Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Who decided that it was Alpha Cine labs that processed the film, and how do they know this?

Al De Atley picked-up the film at the Seattle airport on the morning of Saturday, October 21, 1967. He had the film processed at the Alpha Cine laboratory in Seattle and returned to his home in Yakima that same day.

 

[Crowlogic]

Lets assume that the master did get copied right away and put away for safe keeping. Modern enhancment techniques could produce a respectably good footage and manyof the questions such as blockfoot, and mouth movement eye blinking etc could be put to rest. That is if it didn't first expose a suit so crummy that any further investigation became meaningless. But if the personage in custody of the film is known the master can be acquired. Everyone has thier price.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Still missing the point Crow..

It's not the quality of the film, it's the part they don't want us to see... The other 75 feet..


Get real ..

 

[LTC8K6]

Why wouldn't you show the original to help prove that bigfoot is real, thus increasing the value of the film tremendously?

Why not show the trackway roll as well? It adds to the authenticity if it's real.

If you sell the one and only original film of bigfoot without getting it authenticated, you lose a lot, imo.

 

[Crowlogic]

Still missing the point Crow..

It's not the quality of the film, it's the part they don't want us to see... The other 75 feet..


Get real ..

I haven't missed the point! The other 75 feet either show a bunch of things never mentioned or they show just what has always been stated. If its the latter then that leaves only the creature footage to prove or disprove hoax in so far as the film evidence goes. I don't think its a matter of things "they" don't want us to see. I think is a matter of a bunch of uninteresting fooage that because of its uninteresting nature was put aside. And that's why the PGF is as its been for the past 40+ years. But exactly who are the "they" anyway. Not the sinister Men In Brown I hope.

 

[William Parcher]

I'd be interested in seeing what is called the original for any scenes that I have not already seen. I want to see everything, and in the order it appears on the original. Give me trees, shrubs, dirt, riders, dogs, etc. I want everything there is to see.

The approach to analyzing this would not specifically be to look for evidences of a hoaxed creature or false testimonies. This always remains a possible find. But rather, the effort would be to try to document everything visible, and try to create hypothetical continuity bridges between scenes. Even if the whole affair was a hoax, Patterson cannot control the arrow of time (outside of editing to create a 'temporal mosaic' of scenes) and physics. He must travel from one location to another, and shoot one scene after another. I'd analyze the hell out of it in any way I could. That's what Parcher likes to do. I'd try to tell you what Patterson ate for breakfast if I could somehow figure it out. Maybe Caddy could have another peyote vision quest and figure out if Roger has egg or pancake stuck to his chin.

That coveted original might be a bad surprise. The Patty walk scene might be identical to some copies that we have already seen. Additional footage might not show more than we have already seen. I guess it's even possible that there is less on this original than on already existing copies. If I was acting as a potential buyer of this thing, I'd want to know a lot of details about it before I handed over any cash. I would presume that a non-damaging physical examination would be part of the deal before any purchase. Maybe the secret society that knows of this 'original film' already knows what it contains.

 

[LTC8K6]

If I owned the films, and I really believed that they were proof of sasquatch, then I'd make them available to universities under non-disclosure agreements where they would have no rights to copy, show, or give away the films, but they could publish their test results and opinions.

This authentication will make the film far more valuable.

On the other hand, if I have no confidence in the original film's ability to withstand scrutiny, then I keep it hidden and get what I can out of it through licensing copies of the copies. I take no risks that might get the original film proven a hoax. The last thing I do is let qualified people analyze the original.

I note that Patterson would not allow the University folks to speak out about the film...

The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group.

 

[William Parcher]

I think is a matter of a bunch of uninteresting fooage that because of its uninteresting nature was put aside.

All your uninteresting footage are belong to us.

But exactly who are the "they" anyway. Not the sinister Men In Brown I hope.

They are the Men In Brown and we control the cheap a simp.

 

[LTC8K6]

McClarin is already calling Ivan Sanderson and telling him Roger has film of bigfoot that very night. Before the film is even processed. They set up the works at Argosy to deal with this incredible event.

Then they hear nothing about the film at all for more than 3 weeks!

Then they get a call from Roger, and he's in New York with DeAtley and a Hollywood agent!

What actually happened in the Patterson Case was that a mutual friend, - Jim McClarin rang me (Ivan Sanderson) late one night from California to say that word had come out that Roger had obtained some film of a Bigfoot and was on his way
to have it processed. He requested help in handling matters, which we
immediately promised, and we then started laying on all possible scientific,
commercial, and publicity outlets. However, we heard nothing further for
over three weeks, when HQ got a phone call from Roger from New York.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/pursuit68.htm

 

[William Parcher]

I note that Patterson would not allow the University folks to speak out about the film...

Chris Murphy: The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group.

