Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Using the fact that there is a vast wilderness to consider if one wants to consider bigfoot plausible is just as lame a tool as suggesting T-Rex (or anything else) exists there as well.

One factor in determining "plausibility" is the amount of forested land an animal, like Bigfoot, would require to live in and still remain 'unproven'.
There's nothing lame in suggesting 'many millions of acres' would be enough to do the job.
How many acres would you guesstimate would be enough for a small population of Bigfoot to remain hidden in?? A few billion?

The one thing T-Rex has going for it is there were T-Rex's in north america at one time.

The big thing working against T-Rex is that nobody's been reportedly seeing them, for the last few million years or so.

In determining the "plausibility", as opposed to the "likelihood", of Bigfoot's existence....there are several factors to consider....not just one, or two.

 

[William Parcher]

Dfoot, your Photobucket thing is working perfectly. I set my options there at 1MB file size (max allowed for free subscription), and they also give you a max of 5 minutes/100MB for videos (animated gifs, etc). You probably don't have to downsize much of anything before putting it on Photobucket.

Viewers (like myself) appreciate your images. But I always want to see them as big big big. Gimmee gimmee more more. Meaty, beaty, big and bouncy.

 

[kitakaze]

One factor in determining "plausibility" is the amount of forested land an animal, like Bigfoot, would require to live in and still remain 'unproven'.
There's nothing lame in suggesting 'many millions of acres' would be enough to do the job.
How many acres would you guesstimate would be enough for a small population of Bigfoot to remain hidden in?? A few billion?

Stop it, Sweaty. You know the posts you have to deal with if you believe this garbage.

 

[Crowlogic]

Excuse me, but trying to support bigfoot with fossils of apes who lived very far from North America (and whose reconstructions do not look like several bigfoot renderings), highly biased myth interpretations and films (highly) suspected of being frauds is as lame as it gets...

But, of course, its just my opinion.

Opinions are amazing things. However not a one will buy us a gallon of gas. The idea that Noth America was overrun with "superapes" is preposterious. Up until modern humans the idea that the globe was overrun with biped primates is preposterious. The general numbers of fossil apes and great apes is fairly modest. That a relic population of "less than human bipeds" managed to hang on long enough to arrive on these shores dosen't require gargantuian leaps of fancy. If you want to consider the Ostman account (I don't BTW) it states that 4 members consisted of the group. Well that's the largest number of Sasquatach ever mentioned as being in one place. Low numbers of these things from beginning to end. What do you think the odds are that the Ostman account youngsters ever got to breed? But its nice that you came to the aid of one of your cohorts. I gess sometimes you just gotta circle the wagons.

 

[Correa Neto]

Astro wrote:

One factor in determining "plausibility" is the amount of forested land an animal, like Bigfoot, would require to live in and still remain 'unproven'.
There's nothing lame in suggesting 'many millions of acres' would be enough to do the job.
How many acres would you guesstimate would be enough for a small population of Bigfoot to remain hidden in?? A few billion?

If one accepts the sighting reports distribution (ex. Mangani's map and BFRO database) just a few should be enough... And they still keep evading bullets, trucks, traps and good cameras operated by people who know how to handle them, among other things...

The big thing working against T-Rex is that nobody's been reportedly seeing them, for the last few million years or so.

In determining the "plausibility", as opposed to the "likelihood", of Bigfoot's existence....there are several factors to consider....not just one, or two.

Are you sure there are no sighting reports of dinosaur-like creatures?

 

[Correa Neto]

Opinions are amazing things. However not a one will buy us a gallon of gas. The idea that Noth America was overrun with "superapes" is preposterious. Up until modern humans the idea that the globe was overrun with biped primates is preposterious. The general numbers of fossil apes and great apes is fairly modest. That a relic population of "less than human bipeds" managed to hang on long enough to arrive on these shores dosen't require gargantuian leaps of fancy. If you want to consider the Ostman account (I don't BTW) it states that 4 members consisted of the group. Well that's the largest number of Sasquatach ever mentioned as being in one place. Low numbers of these things from beginning to end. What do you think the odds are that the Ostman account youngsters ever got to breed? But its nice that you came to the aid of one of your cohorts. I gess sometimes you just gotta circle the wagons.

And how a small population would be able to survive for so long? Specially if scattered across North America.
Ever heard about the 50/500 rule?

But lets stick to facts, if you don't like my opinions.

Do you have any reliable evidence that backs the idea of an extinct species of large primates living in North America -or close to it- other than H. sapiens? Something other than speculation? Something not hiding in the gaps? I remember reading about controversial H. erectus remains in Japan, and that's all. And regarding gigantopithecus, ther remains are far, very far away from North America.

