), who had traveled to the University of British Columbia at Vancouver at the expressed invitation of the anthropologist at the Provincial Museum in Victoria to view the film.
"It was a copy of the original," said Houck. "They gave us every opportunity to examine the film. They stopped the film and let us see single frames. They ran it backwards and forwards."
Professor Houck was fascinated by the footage but commented that, "it looked like a man in a gorilla suit."

So he saw a copy of the film. I am really curious if the claim that independent and skeptical investigators saw the original film is true. Do we have any documentation to prove this?

 

[Dfoot]

CROWLOGIC - This hang-up some have with the BBC show is understandable, but I don't know how you can keep making that argument after what I've explained to you. I worked with VULICH at the time that program was made. I know full well what went on with it.

Once again... NO ONE ever said they were making a Patty suit. They gave the BBC guy a red hair suit that was hanging up in the shop. They gave him some black feet made to look like hands to go with it. Why? Because we were busy on BUFFY at the time and this guy could not afford to pay them out of his documentary budget to sit down and spend time making a 'Patty' for him. Plus, the general idea he had was that any hair suit looked good enough IF SHOT the way in which Patterson filmed his Bigfoot suit. They recreated what Patterson actually DID. The image shown over and over by Patty-buffs isn't even from the Patterson POV camera.

You may as well snag this still showing how close Roger actually was and say, "Look, they are shooting their so-called recreation in the wrong direction! They have Patty walking the wrong way... and there is a guy in the shot! These people know nothing of the North American Ape. I rest my case based on this poor recreation."

Of course, you'd have to be a real nutjob to even think that way. Just kidding.


I promise you that John Vulich and Optic Nerve really can produce feet that look much closer to the incredible Patty feet than these. Really.
If some crazy cowboy like me can just walk into his garage and in less than an hour make feet that look like Patty's, don't you think they could too? But like STAN WINSTON said, "If any of my contemporaries made a suit like that they'd be out of business." It's really not the awesomely realistic thing the imagination makes it out to be. Really.


That's me in the gray shirt. The creature was made by Vulich and Optic Nerve. I'd hired a skinny stuntman so that two guys could fall into the same slim hole in our cave set before I knew that Optic Nerve already had a suit made for a huge-sized performer. They compromised by altering the suit for me so that my little guy could wear it. Do you really think they don't know how to make arms as long or longer than Patty's? Really?


And lastly, that's just me wearing a gorilla glove. No leaning over or slumping to make the forearm longer. It's just a glove. Patty works the same way. It's not rocket science. Really.

It would really help the cause of Bigfoot research IF whenever people see info on the subject they are not bombarded with bad science. When Wallace prints match Wallace casts it does not help to deliberately place Wallace prints that don't match another set of Wallace casts side by side. This is too obviously wishful thinking. Same thing goes for the "Look at the arm" jargon. It's just awfully silly and makes intelligent people turn away from even listening to anything any witness might say.

Sweaty - I realize that my leg doesn't precisely match Patty's in that animation. Like I said, I'd merely pulled spandex pants over some foam padding and wrapped some faux fur around one leg. It's held in place by a few safety-pins and my hand. I tucked part of it into the pants. This was just a test to see how cheap fur looked on camera.
The first problem is the fact that my leg actually looked too good. Patty isn't made the same way. I need to have rubber wetsuit pants stretched over some hip waders with the pads glued to that. Then by making stitches in certain spots and gluing on the hair fabric we can make Patty's leg bubble magically appear.


By having the stitches where the dots are shown above and below the kneecap pad we can possibly leave a spot unglued so that the "skin" stays in place except for that one spot. This was not meant to happen. It was an accident. But as we have seen people are willing to create excuses for anything in the film to make it real. Listen to the jargon Krantz used sometime. It's both sad and enlightening.

Al DeAtley said it best when he said that Bigfooters bought into the film because they didn't want to know the truth. It shouldn't take much to figure this thing out, yet the effort has not been made to understand where the suit came from and how it works. The efforts are directed towards finding ways to make it NOT be a suit. And that takes a lot of imagination and willingness to go along with it.

No butt pads. No attempt to make anything. Just a simple test. Yet if the image on the LEFT was from Patterson and the one on the RIGHT was from me, your comments would still be the same. This I proved with the "Patty isn't as good as Patty" hoax over at the BFF.

