Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tsig]

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.

I go with you. We have no idea what the "original" looked like. It was made for commercial purposes from the start so why give it any credence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, the PGF is a documentary made by a man who set out to make a documentary with actors.

Until Science can see the original rolls of film and analyze them, the PGF will remain just an interesting movie for cryptozoology buffs.

There's no evidence that any of the scientists typically quoted about the PGF, saw the uncut rolls of film.

We know Napier did not even see the whole section containing Patty, because he says he can't see Patty's feet in the film, which means he was only shown the short section where Patty turns and looks.

 

[Crowlogic]

Dfoot

I've never seen the BBC film only that one mock frame 352. However that image is laughably bad and I've already described what it looks like to me. This of course does nothing to alter the reality staus of the PGF. It is IMO a very very weak example of a means to disporve or discount the PGF. If the BBC set out to prove that every biped creature image on film was a fake and that they were going to make a kind of "fakers standard bearer" then they succeeded well. But that thing looks fake. Skeptics who may use the BBC piece as a means to point the finger of hoax at the PGF are doing themselves a disservice because the PGF is head and shoulders above the BBC tripe. That's not to say that the PGF is in anyway beyond reproach it of course isn't. But it sets the bar higher than everything else filmed to date short of a National Geographic production about KNOWN primates filmed in the wild.

 

[William Parcher]

Yep, the PGF is a documentary made by a man who set out to make a documentary with actors.

There was no necessary reason why Patterson would need to put Gimlin in a wig for anything. It wouldn't matter if Gimlin was already in the habit of wearing the wig and Indian apparel at riding shows. Patterson was supposed to be photo-documenting the reality-based search for Bigfoot. He was already a Bigfooter years before 1967. He seems to have been involved in a solitary endeavor prior to late October 1967. We have no evidence that his productive searching ever included Bob Gimlin (as a companion) at any time prior to Bluff Creek. Gimlin even says that the age-worn smudges he first saw at Bluff Creek were the first proposed signs of Bigfoot he had ever seen. He still maintains that he was notably ambivalent about the existence of Bigfoot until the moment he saw Patty. Obviously, he was never with Patterson when he found tracks and had his visual encounters prior to seeing Patty.

So Patterson was making a film about searching for Bigfoot in a way that he never really did. Those riders in the 'actors shot' are not genuine Bigfoot hunters... they are actors. Roger somehow brought them together to the location where they were photographed. If he generally searched for Bigfoot solo, then he could depict that on film in various and acceptable ways. But he chose to show something like a posse (including a dog), and then later at Bluff Creek described it as a two-man expedition.

If you pretend that Patty is a real Bigfoot, and that P&G really did get lucky at Bluff Creek - then you still have to ask what would Patterson's ongoing documentary film have looked like if they never got lucky. The guy would never have any footage of real Bigfoot, and could show nothing to the audience other than a fruitless search. Riding. Searching. Riding. Searching. Nothing. Nothing. The Bluff Creek area was a flaming Bigfoot hotspot ever since 1958. P&G told people that they camped out for a couple weeks there and were pretty much flat broke on BF evidence until the horse reared up on that fine Friday afternoon. Lord Titmus would have found some cast-worthy Bigfoot tracks within hours of arriving at Bluff Creek.

Yeah sure, let's talk about the proposed Gimlin stand-in at featured showing. We haven't got anything else to discuss at this time.

I suppose Patterson would have had to inform this guy about the details of the encounter and his relationship with the real Gimlin, in case anyone in the audience had questions. It could have been quite interesting to watch a stand-in deal with the situation:

Audience Member: "Bob, you are an Indian tracker. Are you full blooded, or part Indian?"

Fake Bob Gimlin: "I've got some Indian in me."

AM: "Was your father or mother Indian, and who taught you your tracking skills?"

FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin."

AM: "What kind of rifle did you have with you when you encountered the Bigfoot?"

FBG: "It was a shooting rifle."

AM: "How many rounds did you typically load into this rifle?"

FBG: "I had the bullets in it. A couple or few, but not many. The extra bullets were kept outside of the rifle."

AM: "Where did you keep these extra rounds?"