Facts- are there any primates (fossil or not) that would actually fit with bigfoot renderings or Patty? I mean a good fit, not just humanoid and hairy. Anything other than the controversial meganthropus?

Fatcs, Crow. Good and reliable evidence, even if circunstantial.

Whose wagon is circled?

 

[Astrophotographer]

The big thing working against T-Rex is that nobody's been reportedly seeing them, for the last few million years or so.

People report seeing things all the time. There are pink elephants, fairies, elves, UFOs, ghosts, witches, goblins, etc. It does not make them any more or less plausible. Are you sure that "nobody" has reported seeing a T-rex (or something akin to one) in the past few decades? Perhaps the T-rex hasn't been reported because it ate all the eyewitnesses to it or it lurks in an area of the nw that nobody has been. This is a similar argument you are making for bigfoot's plausibility.

However, we digress. You keep avoiding my question. I asked you to demonstrate how you carefully evaluated and weighed the evidence of the PGF. So far, all you have been able to say is it looks too real to be a hoax, which is a subjective opinion that carries no weight. Where is the meat and bones analysis that will demonstrate that it can not be a man in a suit? The world wonders?

 

[Crowlogic]

Again:

I'm interested in the 'gone' part of this statement of fact. As in 'once was there'.

I'm of the opinion 'never were there'. I base this opinion on a complete lack of reliable evidence. Also that the alledged evidence submitted is of the same quality as that for extra-terrestrial visitation of Earth and ghosts, etc.

On what do you base the 'once was there' that the use of 'gone' connotates?

Again:

You claimed to be a skeptic. You claimed not to be a believer. Surely it should not be a difficult thing to explain the basis of your opinion you deem logical regarding bigfoot having gone extinct.

Good for you! Pat yourself on the back and have a cheeseburger!

 

[William Parcher]

Mokele-mbembe?

Loren Coleman posted a great piece of artwork showing this modern 'living dinosaur'. But the work seems to show more than one cryptid. The hippos have enormous canines unlike any known living species of their family. Hostile cryptid meets hostile cryptid in the steamy tropical African wilderness. These loud and violent dramas play out beyond the eyes of the civilized world.

Have a look.

 

[Crowlogic]

And how a small population would be able to survive for so long? Specially if scattered across North America.
Ever heard about the 50/500 rule?

But lets stick to facts, if you don't like my opinions.



Facts- are there any primates (fossil or not) that would actually fit with bigfoot renderings or Patty? I mean a good fit, not just humanoid and hairy. Anything other than the controversial meganthropus?

Fatcs, Crow. Good and reliable evidence, even if circunstantial.

Whose wagon is circled?

I didn't say I didn't like your opinions. I stated that opinions your's, mine, Gilligan, The Skipper, The Millionare & his Wife etc etc are nice to have but try buying some gas or let's say a new hot water heater with an opinion. If you know of anywhere where opinions can do any of that please inform us.

Now about Sasquatach. There are post I've made elsewhere where I've stated my opinion (opps there's that word again) that the 12ft, 15ft, 9ft, and 8ft reports of these things are hard to swallow. So take H. Habilis, or H. Erectous and put him within eyeshot of the typical family campout and if they see him what do you suppose the description made by said family would use? I'd be hard pressed to say anything other than it walked upright like a man but was covered in hair and its face looked more like and ape's.

 

[Bill Munns]

WP & Dfoot

from WP's post #13370

Quote:
(Dfoot) Here's what it says though: It's a legal contract signed on May 26, 1967 in which the Radford's agree to loan Patterson $700 (worth roughly $4000 in those days) and get back $850 by June 10 of '67. Patterson agrees to pay them a percentage of a film project he has in the works. It's witnessed and signed by other people, one being a Notary. Other documents are basically attempts by the Radford's and others to collect from Patterson who refuses to pay them a dime.

(WP) Was $700 going to be enough to cover this costume including (you theorize) the mechanical mouth. Pay one guy in Hollywood for this, right? Do you tell him that $700 is your budget (max), and to not exceed that amount? Back to the cost... Morris was selling one of his simplistic gorilla suit for just under $500. It had no mechanical devices. Yet, these guys in Hollywood would do a fully custom Bigfoot costume with padding and moving mouth for only around $700? Is that reasonable?

Have to disagree on how reasonable the $700 is for a suit.

I was doing makeup at ABC TV in 1970, and scale was about $65/day. Movie scale was higher (maybe about $85/day $500/week.)

Nobody good worked for scale and suit guys and prosthetics people were the top tier guys. So $700 buys less than a week of their time, materials not included, assistants not included, back then.

I did a full orang suit in 1986, for an ABC TV show "Probe" (suit worn by Felix Silva, a little person, and the suit designed to match a real orang named "Sunshine"). I did it in one week, but needed 4 assistants working with me. Budget was $10,000 in 1986 dollars. No mechanics in the face mask either.

