Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Few people, including scientists, believed that Patty was a real creature when the PGF was first viewed.

All that are quoted today are those who made a comment that could be construed as favorable, they are very few in number, and even they did not endorse the film as that of a new primate.

 

[Correa Neto]

That's also not what some footers wrote here at JREF.

But hey, maybe I just spontaneously slided to a paralel dimension where things are a bit diferent... Everithing is possible, eh?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I'll see what I can find in the book

Cool, thanks.

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).

On the contrary, you just play up the positive responses to your hoax by scientists and either not mention the negative reviews or just label them as close-minded skeptics.

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?).

It's definitely important to see if the events surrounding the film actually work out. John Green (and others) learned that the hard way at Bossburg.

Why didn't the skeptics of the time uncover evidence of a hoax?

Some people did uncover indications that it was a hoax (including Bigfoot proponent Dr. Heuvelmans), but they seem to have been brushed aside by proponents:

Certain facts concerning poor Roger Patterson have been brought to light, that might (if taken at face value and without proper investigation) not only look suspicious but cast serious doubt upon the whole matter. None of these facts is incriminating--in that none even alleges any form of criminality--but they are just the sort of nasty hints and even "rumors" that are calculated to make the skeptics and even the "fence-sitters" more readily doubt the whole thing. I have been in investigative work for over thirty years, and on this occasion I had advice from quite a host of specialists both paid and voluntary, and all I can say as of the time of writing (and I would like to say this emphatically) is that not one of these allegations has so far "proved-out," as the saying goes. Roger Patterson was at one time employed in show business, and Bob Gimlin was not available when a film unit went to make a documentary of this affair, and the creature in the film does look exactly like a drawing by Mr. Martin Kunsler for an article published by Sports Afield in 1960 [Footnote 37--Sanderson, Ivan T., "The Ultimate Hunt", Sports Afield, April 1961]; but none of this (and more especially the endless little petty-hints that the average human being seems incapable of foregoing) has so far stood up.

Here's the source. I can understand why Bob Gimlin not being available for a documentary not seeming like that big a deal, but to ignore that Patty greatly resembles the Sports Afield drawing (which Patterson ripped-off for his book) is insane (as is ignoring Patterson's showbiz connections).

I should also point out that the internet allows ideas to be spread quicker and allows more people to showcase their viewpoints and perceptions, something that wasn't so easy back in the day. If the internet had existed in the 60's, I'm certain Patterson and Gimlin would've been eaten alive.

 

[Crowlogic]

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 ?
QUOTE]

Why yes I do believe that a 1/2 second glance from 100' away can be be cememted into an observers memory concerning the appearance of the object in question. Not impossible at all especially when the observer/photographer has the benefit of the film they shot and blowups of that film in the form of stills. Do you really think Patterson went completely on memory before he went public with his description/opinion of what he wittnessed?

 

[tyr_13]

If you are saying that look provided motivation for his actions at the time of filming it makes all the difference.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I know it's been noted elsewhere, but I wanted to chime in on Verne Langdon's recent appearance on "The Bigfoot Show." I thought it was a lot of fun (and very informative) to listen to. In it, Mr. Langdon discussed the whole Minnesota Iceman scenario, which included how a person could get in contact with certain special effects companies and why someone in Hollywood wouldn't exactly be rushing to publicize their involvement in a hoax. Of course, this would assume that Roger Patterson told the person or people that built the suit that he'd be using it for a hoax. That being said, Mr. Langdon made some strong arguments for John Chambers not being involved in the creation of the Patty suit.

He also provided a great anecdote about Philip Morris, noted that the original Don Post gorilla suit design had a chest that looked like (quote) "big tits" (presumably like on this suit), and the various bizarre requests that people had made to his company over the years.

Another treat from that BFF thread is a picture of a gorilla costume made (and worn) by the legendary Charles Gemora for a movie called "Phantom of the Rue Morgue." In the lower righthand corner, we can see some lines on the leg/thigh area that greatly resemble those seen on Patty. However, we'd need to see the suit in motion in order to determine whether or not that feature is always visible or if it was a one time trick of the light. Sadly, the film is not yet on DVD nor are clips available on Youtube. Thankfully, the VHS release is still available. Perhaps those lines were the reason why Chris Wallas theorized that the suit could have been retooled into the Patty costume?