FBG: "They were there at Bluff Creek, just like I was. The Bigfoot was there too, and we startled it around the bend in the creek. Science and many people do not think this animal exists, but Roger and I were there to get it on film. It was pretty tense if I say so myself."

AM: "Are you planning to go back there with Roger to try to get some physical evidence of the existence of this animal?"

FBG: "Yes. We are planning to go back there if we decide to go back there."

AM: "Bob, can you afford to take all of this time away from your work and family?"

FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin. I was with Roger Patterson when he filmed the Bigfoot. My hair is long because I'm an Apache Indian. Bigfoot is real."

 

[Dfoot]

William Parcher -- DEATLEY could tell you how much cowboy and Indian outfits cost him, how much the plane tickets to New York cost him, how much money he and Patterson would take in during a single weekend of four-walling the film (self distribution of the film to eliminate distributor fees and keep most of the proceeds). But when he is asked about how he developed that precious film, what happened to the original, and about the FACT that he is standing right next to Gimlin with publicist JACK OLIPHANT in New York while Gimlin is wearing the wig and Indian clothes... he says his "memory banks are flooded on that". This is the same kind of memory bank flooding that occurs with the Alien Autopsy boys. And for the same reasons.

CROW - I agree with you about the suit used in the BBC doc. They had plenty of others that were much better they could have given him (even similar in color to Patty) but the idea was to use a suit that DIDN'T look like Patty to prove the producers' point about how bad he thought the film was. Unfortunately he'd never really dealt with the intricate workings of the Bigfoot community minds and had no idea what was to come from that.

Roger Knights -- Gimlin dressed as an Indian tracker because that was the part he was playing in the movie Patterson and Merritt attempted to make. Patterson was attempting to create (with the help of manager Pat Mason and publicist Oliphant) an image of himself as the world's greatest Bigfoot hunter and make movies about his adventures.

His first lawsuit filed against him came because he and Merritt were using dogs to chase a cat through a local rancher's property for the movie. They were pretending to chase Bigfoot on film. I know of no classic Sas tale of any group of cowboys on horseback chasing a Bigfoot. This would have been part of his "documentary" on his adventure leading up to "accidentally" coming across the creature and filming it.

However, making an entire feature film was too much for him and he resorted to using the Radford cash to fund a suit for Heironimus to wear. DeAtley took over and all others were ruthlessly cut out of the picture until Gimlin and Dahinden sued and got a cut.


Roger set himself up with a step van truck just like the one from MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. His ideas about how he'd like to capture Bigfoot apparently came from these kinds of movies. Cowboys and Indians track the beast ala' Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom - straight outta Merritt's Dry Gulch imitation of Corriganville. Awesome.

Bill Munns -- I'm in a little bit of shock right now after listening to your comments on CHRIS WALAS' views of the two-sectioned suit on the Bigfoot radio show. In fact, what you said is exactly the opposite of the truth. You need to check your facts.

Two-section ape suits were the norm among professionals in those days. They went on the body exactly as Heironimus (and Walas) described. Lower body on first (like a pair of chest high hip waders) and top on next (like a pullover top). Many of the monster suits created by the group I described as having something to do with Patty built them just as Heironimus described - with hands and feet already attached and the head fitting like a helmet with a moving mouth. This was very, very common and I can show example after example of this.

I've used hair suits made like that in recent years too. Very, very good ones. The zipper up the back suits you mentioned were usually the amateurish ones meant for Halloween type events. The only time I had one of those on was when we got one from Phillip Morris because it was supposed to look bad as part of the joke on a sitcom.

Marlene is wearing a two section suit here that uses cloth on the body for skin and has the typical gloves that go up to the elbow joint. That was in 1932. After that they got better and better, yet today we still use two section ape and monster suits all the time.


Here's Crash Corrigan wearing one of his many suits in 1934. It fits on the body like Patty: bottom first and top next. By 1966 Corrigan sold and gave away all of his various colored ape suits when he sold Corriganville. Coincidentally, this was the same time Merritt suddenly got the idea to create an exact duplicate of Corriganville in Yakima.


A lot of the creature suits started out like this in 1966. Patty was one of them (although her front zip was the slanted type I believe)...

Like these vintage '66 suits... they came with no lining. This was the base for many of the monsters made by this group I'm talking about.