If you say $700 in 1967 dollars is $4000 today, the same $700 should have been about $2300 in 1986, one quarter of my budget, and I was never the highest price for suits, compared to others I knew.

People work on the cheap for showcase projects, sometimes, but a "secret" assignment isn't a very appealing showcase. People work cheap for a chance to break in, but John Chambers was coming off of the greatest career accomplishment of his life, hardly "trying to break in".

And people who have reached a certain level of quality or excellence generally don't go back to doing "quick and dirty" cheap projects after coming off of a spectacular demonstration of their excellence. You work all your career to try and show people how you are capable of excellence, and once you do, the last thing on your mind, the last thing you are likely to do, is go back to showing people something cheap, thrown together, half-assed, or amateurish.

So, Dfoot, I think you're contridicting yourself here, in that if you want to say John Chambers and friends are involved, you'd better find more money for Roger to spend, and if all he had was $700, you should go looking for cheap newcomers from the makeup/FX business to be his accomplices.

Just my perspective on the subject.

Bill

 

[captain koolaid]

The big thing working against T-Rex is that nobody's been reportedly seeing them, for the last few million years or so.

In determining the "plausibility", as opposed to the "likelihood", of Bigfoot's existence....there are several factors to consider....not just one, or two.

But, as mentioned in previous posts, by others, there have been reports of dinosaurs. Theropods and Sauropods. Pteranodons and Plesiosaurs (though not actual dinosaurs). Likewise there are several factors to consider for surviving Tyrannosaurids, or a species of Carnosaur.

1) They existed in North America.

2) There are actual bones. Fossils, sure, but hey, who knows what new examples might be unidentified in museums etc. This works for Bigfooters.

3) There are tracks. Theropod prints can be detected all over the PNW. Three toed footprints that can be linked to juvenile T-Rex, or Allosaur. Certainly a creationist/Mormon/whatever "scientist" or "researcher" can provide the expertise to verify these as genunine dino evidence.

4) There is honest-to-god film of living T-Rex's. The JPF (Jurassic Park Footage) is evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

4) There is honest-to-god film of living T-Rex's. The JPF (Jurassic Park Footage) is evidence.

You must watch this clip of Worlds Greatest Hoaxes at 3:37. It shows a modern British hoax using a guy in a T-Rex costume. It's almost like War of the Worlds. Before that you can see some "Snow Walker" stuff.

Anyway, some people will believe these kinds of hoaxes. The Rex is really funny to watch in action.

 

[captain koolaid]

You must watch this clip of Worlds Greatest Hoaxes at 3:37. It shows a modern British hoax using a guy in a T-Rex costume. It's almost like War of the Worlds. Before that you can see some "Snow Walker" stuff.

Anyway, some people will believe these kinds of hoaxes. The Rex is really funny to watch in action.

There you go... Hell I'm convinced. Combine all these factors with flesh eating Dinosaurs in "historical" accounts, and lore (just like bigfoot, according to Footers), Bigfoot is lame and boring. I want to bag a genuine T-Rex.

The government must be covering up. If there was even some basic funding into research, these incredible creatures could be studied, and protected. Why do scoftics have to be so narrow-minded?

 

[William Parcher]

The Bigfooters constantly fight against the closed-minded skeptics. Bigfoot skeptics are the same brand of people that doubted Galileo. Fools, all of them, even if they somehow could not know it at the time.

When the Bigfooters do their dance they like to have other Bigfooters watching. It's a subculture (mostly represented on the Internet) that values mutual support and admiration, even though they endlessly bicker with each other. They will join together to promote falsehoods (i.e. lots of guys have confessed to being Patty) as if they are facts. Personal responsibilities to reality (who was the first to claim multiple confessors to being Patty?) become diffused and diluted when lots of your kind are saying the same thing. At the worst, a Bigfooter only has to throw his hands up and say, "Well, that's what I was told and I presumed it was verified as fact by some kind of authority."

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Have to disagree on how reasonable the $700 is for a suit. (snip)

I did a full orang suit in 1986, for an ABC TV show "Probe" (suit worn by Felix Silva, a little person, and the suit designed to match a real orang named "Sunshine"). I did it in one week, but needed 4 assistants working with me. Budget was $10,000 in 1986 dollars. No mechanics in the face mask either.

If you say $700 in 1967 dollars is $4000 today, the same $700 should have been about $2300 in 1986, one quarter of my budget, and I was never the highest price for suits, compared to others I knew.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like the suit you did for "Probe" was built from scratch. Dfoot's theory is that the Patty costume was constructed from preexisting costume parts with a few modifications. Judging from previous posts, only one of the components, a mask, would already have fur on it (two, if standard "gorilla gloves" were used). After that fur was removed, there wouldn't be much of a problem with "matching" the fur used to cover the costume.

