Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[mangler]

I should have stated that KVOS is in Bellingham, Wa. Canawest is located in Vancouver, B.C.


m

 

[LAL]

Personally, I think he didn't do a very good job, seeing as how he missed some gaping clues (the timeline not working, etc.) And as soon as he got his fingers into the film's profits, he'd have no reason to expose it as a hoax.

Have you read his book? Dahinden was a skeptic to the core. And, yes, he wanted to make as much money out of the PGF as he possibly could. His legal battles were legion.

What about the timeline? The airport thing or what? DeAtley suffered partial amnesia in his interview with Long on anything to do with how he got the film (although he remembered charter flight time), but if Byrne was right that the film was developed after hours by someone in the habit of surreptitiously developing homemade porn, there's no problem.

Long portrayed Roger and Bob as womanizing bar hoppers, so I suppose it follows Roger-the-genius had contacts in the underground porn industry. Maybe he borrowed money from Vilma Radford to pay for a starlet.

You want me to reread Long to find out what Dahinden said? Good grief, man. Try the library. I just got home.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Have you read his book?

Who, Long or Dahinden? Then again, it doesn't really matter as I've never read either book.

Dahinden was a skeptic to the core.

You have got to be kidding me.

What about the timeline?

Well, this, for starters.

The airport thing or what?

Funny you should mention that, as Gimlin has no recollection of going to an airport. In fact, he says they mailed it after visiting Al Hodgson at 8:30 or 9:00 pm, a time when post offices tend to be closed.

You want me to reread Long to find out what Dahinden said?

No, I was just asking a general question to the forum.

 

[Crowlogic]

As I noted over in my Minnesota Iceman thread, a PM from tube alerted me to the fact that Verne Langdon has started posting at the BFF. Not only has he revealed some more behind-the-scenes details about the creation of the Minnesota Iceman, but he confirmed that Jerry Malone's "iceman" was indeed made by John Chambers and is also offering his opinion about the PGF. You can read more about it here.

Verne Langdon wrote" "Makeup Master John Chambers was working with us on several things at the time, so Don Sr. and I consulted with John about whether or not to take on the project. We unanimously decided against it because we felt it was an elaborate (and somewhat shady) hoax with which we did not wish to become directly involved. Frank Hansen, upon being told this, pressed us for a referral. We suggested he take his idea to Howard Ball, who was the artist responsible for sculpting the extremely lifelike dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures at the world-famous LaBrea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. We further suggested he have Howard cast the figure in hot melt, which we felt would hold up far better than rubber or any other then-known material in the ice. We contacted Howard and put him in touch with Hansen, and Frank Hansen delivered his "hot melt iceman" idea to Mr. Ball. When Howard Ball had completed the sculpture and the casting, Frank brought the creature to us to see. "

Seems like Chambers was advised not to get involved with the MIM.

 

[LTC8K6]

Crow, are you aware that Roger claimed that Patty "stopped dead" and looked back at him after he began to film her? Are you aware that he claimed it was the sound of the camera that made her "stop dead"?

Are you aware of Patty "stopping dead" in the PGF?

 

[LTC8K6]

While Roger took the film, Bob got the horses calmed down and then rode over the creek. Roger
was running again after the Bigfoot, still hand-holding his movie camera.
Despite the logs and trash on the route she took--and it was not even
a game trail--he got some parting shots, which turned out to be of particular
interest to the scientists. (But we will come to that later.)
At that point, I asked Bob (because he was then what is called the back-up man, which
means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly) Just what was Roger doing?

He was running ike hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush.

Did you see her, too?

Yeah, Ivan, but 'way ahead and really taking off for the hills.

Say Lu, why is Roger "running again after the bigfoot" while Bob gathers up the horses if Roger stopped and went no further when Patty looked back at him?

Say Lu, why is Roger "running like hell and jumping them logs" while Bob gathers up the horses if Roger stopped and went no further when Patty looked back at him? What logs was Roger jumping while Bob was gathering up the horses?

Say Lu, how did Roger get into the really thick bush while Bob gathered up the horses if he stopped and went no futher when Patty turned to look back at him?

Say Lu, why is Roger still running with his hand held camera long after Patty "stopped dead" and looked back at him?

He apparently ran all the way up into the thick bush with the camera according to Gimlin in an interview done not long after the film was made.

 

[LTC8K6]

November 1967 radio interview. Roger did not stand still at all, but followed Patty until he ran out of film. Roger's own words at the time. No mention of stopping or kneeling down at all. Roger is asked specifically and answers specifically. Had he stopped or gone to his knees, he would have mentioned it. He doesn't.

W: Right, so finally, I'm back to Roger Patterson again,. when you got your camera steadied did you stand still and take the pictures I saw, or did you follow it on foot?