Really, you should check with Rick Baker about the history of gorilla and bear suits. I think you must have been a make up man back then but probably not too much into ape suits because the two-section type was the standard. You should correct that info as the Patty buffs are going to take what you say and turn it into some sort of authority figure quote as happened with Ken Petersen from Disney, and he wasn't even a creature suit guy. He was an executive overseeing artists who drew Mickey Mouse - yet his words are twisted and repeated to this day ever since John Green spoke to him.

You'll see what I mean...

DREW -- Let me know which photos you were not able to get hold of and I'll repost them (if I have them). I'm out of photo space right now but later on I'll post those pics about the Wah Chang mask and why I think it is important to this mystery of the Patty suit thang.

May the great and wonderous Patty have mercy on our souls.

 

[Bill Munns]

Dfoot:

On my comments about two piece suits, I acknowledged I used exactly that method on Swamp Thing. I just don't see the merit of doing it for a fur suit. If it was done, by others, fine, their design, their choice.

I wouldn't do it that way. My design, my choice.

Never said it wasn't possible. Just said i personally wouldn't do it that way.

Bill

 

[captain koolaid]

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?

Agreed. There does not appear to be much more to confirm the story that the "original was verified", than hearsay, anecdotes and memoir extracts- all within the symbiotic Foot circle. The word of a handful of Old School Bigfooters, one or two rather nebulous "skeptics", whose name/s are mentioned, in the hope that the subject will be dropped, hardly inspires confidence. Every reference, of any value, deals with a copy... That I know of. The topic does not seem to be a welcome one, in Bigfoot circles.

I suspect that the original never made it out of the editing stage. It was cut and used to make a copy that was presented as "the original developed film." Further copies, were duped from there. If "the original" (the one referred to in BF circles) is still around, it is most likely a master copy, from the original developed rolls.

There will always be excuses for why the original cannot be produced or verified. There is a reasonably good chance, IMHO, that Patterson's most significant hoax was not the figure on the frames, but the sleight of hand regarding the film itself.

 

[Crowlogic]

Agreed. There does not appear to be much more to confirm the story that the "original was verified", than hearsay, anecdotes and memoir extracts- all within the symbiotic Foot circle. The word of a handful of Old School Bigfooters, one or two rather nebulous "skeptics", whose name/s are mentioned, in the hope that the subject will be dropped, hardly inspires confidence. Every reference, of any value, deals with a copy... That I know of. The topic does not seem to be a welcome one, in Bigfoot circles.

I suspect that the original never made it out of the editing stage. It was cut and used to make a copy that was presented as "the original developed film." Further copies, were duped from there. If "the original" is still around, it is most likely a master copy, from the original developed rolls.

There will always be excuses for why the original cannot be produced or verified. There is a reasonably good chance, IMHO, that Patterson's most significant hoax was not the figure on the frames, but the sleight of hand regarding the film itself.

If the master was available what would everyone hope to see on it? That is to say what would make a person's day? The master more likely than not is not in the greatest of shape to begin with. Seems Patterson and DeAtley ran it extensively and by the time it was sent off for copies was fairly scratched up from the repeated runnings they'd put it through. And what if by some chance the master showed great detail and no signs of it being a suit, then what? Would that change anybody's mind here? The PGF master could be as cinimatically perfect as Gone With The Wind or Wizard Of OZ but that wouldn't change the circumstances surrounding the film or the character of the people that made it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If the master was available what would everyone hope to see on it?

I would hope to see the creature footage is not at the end of a 100' reel ..

This would show the whole story surrounding the incident is a fabrication ...


I believe this is the main reason an uncut reel has never seen the light of day since Patterson removed it from the camera...

 

[Astrophotographer]

Seems Patterson and DeAtley ran it extensively and by the time it was sent off for copies was fairly scratched up from the repeated runnings they'd put it through.

I don't think so. Patterson showed the scientists a copy in early November 1967 based on what I read. It seems that the first thing he did was make copies of the original in order to preserve the original film and then began showing those copies to everyone.
What people are asking is what was on the original? Was it the original and does it contain the same exact footage as all the copies that apparently are floating about? Or was it edited in any way to remove any scenes that might be indicative of a hoax? If it contains nothing but what is in the copies, then the problem is resolved. Chalk one up for the proponents. However, if there are extra scenes of "patty", footage of Bob H., or something incriminating, it would be severely damaging toward the film's credibility.