When you reuse/alter preexisting costumes instead of building a new costume, the cost goes down. That's why "monster of the week" type shows sometimes reuse costumes/molds/props/etc. to keep costs down. Here's one such example. I'm reasonably sure that you know that, but I figured I should explicitly state that for the benefit of others reading this. In short, Patterson wouldn't have been asking for a Bigfoot suit to be built from scratch for cheap.

People work on the cheap for showcase projects, sometimes, but a "secret" assignment isn't a very appealing showcase. People work cheap for a chance to break in, but John Chambers was coming off of the greatest career accomplishment of his life, hardly "trying to break in".

While I must admit I'm not completely sold on John Chambers being involved, I do feel the need to note that, according to this, John Chambers was not adverse to working on uncredited projects.

If you visit this thread, you'll find some information about Chambers' involvement with two sideshow attractions, the "Burbank Bigfoot" and "Minnesota Iceman." While doing research for that thread, I discovered that he was credited with having made another fake Bigfoot in an interview with sideshow promoter Rick West. Now, due to the fact that his name was used in advertisements, this would not be an example of him doing uncredited work. However, based on how it (in my opinion) doesn't look as good as his "Burbank Bigfoot," this either means that the person displaying it was lying or that Mr. Chambers would do "economy models" depending on the budgets he was given.

 

[Bill Munns]

AAM

"Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like the suit you did for "Probe" was built from scratch. "

You are correct. The Probe suit was fully built from scratch.

"When you reuse/alter preexisting costumes instead of building a new costume, the cost goes down. "

This is correct to a point, but sometimes the modifications are extensive enough to make it as much hassle as starting from scratch.

"John Chambers was not adverse to working on uncredited projects."

But was this before Planet of the Apes? or long after? The PG film was right after, when Chambers was at his true career high, being profiled in Life Magazine, etc. Seems an unlikely time to go back to "slumming" on cheap suit remodels, at least seems unlikely to me.

Before POTA, Chambers was still "unknown" to the world at large and thought of as other makeup artists' "Lab man" (meaning they hired John to do the work and they'd take the credit).

But after the Apes film, I personally don't see John, or anybody, going back to "economy" work on obscure projects for unknown uses. When I knew him, in the 70's, he normally just did big features where he was properly credited and compensated.

Bill

 

[RayG]

Why do scoftics have to be so narrow-minded?

'Cause they only use 10 per cent of their brains?

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow Dfoot ! That ' Darkface ' video would have been cause for a ten page discussion at BFF, had it come from an anonymous source ..

 

[William Parcher]

We are talking about Dfoot's speculation on the costume origin and payment. He actually has several theories packaged into one big theory. His overall theory is that Patterson had the suit made in Hollywood by a consortium of known individuals. This is 100% speculation by Dfoot. There is nothing inherently wrong with that (it's human nature to speculate about almost anything) and his speculation does not seem to be something anywhere near impossible.

Dfoot, you could be right about RP buying the suit from Hollywood, but also wrong about its true material origins and people who were involved. The only real fact we have in this thing is that we know Roger got $700 from Vilma Radford. The timing of that loan seems pretty good for getting a Bigfoot costume ready for filming (sometime prior to 10/21/67). But you really don't have to box yourself into the idea that Roger only had $700 to spend on a suit. He may have found ways to have more than this to buy a suit. Maybe he took other personal cash loans that we have no knowledge of. Maybe he somehow scrounged up $1500 to spend on a suit which he would have regarded as an essential investment towards the pot-of-gold.

This is actually an instance where the application of Occam's Razor is most appropriate. When forming any thesis, one should strictly limit the number of variables (these are really sub-theses) or assumptions that are necessary to support the thesis. You don't really need to limit Roger to $700 if there is any possible way he could have found more money. The Radford contract is a fact, but it in itself does not tell anyone how much cash Roger handed to somebody in Hollywood.

We are now arguing that $700 might not have been enough money. That could be true. Roger may have had to pay even more than that. This argument comes directly from Dfoot's claim that it was a suit costing not more than $700. He doesn't need to place that limit. The Hollywood suit theory can still be valid without this specific claim. What can happen is that the argument about the money could start to look like an argument about the whole Hollywood suit theory. IOW, a person could deduce (from watching the argument) that $700 would never cover the cost of a Hollywood suit... and therefore, Roger got the suit from some other source. This is based on the assumption that he had no more than $700 to spend. Don't plant that seed, Dfoot.

I must be crazy to spend all this time and energy writing about Bigfoot. Plumb crazy.