I would not assume that these 'strict orders' came from Patterson. The orders may have come from university officials directed at their scientists. How could Patterson control their free speech rights?

 

[William Parcher]

How were we able to kill off nearly all the grizzly bears in the lower 48 states without ever bagging a Bigfoot? These bears were shot, poisoned and trapped virtually everywhere. They lived in almost every possible natural habitat from coastal beaches to remote mountains. They certainly lived in the rugged and 'inaccessible' areas that are said to harbor the Bigfoot. But we went in and got all them grizzlies. California probably had the largest population (they almost certainly were around Bluff Creek) and we still were able to kill the last one in that state back in 1922.

It is estimated that in 1800 there were about 50,000 grizzlies south of Canada. By 1975, we only had about 800 bears left. Killed them all. How could all that bear killing action go on for so long without any primary Bigfoot evidence being produced?

That all makes perfect sense if Bigfoot is a mythical creature.

 

[Mad Hom]

Why wouldn't you show the original to help prove that bigfoot is real, thus increasing the value of the film tremendously?

Why not show the trackway roll as well? It adds to the authenticity if it's real.

If you sell the one and only original film of bigfoot without getting it authenticated, you lose a lot, imo.

To me the unknown owner's best course of action is to treat it like an un-opend pack of 1951 Topps baseball cards.....sell it based on the mystery of it all.....there might be a Mickey Mantle rookie card in that unopened pack....or there might be just a bunch of Earl Tiwillgers and Hymie Schoenfelds...but either way the price is X if you want to see which.

Of course this mysterious owner knows full well whether it contains a Mantle or a Tiwillger....but if it is a Mantle....to which side?

A Mantle for Bigfoot Fan would be clear footage showing all of this mouth movement and finger twitching we're told should be obvious from the 32nd gen copies we keep seeing.

A Mantle for "Skofftic" would be footage of Bob H sipping a Mello Yello during a break in filming wearing every hairy inch of his costume but the head.

With each being a Tiwilliger to other of course...and a push being 76' of nothing but trees,horsies and sky.

So which side will throw down more hard earned American currency? That is the question.

And as I'm thinking about it....if it does contain footage of Bob H taking a potty break or Roger and Bob G helping him into the suit there's always the blackmail option for this mystery owner...I mean he could say to those that stand to lose from it being harmful to there cause (IE: Bigfoot Nation profiteers)....well I got PGF takes 1 and 2 on film..... if you want to continue making money off of take 3....than scribble me a check for X dollars and a Bic lighter takes care of everything.

I don't know just a thought.

 

[Mad Hom]

I think is a matter of a bunch of uninteresting fooage that because of its uninteresting nature was put aside. And that's why the PGF is as its been for the past 40+ years.

Of course you'd think that Crow...you're a Bleever....and me? Well I'm not....so I lean more towards it having footage of Bob H holding a hairy bigfoot mask in his left hand and frosty Mello Yello in the other....hence why someone needs to be able to take a gander at this missing film.

You see no one can say with a shred of certainty what's on the missing 76 feet of film...so until such time as everyone can see what's on said missing 76feet we shouldn't make an ASS out of U and ME about anything that it may or may not contain.

Bottom Line: Seeing the film would either eliminate it as a thorn in Bigfoot Nations side or.....it would stick a rather large fork in a well done Bigfeetsus costume.

One way or the other...seeing the footage could be nothing but helpful

 

[Astrophotographer]

One way or the other...seeing the footage could be nothing but helpful

Agreed on that. That being said, I doubt the original will ever see the light of day. Proponents aren't going to front the money for what could be a losing situation and skeptics aren't going to waste the money or effort to get it. Since the proponents are the ones trying to make this film the greatest piece of film footage next to the Zapruder film, I think the ball is in their court. It validates the copies of the film that have been used all these years.

 

[Astrophotographer]

How were we able to kill off nearly all the grizzly bears in the lower 48 states without ever bagging a Bigfoot?

Possible Bigfoot proponent answers:

a) We don't need to produce a body. The PGF and plaster casts of butts and feet are all we need. (this avoids the question put forth but diverts attention away from the inconvenient fact presented)

b) Bigfoot is too smart to get shot or captured. When a bigfoot dies, it's body vaporizes in an excellent example of spontaneous combustion.

 

[Crowlogic]

Of course you'd think that Crow...you're a Bleever....and me? Well I'm not....so I lean more towards it having footage of Bob H holding a hairy bigfoot mask in his left hand and frosty Mello Yello in the other....hence why someone needs to be able to take a gander at this missing film.

You see no one can say with a shred of certainty what's on the missing 76 feet of film...so until such time as everyone can see what's on said missing 76feet we shouldn't make an ASS out of U and ME about anything that it may or may not contain.