DREW and RAYG -- All these images above have just been sitting on my hard drive so they are easy to post. I know I promised Drew I'd post something about that mask and why I believe so strongly that it is the base used for Patty, but I see that I don't have those images on the computer right now. I'll find them and post them later for you. It will explain why that is the mask they used.

As far as producing the suit goes: When I first began showing things that didn't meet the approval of the owners of the BFF things started getting nasty to the point of them even changing the words I wrote to say something else.

After constantly hearing the same thing about building a suit like Patty I finally offered to build one. All they had to do was take up a collection. When they reached the sum of $1000 to $1500 I'd use that to build a suit for them. Suddenly it got real quiet. They seemed willing to harass until I called them on it. They are willing to pay ten bucks to rent Sasquatch movies but not spend ten bucks to see if Patty can be duplicated.

I've already said that I don't plan on spending a dime to buy stuff to build a Bigfoot suit. The people who made Patty could have easily taken part of the $700 ($4000 in 1967 - the price of a new Corvette) Roger conned Mrs. Radford out of and made a suit from the parts they had in the shop. It would have cost them next to nothing to do it. I'll have to buy everything and still do it for far less - but I'm willing to try it.

The offer still stands.

As far as the "produce the actual Patty suit" goes: The guys who made the hard-to-see black and white ALIEN AUTOPSY got rid of the dummy they had used immediately. They were committing FRAUD and they knew it. The people involved in the Patterson film hoax know they were a part of a similar scam.

To this day the guy who made the Alien dummy from the mannequin of a pregnant woman doesn't even mention it on his own website - even though he recreated it for the movie based on the hoax story. He can only say that there was a real alien film (that was lost/destroyed) and he was only "imitating it". He cannot say he participated in a scam.

The Patterson Bigfoot was around for a little longer after the film was shot, but not much, and went bye bye for the same reasons.


And DREW ... I just saw your post about the vanishing pics. I have to delete pics so that I can post new ones. JREF only allows for so many.

 

[William Parcher]

Regarding Gimlin's wig, here's some background:

Chris Murphy, "Meet the Sasquatch," p 50, caption to the "Argosy" magazine cover Gimlin is dressed as an Indian scout. Partly of First Nations heritage, Gimlin dressed this way for Appaloosa horse shows in which he frequently participated. The photograph was taken by Patricia Patterson for personal purposes before the Bluff Creek event.

So Patterson, wanting to enhance the theatricality of his road show, encouraged Gimlin to continue to dress this way. (I guess.) It wasn't his creation, but just something he opportunistically latched onto.

Roger, this is only further evidence that Patterson wanted to use illusion and aggrandizement as a vehicle to monetary profits. This is why I find it so ironic that modern Bigfooters are quick to criticize Biscardi and Moneymaker. I feel that they (among others) are doing the same thing that Patterson was doing i.e. to use people's intrigue and proneness to belief in BF as a way to gain income for themselves. Gimlin may be part-Apache, but that ancestry did not give him special skills to find and/or track a Bigfoot. Patterson himself is not known to have had special skills in this either. Roger was obviously interested in Bigfoot, but there is nothing to suggest that he was truly gifted in finding or tracking BF. What we do see is that the Classic Bigfooters of the late-50's through the early-70's had a special knack for finding tracks and sometimes seeing the creature itself. Yes, what is overwhelmingly obvious is that a "belief in Bigfoot" is very strongly correlated with finding or acquiring secondary evidence for Bigfoot (encounter, tracks, film, photo, etc.) when going out into wild places.

Primary evidence = actual biological material in whole (living or dead organism), or in part.

Secondary evidence = known or proposed sign of animal presence (encounters, images, footprints and other signs of presence within a contextual ecology).

Why was Bob Titmus continually successful at finding secondary BF evidence in the Bluff Creek area (only by occasional visits), while people who were constantly in that area (Laverty etc.) did not find any evidence? Is it only because Titmus looked at the ground while Laverty looked at the trees? Or, is it because Titmus had already been paid to seek and find Bigfoot while Laverty was being paid for something else? It seems that Titmus was paid to look for Bigfoot by Tom Slick, and then Peter Byrne. Is that true?