 

[captain koolaid]

...The master more likely than not is not in the greatest of shape to begin with...

Especially if it was disposed of, post master copy dub.

...Seems Patterson and DeAtley ran it extensively and by the time it was sent off for copies was fairly scratched up from the repeated runnings they'd put it through...

So Bigfooters say.

...And what if by some chance the master showed great detail and no signs of it being a suit, then what?...

That's not what the objective is, of verifying the original. The point is being missed.

 

[Crowlogic]

I understand the desire to see the entire footage uncut and in the order with which it was filmed. I have the feeling that it would be a little like breaking into Al Capone's vault. Lots of anticipation but not much of a payoff. I don't think there's going to be outakes of the creature footage or much else other than the scenery footage. If the creature footage isn't on the end of the first reel than there's not much of a reason to load a second reel. Patterson could have used up the last of the first reel to film the cast making. As I've said before all one has to do is put a full page add in the New York Times seeking to purchase the master PGF reels for a large enough sum of money and the reels if they still exist will come out of hiding. Money talks.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As I've said before all one has to do is put a full page add in the New York Times seeking to purchase the master PGF reels for a large enough sum of money and the reels if they still exist will come out of hiding. Money talks.

And that's all the proponents have to do, to get the scoftics to shut up ...

I have a feeling the proponents are more worried about what's on that uncut 100' original than the scoftics are..

You think ?

 

[LTC8K6]

We don't need to purchase the PGF to examine it.
The fact that one has to pay money just to see it undermines it's credibility tremendously.

I'm not expecting to see any out takes or multiple takes.

I am expecting to see what Roger shot that day in it's entirety so that a proper evaluation can be made of the film. Something that has never been done.

Anyone who is objective must be wondering why no proper scientific evaluation of the film was ever done.

If you think the NASI report or LMS qualifies, then you don't need any advice from me.

 

[captain koolaid]

I understand the desire to see the entire footage uncut and in the order with which it was filmed. I have the feeling that it would be a little like breaking into Al Capone's vault. Lots of anticipation but not much of a payoff...

What "anticipation"? The subject has been avoided like the plague, generally speaking. All eyes are kept on Patty frames, and discussion on how "realistic" she is supposed to be.

 

[William Parcher]

The original film's exact location is known to a handful of people.

To the best of my understanding this is the current situation.

A number of attempts have been made by the copyright holder (and others) to reacquire the original from the current holder. When ANE went bankrupt the original was at the ANE business offices because it was to be incorporated into another documentary. I am unclear if ANE bought it, or was loaned it. I believe Mrs Patterson states that it was on loan. Then the company went bankrupt, and its assets were frozen by the court. The film was collected, along with every other thing in the offices, and those "assets" were sold at action in lots.

When some of the principals in the story realized what had happened, the deed was either already done, or unstoppable. At some point the purchaser learned about the film. ANE had a lot of exposed reels of film, and this PG film was apparently mixed in.

At some point negotiations for the reacquisition of the film were looking good, but apparently Rene Dahinden got involved (as someone who had been sold limited copyright to some portions of the film in Canada) and, again - according to those in the know - Mr. Dahinden's contentious manner sunk the whole deal, and pissed off the new holder of the original film greatly, so that now whenever the matter is broached the holder quotes an unreasonably high price for reacquisition.

The individuals who know where the film is do not want others to again sour the milk, and so they keep the identity of the business holding it to themselves; but it is apparently in Florida.

So that's the stated situation. I've heard that story from a number of people involved. Others may know more. There was that gentleman who was putting together a book with Mrs. Patterson's cooperation, and he supposedly had more info, but that project seems to have fallen off the radar.

If you knew, or know anything about Mr. Dahinden, the story is quite easily believable.

Anyway... for whatever it's worth. Just passing on information.

Here.

