• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
xblade said:
Charges don't just occur automatically. The camera owner would actually have to report it. Who knows when that happened.



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.
Click to expand...

Then you read wrong.

"Patterson's expensive 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17 (Long, 167). This charge was ultimately dismissed after Patterson returned the camera in good working order. (Long, 169)" -Wikipedia

So, the charge was dismissed and Roger was not convicted of any theft, even according to Long, so why continue to call him a thief? Five months (dates were given in the story LTK posted) is seriously overdue, but it's not "never".
 
LAL said:
Then you read wrong.

"Patterson's expensive 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17 (Long, 167). This charge was ultimately dismissed after Patterson returned the camera in good working order. (Long, 169)" -Wikipedia

So, the charge was dismissed and Roger was not convicted of any theft, even according to Long, so why continue to call him a thief? Five months (dates were given in the story LTK posted) is seriously overdue, but it's not "never".
Click to expand...
Technically, perhaps, since the charges were dropped, we cannot conclude that he was a thief. On the other hand, if, as it appears, he returned the camera only after charges were filed, it's not unreasonable to conclude that he was at the very minimum not behaving very well!
 
Now Lu wants to refer to Long's book! :D

Bring the camera back or you'll be arrested...

Yes, that speaks well of Roger...

Roger is a thief, who returned the camera only under threat of arrest.

Warrants are not issued lightly. You have to show good cause to a judge to get one.
 
Ok this image posted my Lu has once again coaxed me back into everyone's favorite Bigfeetsus thread....well that and that whole Georgia Hoax thing...but anyway....

bigfeetsus.png


I inserted a smaller version of what I always thought was Bigfoot Fan's "vision" of the face of Patty...allegedly.

Lu's version seems to show a faint frown and a less bulbous schnozz...the insert? yeah not so much...so I guess my question of the Bleevers is...

Which bill of goods would you have the Non-Bleevers buy??

The frowny,gorillla lilla lilla la looking Bigfeetsus or the Don Post mask looking Bigfeetsus??
 
LAL said:
..... so why continue to call him a thief? ..
Click to expand...

Oh, how about the $700 he stole from Velma Radford ?

How about all the money he stole from would be ' Bigfoot Club '; members, who never received their goods ?

There is much more .. Since you are reading Long's book and sourcing it, you have the info close at hand..

Roger Patterson was a thief .
 
Last edited:
Lu,

I would go to the trouble to actually isolate the frames that show Patterson moved toward the creature after the ' look ', but you would never concede the point; so I am not going to bother ..

Hang in there ..
 
Remember, according to many a footer, Bob Hieronimus is the bad guy; he is the only one who deserves to be called a liar, for example... Patterson and Gimlim are above any suspect.
 
Mad Hom said:
Lu's version seems to show a faint frown and a less bulbous schnozz...the insert? yeah not so much...so I guess my question of the Bleevers is...

Which bill of goods would you have the Non-Bleevers buy??

The frowny,gorillla lilla lilla la looking Bigfeetsus or the Don Post mask looking Bigfeetsus??
Click to expand...


It's not my version. It's a capture from the Monster Quest episode wherein Owen Caddy and Dr. Daris Swindler examined the digital microscope shots of John Green's copy. (The scriptwriters had it the original, but that was incorrect.)

Ever since Robert Morgan found a chimplike critter in a tree and I found Bullwinkle, I've had my doubts about color separations on the PGF. I prefer the full color shot from the digital microscope. I think it's more accurate. Not everyone agrees with me.

I think the shot I presented fits Roger's description of "the look" better than Bruce Bonney's color separation and Pete Travers' dreamy Patty sketchover. If not afraid, she nevertheless did not look pleased.

Still up to creative insulting 101, I see. Glad you haven't changed, mad one.
 
Diogenes said:
Lu,

I would go to the trouble to actually isolate the frames that show Patterson moved toward the creature after the ' look ', but you would never concede the point; so I am not going to bother ..

Hang in there ..
Click to expand...

I isolated one right after the look and one before and after the big smear. I see sideways motion as she's going into the trees (note the fallen log), but not closer based on the size of the trees. I don't haver a .gif anmator on me right now, but did take the trouble to post a short video of the section in question so people can judge for themselves.

Gosh, we may have caught John Green in a bit of literary license. Of course it could be Roger didn't remember sidling right after that and just remembered being nervous. I've read he said she looked back at him three times, once before the filming. One we see, and the other could be during the times he didn't have her on camera. The running after her certainly stopped.

Bayanov saw the film Dahinden brought to Russia. He and Igor Bourtsev retained a copy for further study.

Long's book has quite a list of people who sued Roger for those who are interested in that sort of thing. Why concentrate on Vilma Radford? DeAtley evidently kept a grip on the purse strings. Roger may have had intent to pay or he could have been a deadbeat, but that doesn't mean he was a hoaxer.

The Darwin-was-a-racist style arguments don't impress me much. Roger himself said he was the worst guy this could happen to. Dahinden said to look at the (censored) film: is it real?
 