You see, Patterson really didn't need to produce his "documentary" in the way that he seemed to be doing. A legitimate film about men who are legitimately searching for Bigfoot does not need to include very many theatrical devices. Even Doug Hajicek (Monster Quest) doesn't feel a strong need to put his particiants into special costume or make-up in order to show them searching for Bigfoot.

I don't think that Patterson ever truly believed that Bigfoot existed. Or, maybe I would say that the true existence of Bigfoot was inconsequential to his persona and actions in a world that was already willing to believe (at least some percentage of society) that a wild and undocumented bipedal ape/hominoid was living in American/Canadian forests. I believe that he recognized that people will pay cash money to hear or read about Bigfoot, and would pay even more to see a film that shows something proposed to be a real Bigfoot.

The age of the Internet causes us to have a postmodern mindset about availability of information and what it costs. For the most part nowadays, information is "free" and only requires time and creativity to find it. A person in the late-60's through late-70's that had interest in the PGF had few options to see any portion or version of it. Nobody had a VCR, and so you either paid to see it in a theater somewhere, or you hoped to catch it on network TV or some special program. None of that allowed you to control the viewing. We now have the luxury of watching some versions of the PGF in a context that allows us to replay, zoom and capture still frames, etc. This does not come without a price. Any part of the PGF (stills or motion scenes) that you see now on the web must have already gone through copy generations that are different from those related to celluloid film copies. There is no perfect substitute for examining your own 16mm film copies, and this special privledge seems to be limited to Pat Patterson, Green, the Dahinden brothers, Swindler, Beckjord and somebody in Florida. Some of these 16mm copies have fairly recently been examined and worked with by Noll/Hajicek, Davis and Caddy.

What this means, is that for decades after the PGF, the believers and skeptics could not easily argue with each other while simultaneously examining any film copy itself (stills or moving images). Detailed public skepticism could not properly express itself until many people could actually have controlled access to copies of the film (VHS, DVD, Internet, etc.). You need something that you can look at and possibly manipulate over and over at your own timeframe and desire. We can mostly do that now, and the result is that PGF skepticism has never been more powerful. Increased technology has not made the PGF more acceptable to anyone other than the devoted believers. Meldrum's scientific efforts have been totally useless in the face of the enterprise of science. He might have well have published nothing at all. It's not because science (or scientists) wears blinders to the world around them. It's because Bigfoot looks too much like a myth to ignore.

Science isn't ignoring Bigfoot. Science just keeps seeing the same nothingness (total lack of primary evidence) that everyone else is seeing. All there is to see is books by and for Bigfooters, and a whole lotta stories. Oh, we have a 16mm film too.

Why can't we ever get our hands on any functional primary Bigfoot evidence? Thousands of years of modern human inhabitance in North America and nothing primary to show for Bigfoot. The most obvious answer to me is that the creature does not exist, and is instead a myth.

When I look at the real legacies of the gorilla, giant squid, okapi, coelacanth and giant panda I become more firmly skeptical of Bigfoot. That should be ironic (to any common BF believer) because at least some of those "former cryptic" animals are used to support the existence of Bigfoot in spite of no scientific confirmation. To me, the scientific legacy and genuine existence of these animals are good evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

It's already been way too long (centuries) without a living specimen, carcass, body parts or bones/fossils. Way too long. Way too long. The Pacific Northwest is still predominantly wilderness. Yet, people have been going into those parts for centuries. People armed with guns, traps and cameras. Nothing we ever did amounted to presenting primary evidence. It still doesn't.

Americans nearly extirminated the bison, grizzly bear and gray wolf from what was the United States at any given time. This was true even before we had transformed habitats into areas that were not ecologically-viable for these species. We almost deleted them from the biodiversity by wholesale killings. This was done by shooting, trapping, poisoning and whatever else might have worked. Yet, through all of this over hundreds of years, we never did get us a dead Bigfoot. Dead humans showed up all over the country by natural and unnatural causes. Still no dead Bigfoots.

No Bigfoot.

 

[tsig]

Astrophotographer wrote:


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....



...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...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/HaHaHaHaHaHa1.jpg[/qimg]


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

Why are you not in the woods with a camera? You will not find bigfoot here. He doesn't hang out on the internet.

Go and look!