 

[Crowlogic]

I'm not concerned with the rest of the footage one way or the other. If the reels show the things that Patterson and Gimlin have always claimed then that leaves the creature footage as the only significant thing on it. Unless you want to see more footage of young Bob Gimlin and young Roger Patterson when still alive. If its a dozen creature outakes and Bob H slipping into costume etc etc then its game set and match. But legend has it that the master ended up in the hands of a law firm after the demise of the movie company North American whatever. Now if it exists and there are no entities that can lay claim to it then unless there are odd film buffs in the law firm they have no use for some old cans of 16mm film. That's why I say that anyone with the money could make a public request to purchase the master. If it exists there's a better than even chance that it's current custodians would part with it. Not cheaply of course. Too bad Michael Jackson when he still had money wasn't interested in Bigfoot. He's exactly the type to buy an eccentric item like a well know cult film like the PGF.

 

[LTC8K6]

Seems Patterson and DeAtley ran it extensively and by the time it was sent off for copies was fairly scratched up from the repeated runnings they'd put it through

The story is that the original was immediately copied and then quickly locked up in a safe, not run over and over again until it was damaged.

Well, these young men had the sense to get their film carefully processed,
under guard, a copy made, and the original locked up in a vault so that
it could not be scratched, stolen or destroyed.

It's only recently that the story about them damaging the original has been floated like a smelly air biscuit to counter demands to see it.

Besides, theres no evidence that the roll with the trackway, the casting, and the "stomp test" was shown much at all. It certainly wasn't damaged by being shown too much.

Acoording to Murphy, Patterson did not show the first 76feet of the roll with Patty on it, nor did he show the second roll. So, it's likely that the first roll was already edited that Sunday, since Patty was at the end of the roll.

Patterson did not show the group the general movie footage he had taken (i.e., the first 76-feet of the first roll). Nor did he show the other footage on the second roll if he did, in fact, have the developed roll.

 

[RayG]

What people are asking is what was on the original? Was it the original and does it contain the same exact footage as all the copies that apparently are floating about? Or was it edited in any way to remove any scenes that might be indicative of a hoax? If it contains nothing but what is in the copies, then the problem is resolved. Chalk one up for the proponents. However, if there are extra scenes of "patty", footage of Bob H., or something incriminating, it would be severely damaging toward the film's credibility.

Exactly. Some curious tidbits:

...Patterson's brother-in-law, Al DeAtley, took possession of the film from the air courier to arrange for processing. Incredibly, DeAtley cannot recall where the film was processed. After this point, Perez told me, "there is no chain of custody." Development of the Kodachrome film was at that time a proprietary process guarded by Kodak, and no one in Seattle was apparently so equipped. Nobody knows where the film was developed, or for that matter when, but by early Sunday afternoon, Dahinden, Green, and Patterson were watching the film in DeAtley's home. Patterson would try to promote and sell the film in his few remaining years, but he was so sloppy in doing so that at some point the original copy was not returned to him. The original film is lost: the best copies of the film are all second generation. -- David Daegling, Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend, page 148

Since that first time shows a fairly clear picture, it might be guessed that any earlier footage was all of poor quality and was simply discarded as being of no value. If Byrne was correct in reporting that Patterson had 28 feet of film in the camera when the action began, as many as 185 frames could be missing. However, based on the Titmus map of the site there was no space available for more than a handful of missing frames. Only if Patterson had stayed at the beginning point for a little over 10 seconds could those 185 frames have been exposed. But if he had held his position for that portion, the film should have been of fairly good quality and we would have seen it. I can only conclude that this theoretical footage never existed, and Patterson actually had only 23.4 feet of unexposed film in his camera when the action began. -- Grover Krantz, Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch, pages 104-105.

A few things to ponder:

When was the film processed?

Where was the film processed?

Who processed the film?

Why would Krantz be uncertain about the length of the film if it was original, uncut, and unedited?

If Krantz examined the original, why does he mention possible discarded or missing footage/frames?

Why would Krantz "conclude that this theoretical footage never existed", if he was looking at the original uncut/unedited film?

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....I can only conclude that this theoretical footage never existed, and Patterson actually had only 23.4 feet of unexposed film in his camera when the action began.

That is the only possible conclusion ???

I can think of at least one other ...

How about " 23.4 Feet of film was all Patterson wanted us to see, because the last ten feet show BH jumping into a hole and taking the hood off ... " ?


If Byrne was correct ? The Titmus map ?

We should ' read Kranz ' ?

What a joke....