I also noticed that in post 37 in the Langdon/Iceman thread, someone asked "Would a good bigfoot suit show a variation in hair length or bald or thin areas of the body?" First of all, I should note that it's been claimed that the patches on Patty are tricks of the light and use this image to support their claim. Secondly, I know that a company called Toho did a Bigfoot-type suit with features like that in the 50's.

Hell, since I'm posting Youtube and costume links:

I recently found a good example of a "patchy"-looking suit in this extremely "not safe for work" music video.

Similarly, you can see examples of leg lifts in this video at around 0:59ish and in this video at 0:17ish. You might have to do some pausing.

I also found some more examples of costumes that disguise the wearer's proportions. Granted, these were designed for mall and party appearances, so the Thing and the Incredible Hulk aren't very realistic.

Finally, in honor of the original Don Post gorilla suit design, you can find some of my notes on breasts on costumes here (near the bottom).

 

[SweatyYeti]

Few people, including scientists, believed that Patty was a real creature when the PGF was first viewed.

All that are quoted today are those who made a comment that could be construed as favorable, they are very few in number, and even they did not endorse the film as that of a new primate.

Most significantly, though, was the fact that scientists at the University of British Columbia, who saw the original film....which contains more detail than the copies....withheld comment on whether they thought the subject was a man or a beast.

They couldn't tell what it was.

Here is one quote from back then....

It’s about as hard to believe that the film is faked as it is to admit that such a creature really lives.” —Don Abbott, curator of anthropology, Royal British Columbia Museum, after viewing the PGF in 1967

Back in '67, Patty was....at the very least....ambiguous to such intelligent people.

And 'ambiguous' is no small achievement, when you consider that every suit you see*.....including the more 'deluxe' ones, such as this....

.....are always obviously a man in a suit. There is no ambiguity with them, whatsoever.



*Note: By "see" I mean... 'seen with detail comparable to the PG Film subject'.

 

[SweatyYeti]

AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:

...so the Thing and the Incredible Hulk aren't very realistic.

Actually....none of them are realistic. Isn't that right, AMM?

 

[LAL]

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.

If he was supposed to have it back in two days, why did it take them so long to charge him? If failure to return something on time is theft, the library must think I'm a criminal.

Long's book has some interesting information in it (I particularly liked the chapter on Jerry Merritt), but finding something specific in it can be a daunting task. Since AMM was asking the forum and not me, perhaps someone else who has the book will look it up and save me the trouble.

You've all actually read, it haven't you?

 

[LAL]

The trees get bigger? Where?

He certainly was not "trotting" after her as she moved behind the trees. Has anyone suggested "trotting" is a confirmation of Bob Heironimus' claim Roger filmed him from horseback?

The look:

In these days of the Internet, I don't think Bob Gimlin has noticed he's been "eaten alive".

 

[tsig]

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 ?
QUOTE]

Why yes I do believe that a 1/2 second glance from 100' away can be be cememted into an observers memory concerning the appearance of the object in question. Not impossible at all especially when the observer/photographer has the benefit of the film they shot and blowups of that film in the form of stills. Do you really think Patterson went completely on memory before he went public with his description/opinion of what he wittnessed?

"Why yes I do believe that a 1/2 second glance from 100' away can be be cememted into an observers memory concerning the appearance of the object in question"

Sounds like love at first sight.

But then he had to look at the film to be sure because she didn't leave her phone number.

WOW

 

[tsig]

AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:



Actually....none of them are realistic. Isn't that right, AMM?

So no realistice suites equal what?

 

[tsig]

If he was supposed to have it back in two days, why did it take them so long to charge him? If failure to return something on time is theft, the library must think I'm a criminal.

Long's book has some interesting information in it (I particularly liked the chapter on Jerry Merritt), but finding something specific in it can be a daunting task. Since AMM was asking the forum and not me, perhaps someone else who has the book will look it up and save me the trouble.