Bottom Line: Seeing the film would either eliminate it as a thorn in Bigfoot Nations side or.....it would stick a rather large fork in a well done Bigfeetsus costume.

One way or the other...seeing the footage could be nothing but helpful

Mad Hom

I'm not a believer where did you ever get that idea? Now you've got me wrong but perhaps I've got you pegged correctly as someone that shoots from the hip. Go back and read my posts both here and on BFF and there is nowhere you will find me maintaining status as a believer. As Buggs would say "What a maroon."

 

[Crowlogic]

As I understand it Patricia Patterson hold the rights to the Film. Therefore the unknown owner of the master has no rights and has no control over anything. If the unknown owner knows he has a bombshell that would expose the truth why then hasn't he come forth sell the bombshell? If the unknown owner knows that the reels contain the normal PGF material then he might as well sit on it until a wealthy "believer" comes up with enough cash. In the event that the film is an outright hoax with Bob H munching a sandwich in between takes getting crumbs on his costume then the film is next to worthless except for the potential expose value. After all even if a HBO or Monsterquest decided to get the film for an expose how much would the owner actually get from it? The time to come forward with the master film was when Greg Long was doing his book. That the unknown owner didn't seize the opportunity could very well mean that there's nothing incriminating on the master. My guess is by the time the unknown owner parts with the master it'll be worthless. But then again how clever could the unknown owner be if they bought the thing in the first place?

 

[Dfoot]

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

Bill -- Sorry but that's not really correct. But remember... I'm on your side here...

I hate to be hard on you as it's because of you that I stopped back in at BFF in the first place. During Christmas I noticed the PG thread still going here at JREF and popped in to have someone tell me that they were reeling in a make-up man who worked in Hollywood and were going to use him as "evidence" that the film couldn't be faked. I doubted that, but figured I should go over and show some things before you got carried away and your words taken out of context.

What you said in the radio interview was that you could never imagine anyone following the idea that CHRIS WALAS put forth about creating a fur suit in two sections. You said that you'd never in your life come across anyone who made a fur suit based on a shirt and pants style combo similar to the two piece wetsuit design and had no idea why anyone would do that as you didn't think it workable. You gave multiple reasons why this was unsound and never done. They ate it up.

After that went on for a while a biologist phoned in to say that he'd read the forum and some guy called "DFOOT" had nearly convinced him the film could have been faked UNTIL you followed up and explained why the back of the neck really looked as it did. Because of your credentials as a "Hollywood make up expert" the biologist now knows that Patty is real as you explained the reasons why this was most likely for him and others.

However, no one mentioned that the only reason Dfoot didn't respond and correct this error was because those who control the place won't allow that. So there goes another person about to embarrass himself in front of his colleagues by unfortunately using your analysis to back his belief up.

You are a smart and artistic man and I have no doubt that you'll begin to see what I and your peers have been saying in time. In fact, I think you already have begun to do this.

I know you mentioned at the end of the program that you'd not entirely made up your mind yet... then you continued to explain (much to the Bigfooters delight) why ONLY real fur could have made that "hernia" and how you couldn't imagine there not being someone on hand to re-glue any section that popped up like that.

Anyway, all of that thinking is rubbish. The two section fur suit WAS THE MAINSTAY from the 1920's on. If you've never seen one then you are not exactly one of the "gorrillamen" of Hollywood anymore than Phillip Morris is - though at least you are a real make-up artist instead of merely a businessman.

In your upcoming interview I think you should correct this error as what you have said WILL be repeated and taken out of context (as it already has been). WALAS was right. You were wrong. That is the truth of it. Don't be another JOHN GREEN and spend your days trying to warp the truth to show you couldn't have been wrong. You were and so was he. And so teaches Meldrum today. Totally bogus material.

I've been asked also to participate in that radio show. I said I would but only later after I got some more info AND edited a YOUTUBE doc that I could refer the people listening to. Walking into the People's Temple in the early 70's and telling the flock that Jim Jones was only pulling a magic trick when he turned water into wine right in front of them wouldn't do. You'd have to show them something and even then it wouldn't sink in right away. Deep held beliefs can make people see and hear what they want to. You'll see what I mean.

At this moment your errors are being quoted as some sort of "proof" just as a hoaxer who tells a Bigfooter, "Oh my... I could never make anything that good" also gets quoted. People like Meldrum, Krantz and now that biologist will grab those words direct from "Hollywood" and cling to them like gold. Even though one single day of checking the facts would reveal that they are as totally untrue as GIMLIN'S claim of some other Bob Gimlin having been arrested. He never expected GREG LONG would actually check out the court records. That's not the Bigfoot researcher way.

You'll come around, but like me, you may find your words twisted and you'll be amazed at how far it can go.