R: I followed it on foot, because this was the only way that I had, I, I viewed the situation of course at the time and I could see her moving away from me and I knew Bob was there, and I thought if I'm ever going to get any pictures I'll have to do it now and I ran, as best I could, and trotted .

W: How close did you come, at the closest?

R: Well, I think we were closer when we first seen it than at any other time, don't you, Bob?

B: No, I disagree with you there, I believe just immediately after we got across the creek we were probably closer to her at that time than we were when we first sighted her, because she had her back to us at that time and or at least I was closer, because I ran a little further up on the horse, I was moving pretty fast and I got him finally across the creek, so I believe at that time when I crossed the creek I was the closest I ever was to her and I believe it was about ninety feet at that time.

W: Now, Roger, how far did you oh, by the way did you notice the colours of the palms of the hands there, were you close enough for that?

R: Oh, I was, but I never noticed.

W: Now, how far did you follow her?

R: I really didn't follow her any much further than when my camera run out of film and I knew that it was out, and Bob got on his horse and went after her then, and from that point he seen her more than I did, I never seen her again .

 

[Skeptical Greg]

........ That said the experssion on the face of the film subject is not exactly a welcoming glance.

Do you really believe an observer in real time, would have registered the expression that may have been visible for 1/2 second, from a distance of 100 feet or more ?


That said, a rubber face can provide any emotion the artist might wish to portray ...

 

[LTC8K6]

1967 radio interview. Roger tells Bob to cover him just as he starts to film, not shortly before he runs out, as Lu claimed.

R: That's when I seen this.... this creature, about 120 feet away, and she was, at that point, had just turned around and was just going up the bank, this small bank over there and I started running and trying to get a shot of her and I yelled at Bob to cover me.

Roger yells "cover me" just as he removes the camera from the saddle bag in the 1992 interview.

Lu:

Roger was apparently trying to get more footage (he ran out of film soon after he told Bob to cover him)

 

[LTC8K6]

1967 radio interview. After Patty is gone and Roger calls Bob back, Bob takes the camera to go look for tracks and see if there are other bigfoot about that he can film.

Yes, Bob takes the camera from Roger, which should now be full of exposed film and useless, and goes off to look for tracks and other bigfoot to film. No mention here of when the camera was reloaded.

R: Well I, when Bob come back, I yelled to him and I said, "Bob, come back," because at this point my horse was I didn't know where and the pack horse was gone, my scabbard, and my rifle was in the scabbard, on the horse, and the tracks before, down in there that we had heard about, were in a set of three, and there was a bigger one there, and I thought that possibly there was a male in close in ....

W: You were getting nervous.

R: I was getting nervous.

W: You were on foot there without the rifle.

R: I was on foot without anything, and I yelled to Bob to come back and we would think the thing over and ...

W: Was that just about the time you broke off the chase, you might say?

B: Right, that was, when I last seen her go round the curve. And at that time I went back and proceeded to gather up Roger's horses, his horse that he was riding and the pack horse, and after ....

W: Then what?

B: After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera while he gathered up his stuff and ..

If we assume they reloaded the camera in there, but failed to mention it, just how much filming did Bob do?

He must have done quite a bit, but it's hardly ever mentioned.

Bob was able to use the camera, including handheld, or he wouldn't have taken it from Roger to go and scout around for things to film.

So what did Bob film?

 

[LAL]

I found it here (under "Bigfoot, Big Con").

Okay, let's get that into context:

"Some of the unanswered questions are likely to remain that way because, as Long concludes, "The Old Bigfooters hadn't done their job. They failed to nail down the essential facts in the first few days after Patterson returned to Yakima from Bluff Creek." For example, no one attempted to discover when the film was actually shot, or with what camera, or where it was processed. Several contradictory accounts of the film's provenance emerged at the time, and no one seems to have dug very deeply into any of it. Early sasquatch researcher Rene Dahinden agreed, telling Long, "There are real dumb t'ings I should have done. The problem is that ve didn't do our job." (Long's phonetic transcription.) Interestingly, Dahinden eventually acquired most or all of the rights to the famous film, which he held until his death. For its part, the modern cryptozoological community has been swift to criticize Long's book. The internet is humming with chatter about and condemnation for this expose of one of cryptozoology's crown jewels.

The major counterclaim is that Long fell victim to one or more hoaxes when interviewing witnesses. Particular ire is reserved for the two most damaging witnesses: the man who claims to have built Patterson's Bigfoot suit (costume designer Phillip Morris), and "the Man in the Suit," as he has been called (a high school friend of Patterson, Bob Heironimus). Unfortunately, these two witnesses disagree on key details regarding the suit--something Long spends far too little time examining. Furthermore, after 37 years, there is no known physical evidence to back up the claims of either man.