You've all actually read, it haven't you?

No I haven't read it. Are you claiming that if I do not examine evey bit of minutiae that you come up with then I cannot form an opinion?

Just rent a plane with IR.

 

[Aepervius]

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 ?
QUOTE]

Why yes I do believe that a 1/2 second glance from 100' away can be be cememted into an observers memory concerning the appearance of the object in question. Not impossible at all especially when the observer/photographer has the benefit of the film they shot and blowups of that film in the form of stills. Do you really think Patterson went completely on memory before he went public with his description/opinion of what he wittnessed?

As an aside, what is mostly cemented is your first impression, not the real face she/he made to you. Then memory tricks you into reinforcement of the impression. I have seen that at least once where I was clearly talking to a friend which was looked at briefly by a 3rd party (a woman), and the description of what they saw never jived with what I saw, but hey who care they are luckily married, and by now with 3 children.

So in that case I would qualify that as a non-information, as in normal situation such a perception could very well be cemented, but NOT being grounded on any reality whatsoever. *OR* it could simply be the case of a con man trying to preppy up his own hoax.

Whichever it is, there is in my opinion no way to tell, unless I missed something obvious.

 

[tsig]

The trees get bigger? Where?

[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/20080823-111328.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/20080823-111336.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/20080823-111340.jpg[/qimg]

He certainly was not "trotting" after her as she moved behind the trees. Has anyone suggested "trotting" is a confirmation of Bob Heironimus' claim Roger filmed him from horseback?

The look:

[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/Lowmouth.jpg[/qimg]

In these days of the Internet, I don't think Bob Gimlin has noticed he's been "eaten alive".

That last photo really convinced me that studying the PGF is like studying inkblots.

 

[LAL]

Let's see if this works. Click to activate.

 

[xblade]

Most significantly, though, was the fact that scientists at the University of British Columbia, who saw the original film....which contains more detail than the copies....withheld comment on whether they thought the subject was a man or a beast.

They couldn't tell what it was.

Here is one quote from back then....




Back in '67, Patty was....at the very least....ambiguous to such intelligent people.

And 'ambiguous' is no small achievement, when you consider that every suit you see*.....including the more 'deluxe' ones, such as this....






.....are always obviously a man in a suit. There is no ambiguity with them, whatsoever.



*Note: By "see" I mean... 'seen with detail comparable to the PG Film subject'.

They are "always obviously" men in suits because you know from the beginning that they are men in suits. If Patterson had filmed that suit instead of the one he did, you'd be arguing about how authentic it was too, and how obviously fake the Patty version is.

Patty is as obviously fake as any of them. It's just impossible to see it when you're so invested in her existence.

 

[xblade]

If he was supposed to have it back in two days, why did it take them so long to charge him?

Charges don't just occur automatically. The camera owner would actually have to report it. Who knows when that happened.

If failure to return something on time is theft, the library must think I'm a criminal.

They might.
ananova.com/news/story/sm_2977272.html

It's not that Patterson was a little late, I"ve read that he never returned the camera. I think that qualifies as theft, at least it does in my book.

 

[kitakaze]

including the more 'deluxe' ones, such as this....


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/Gsuit4a.jpg[/qimg]



.....are always obviously a man in a suit. There is no ambiguity with them, whatsoever.



*Note: By "see" I mean... 'seen with detail comparable to the PG Film subject'.

Please explain how you would know that the suit that you show filmed under the same conditions as the PGF would be obviously a man in a suit.

BTW, still waiting, Sweaty:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3965357#post3965357

 

[LAL]

Lu, could you please provide in full what Green states in his book about this?

I'll have to cite me from this thread for now. I seem to have left the book at work (at least I hope that's where it is).

"The original was examined by lab technicians at Canawest Films and was found not to have been tampered with. It was an original, not the product of any fakery in a lab and was a strip of film exposed in a camera and showing something that had walked in front of the lens (The Apes Among Us, pg.129)."

If that's not the actual wording it's at least very close. Thank you for asking so nicely.