You have to start thinking about what the guys who made the monster suits in 1966 used to do. You have to forget some of the advanced methods you've studied that came into play later and go back to what they were doing then. Take the above... put your molded booties with little bear toes on them and stretch wet suit pants over that. Glue strips of faux fur in sections to it and then blend with loose hair. See what that looks like. You may be surprised.


Like many of the monster suits they made, this bear suit has the hands and feet attached. It was made by Janos. I've worked with it. It comes in two sections and a head.

Sometimes they would cannibalize other suits. Like this dive suit. Two sections with DON POST 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' hands and a 'This Island Earth' head. Glue on the "swamp plant" parts they made in the shop and you've got a 1966 monster suit.





The GORN they made from a two piece dive suit base. The rubber molded parts were added over it. Note the way the seam pulls loose when the stuntman raises his arms. You'll see this seam on Patty if you look closer. Could these same guys make a rubber suit with hair that looks like Patty? Yes. They can and did. Can nature? No. In fact, Patty would not be capable of raising her arm overheard based on the "shoulder muscle" seen on her.

This old hair suit shows the upside down curve of the shoulder I'm talking about.
So does this.And so does this.
This is the part that you see tearing away from the GORN. On Patty the skin wraps from the front of the suit body over the arm and is stitched and glued around the scapula.


The shoulder pads should curve in this direction IF the people making the suit really wanted to do a good job. They didn't care. They thought of it at the time as a joke that no one would ever see anyway. They took the money and shut up about it. The widow gets some money from the thing and if people want to believe in it or the tooth fairy that's just fine. It was all a big joke to them.

So... from the 1920's until today most professional ape suits were made in two sections. That was the usual thing. Patty is just one of these two-section monsters made in the same way during the summer of '67.

One reason for this two section idea is because the top slides up and down with movement and doesn't make the leg bunch up as much - usually. Very different from the molded suits of the 80's and 90's that everyone uses today for monsters. Those stay pretty much in place the way they were formed.

Try on a real ape suit and check it out. IF it fits you (as the white two section suit fits Janos in that earlier Star Trek photo) you'll find the upper thigh pad edge goes UNDER the long body. Your legs will look shorter than they really are. However, IF you are a bit too tall for the upper body it will barely cover your own buttocks. If you stand up and walk normally the thigh pad edge could show. This is what happened with Heironimus walking in the Patty suit.

Remember, I'm on you side and I'm sure you'll begin to see all of this for yourself as you go along. Right now you are still being told things like the bogus "Heironimus says it was horsehide" story. That was really Roger telling a fib to HOWARD Heironimus - not Bob. Those were Roger's words. Bob just wore a suit for his buddy Gimlin one day. That's all he knows. But his actual description (not what others claim he said - what HE said) is completely accurate. He can't help it that Phillip Morris doesn't understand how to build a suit exactly like Patty. That's got nothing to do with him or the film.

Drew --Gotta go work for a couple of days on a show now, but when I get back I'll post some pics of Patty's face you've probably never seen before and hopefully explain what that is you're looking at.

Sweaty - The soft foam pads move with the body. It's the face and breasts that are stiff. Only the jaw moves on the face while the breasts just sit there and ride the upper body. I'll show you why later.

Or... you could just compare Patty to a real Bigfoot. "Show me the Bigfoot"... you know the saying. Seems like that's what I've been doing.

 

[William Parcher]

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 mentioned this several times in this thread. Bob Heironimus says that the mouth did not move. If he is to be believed in his recollection of the headpiece, then it was not equipped with any special device or mechanism intended to cause the mouth to move.

You cannot simultaneously argue that the suit is just like BH described and also argue that the mouth moved. If you intend to maintain that the mouth did move (by design), then you will need to somehow explain why BH says it didn't move.

Now I'm doing for you what you are suggesting you do for Bill Munns. I'm on your side, but you have made a contradictory or a possibly false claim (the moving mouth). This ball is in your court now.

 

[William Parcher]

William Parcher -- DEATLEY could tell you how much cowboy and Indian outfits cost him...

Are you being serious? Did DeAtley actually buy special clothing and costume devices (like the wig) for Patterson's actors? We are being told that Gimlin already had an "Apache costume" for his appearances at horse shows. Did he use that same stuff for Patterson's camera, or did DeAtley buy him new stuff?

I do not have Greg Long's book (nor any Bigfoot-related book) so I don't know if your claim comes from that book. Please state whether you are speculating that DeAtley bought costumes or if this is documented somewhere.

how much the plane tickets to New York cost him...

Because it is documented that he bought those, right? On a different subject - you previously mentioned Roger actually going to Hollywood prior to the PGF. Maybe this is in Long's book. Is it documented whether he flew or drove to Los Angeles from Yakima?

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".

Is this from Long's book? Is there a photograph of this described group together?