I met with author John Kirk, President of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, and asked for his impressions. According to Kirk, "the trouble is that Bob Heironimus isn't telling the truth in any way, shape, or form here." Like many cryptozoologists, he believes that Heironimus is himself perpetrating a hoax. Kirk claims that his organization discovered the identity of Heironimus (then an anonymous source claiming to have worn a suit in the film) back in 1999. He also alleges that their investigation into his background uncovered "a woman who was present when Heironimus and two other individuals concocted this scheme [to falsely claim Heironimus wore the suit] in her living room so we were aware five years ago that this was a hoax, and we do not know how it was allowed to grow to this level."

Leaving aside this woman's specific allegation, Kirk's primary gripe with the book is shared by many cryptozoologists: Heironimus claims that he wore a horsehide suit built by Patterson himself, which he describes in modest detail, while Morris claims that Patterson bought and used one of his commercial gorilla suits--which he describes in precise detail. Surely, say critics, one or both of these claims must therefore be false. Since neither is clearly supported or debunked by the available evidence, both must be suspect. "

http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2004-04-25.htm

I'll see what I can find in the book, but I have trouble getting past some of Long's rhetoric, such as when he refers to Roger's failure to return the camera on time as "theft".

In the early days of the film, much effort was put into getting the film viewed by scientists (an odd thing for hoaxers to do - compare to the recent Georgia fiasco). Pinning down "when the film was actually shot, or with what camera, or where it was processed" may not have seemed important (and why would those things be important today, except to collectors of PGF trivia or those who think it's a hoax?). We know two out of three now, don't we? Within the next two years the film had been taken to scientists and Disney and Universal.

Why didn't the skeptics of the time uncover evidence of a hoax? Roger was alive to answer questions and produce one or more suits (of dynel or dead red horse) fitting his neighbor.

Dahinden may have wanted to make a lot of money off it, but he put a lot of money into it (the trip to Russia, e.g.). He was a poor man. He was also incensed that a relative newcomer came up with this after he'd spent over twice as long in the research himself. He became very bitter about scientists in general.

After the papers of the "realists" were rejected for the book following Halpin's conference (the cibachromes were supposed to go with Bayanov and Bourtsev's paper), Dahinden blocked publication of the joint paper in another book. He threatened legal action even when he didn't have the rights.

Dr. Donskoy's conclusions were printed in his book (with Don Hunter). Byrne published Bayanov and Bourtsev's paper in The Search For Bigfoot, Monster, Myth or Man and Dahinden had a fit.

Dahinden may have been trying to keep the film a mystery because it would be more profitable that way.

 

[LAL]

1967 radio interview. Roger tells Bob to cover him just as he starts to film, not shortly before he runs out, as Lu claimed.



Roger yells "cover me" just as he removes the camera from the saddle bag in the 1992 interview.

Lu:

The film is less than a minute, right? Anything within that time would be "shortly". Bob said Roger told him to cover him, he rode across the creek and then heard Roger say he ran out of film. Bayanov mentioned the end of the film confirmed that he ran out. It wasn't cut.

 

[Crowlogic]

Crow, are you aware that Roger claimed that Patty "stopped dead" and looked back at him after he began to film her? Are you aware that he claimed it was the sound of the camera that made her "stop dead"?

Are you aware of Patty "stopping dead" in the PGF?

Source?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..... Bayanov mentioned the end of the film confirmed that he ran out. It wasn't cut.

That is hardly reliable evidence..

How do we know what generation of the Patty footage Bayanov saw ?

There is no indication that anyone besides Patterson ( and whoever processed the original film ) ever saw an un-edited 100 foot roll of film ..

 

[LTC8K6]

The film is less than a minute, right?

If you say so.

Anything within that time would be "shortly".

Then why say "shortly"?

 

[tube]

Brian Brown (BFF's Bipto) has posted a podcast interview with Verne Langdon. Mostly about the Minnesota Iceman, but includes discussion of Patterson's film:

http://www.bigfootproject.org/bfs/BFS_007_dl.mp3

Langdon is unambiguous in his opinion that it's a guy-in-a-suit:

Bipto: “In your professional opinion, are you saying that the Patterson film is a guy in a suit? I just want to clarify that.”

Langdon: "Yes, I’m saying that."

Later in the interview Langdon mentions the disjunction of the pants section and the top of the costume.

 

[LTC8K6]

Source?

Already given as Roger Patterson.

From a very well known quote during the Sanderson interview that believers like to explain away:

She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her.

In the 67 radio interview, there is no mention of Patty stopping to look back, or even turning to look back as she walked. The only look from Patty is when they first spot her on the bank before she turns to walk away.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'll see what I can find in the book, but I have trouble getting past some of Long's rhetoric, such as when he refers to Roger's failure to return the camera on time as "theft".

IIRC, it was not Long who defined it as theft. Strange trouble, even for a believer, given the well known story of the camera theft, which certainly originated well before Long's book.

 

[LTC8K6]

 

[Drewbot]

"The viewers remained largely unconvinced"

Thats not what I was told in the numerous Patty threads at BFF.