Drewbot said:
LAL do you have any other frames in that form? I'd like to look at them
Click to expand...

Yes, but they're home in the laptop (I'm on a lunch break from class). I can even post a clip now that I have a video editor, but I think you can find the whole episode on YouTube.
It's MQ: Bigfoot, posted by RetardRyan.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Actually....none of them are realistic. Isn't that right, AMM?
Click to expand...

When you say "none of them," do you mean the Thing and Hulk or do you mean all the costumes on that page? Just off the top of my head, I think the Spider-Man, Spider-Woman, and Darth Vader suits look great, especially considering that they were designed to entertain children. And we all know how important realism is in Bigfoot research...

tsig said:
Just rent a plane with IR.
Click to expand...

Biscardi and Marx tried that (along with "psychics").

LAL said:
Long's book has quite a list of people who sued Roger for those who are interested in that sort of thing. Why concentrate on Vilma Radford? DeAtley evidently kept a grip on the purse strings. Roger may have had intent to pay or he could have been a deadbeat, but that doesn't mean he was a hoaxer.
Click to expand...

Wellm the fact that we've got a scan of the Radford contract nicely backs up the claim and prevents any claims that Long bribed people to trash-talk Patterson. It also deflects potential claims that Roger Patterson wasn't the sort of person who'd lie or otherwise be dishonest and untrustworthy.

Roger himself said he was the worst guy this could happen to.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of how Bill Meier (allegedly) said that space aliens told him that special effects artists would one day be able to duplicate his UFO photographs and films, a hilarious bit of butt-covering by Mr. Meier.

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

You misunderstand. I'm talking about people in the 60's being able to ask the question being asked now while the "trail" was fresh and the film didn't have the time to gather its loyal following.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Missed a few quotes there Sweaty:


Roger Patterson, whose Sasquatch film clip caused skepticism in academic circles here Thursday night, say he hopes to find some scientists brave enough to help him hunt for the legendary creature.
The Yakima, Wash., photographer said in an interview Friday he was disappointed that of all those who saw the jumbled, 20--second movie, there wasn't one who "had the guts" to go out and search for the elusive "Bigfoot".


STILL HOPEFUL ABOUT 'BIGFOOT' HUNT
Brandon Sun Brandon, Manitoba October 30, 1967

Apparently, he felt the scientists were not convinced by his film, although Warren Houck, a vertabrae anthropologist at Humbold Stae College at Arcata, was quoted as saying he was not going to call it a hoax and did not know what he saw.
A different reporter interviewed Houck and he wrote a slightly different take:

I walked with Houck, 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 suite."
Houck is a scientific man.
"The creature walked on the balls of its feet like a man. No ape walks that way." Houck could not see the features of the creature, could not see the pendant breasts that Patterson described when he identified the animal as a female.
"It had a flat face with a crest, like a male gorilla. It looked like a male animal," Houck said.

Abominable Woodsman? California 'Monster' sought
Independent Star-News Pasadena California November 5, 1967

Note he says it was a copy that he saw. Therefore, they did not see the original. They did not call it a hoax but they certainly were not convinced it was a bigfoot.
 
LAL said:
It's not my version. It's a capture from the Monster Quest episode wherein Owen Caddy and Dr. Daris Swindler examined the digital microscope shots of John Green's copy. (The scriptwriters had it the original, but that was incorrect.)

Ever since Robert Morgan found a chimplike critter in a tree and I found Bullwinkle, I've had my doubts about color separations on the PGF. I prefer the full color shot from the digital microscope. I think it's more accurate. Not everyone agrees with me.

I think the shot I presented fits Roger's description of "the look" better than Bruce Bonney's color separation and Pete Travers' dreamy Patty sketchover. If not afraid, she nevertheless did not look pleased.

Still up to creative insulting 101, I see. Glad you haven't changed, mad one.
Click to expand...

Seems as if Bigfoot Nation is split than in terms of what they see while staring longingly into Patties blurry Piehole.

If you ask me one looks like a Don Post Studios Mask (Dfoot posted a shot of a mask thirty leven hundred pages ago that was the spitting image of this color seperation business...which of course I can't find..D';oh!?!?) and the other looks like Fun with Photoshop 301.

As for me when I gaze into Pattie's fuzzy over zoomed grill I see this...

bigfeetsus2.png


Which IMHO looks quite a bit closer to the Don Post Mask....errr.....color seperation version. Note the large white area that looks like a huge honker and the fairly defined lip area...but that's neither here nor there the important thing here is...

Bigfoot Nation apparently doesn't even agree on what Patty actually looks like do they?

Sort of like when a group of people stare at clouds....one sees a rabbit with an eye patch chewing a cigar, the other sees Dom Deloise's navel.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Dahinden said to look at the (censored) film: is it real?
Click to expand...

No "it" isn't. Not a real master. Any performance by an actor on the copies is meaningless without the "real" film. Not rotating knees, lumpy legs, none of it. Roger Patterson = Billy Meier. No master... no cigar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom