Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"I'm a little confused here, could you please explain how would 4-way stretch furcloth could make the appearance of of an unusually short lower leg less likely?"

The legs are obviously heavily padded, and stretch fur is partially stretched already in it's neutral position (so it has some potential to stretch more one way and contract the other). The elastic tension may collapse the padding, and that makes distinguishing the joint bends through the padding harder. It introduces a variable into the equation which is not present in discussions about patty.

"As for the materials used to construct the suit, I might be able to ask the creator of the suit about that."

If the suit has been made in the last 20 years , I'd expect it is NFT's spandex-based stretch furcloth. If it's older, maybe not.

Also, do you have any measurements for your Poser model of the person in the Patty suit?

A Poser model has no "real dimensions", just proportions. To get real dimensions, you need to assign one measurement a real world number (like saying the figure is 6' tall) and then you can scale all the other body parts to that measurement through their proportions. But you must assign one number as your foundation. My particular research is focused on the proportions, not specific actual measurements.

Bill

 

[mangler]

AMM,

I know the estimates I’ve done many of the overlays, I also know there is nothing solid to base them on. The cameras position (X, Y, Z) plays such an important role. Obviously the Z factor (altitude in this case) is most critical in the X, Y, Z formula. This unknown variable controls height perspective it can create subject height where there is none. When we add the variables of heading, pitch and bank/roll to the formula it becomes obvious that there are no still or moving images that truly line up with any frame of the film. I believe there are three different subjects that we have used for comparison, as I recall the image, of which I believe is one of Dahindens kids comes the closest but IMO the creature could be as much as 7-9 inches taller than the subject in that image (how tall is Dahindens kid suppose to be?). Need I even go into camera lenses or what I believe to be distorted measures of distance?

Anyway my plan is to do three or four sets with maybe a hundred frames each. I’m starting at 7 feet and working my way down to six. I’m not willing to give up on Maffei yet, I’m going into this with a clean slate, I don’t know anything, and as all of you already know, I really don’t. I’ll model the poser off images of people where I know the height and weight so I can keep the C. index well within the limit I’ll also have good visual reference to work by.

Obviously, as I’m sure you are aware of there is more to this modeling than the basic visual BS but I wont bore everyone with the details until the project is etched in stone.


m

 

[William Parcher]

If Buck Maffei was Patty, I sure hope they drove him to the filmsite. He would have been a torturous burden for a horse to carry.

 

[LTC8K6]

Far be it from me to suggest it's been Photoshopped by someone wanting to hold the analysis up to ridicule.

If footers are photoshopping their own stuff, it's not our fault...

http://thebigfootshow.blogspot.com/2008/02/episode-3-owen-caddy.html

 

[LAL]

I recognize that you understand that Patty is dead, Heironimus is alive, and Bigfoot never existed but spite nominations are just silly.

What spite? I'm not the one having a hissy fit here. Aren't you glad I'm not a moderator on JREF? On most boards your post would have gotten you a warning, not a nomination.

Since both sides have used pictures from Bill Miller's article, I'll assume we've read it.

Here's an excerpt:

"Bob Heironimus – is he making it up as he goes?There are many instances concerning what Bob Heironimus tells us that make absolutely no sense at all. Critics have been quick to mention some of more obvious problems with Bob’s story. His description about the traveling up to the film site with Patterson and Gimlin is a farce to anyone who has actually been to Bluff Creek and made the trip for themselves.

Back in 1967, I could not imagine anyone making that 20 plus mile trip up the old logging road in less than 60 to 90 minutes depending on how hard and dangerously someone wanted to drive it. Yet Bob Heironimus claimed it to be a mere four to five mile ride.

Heironimus said to Greg Long, “There may have been more than one Bigfoot suit.” Is this not something that Heironimus would know if he was part of an elaborate hoax? Could it be that Heironimus was trying to cover himself for even though he never says it in the book … there were people who knew Bob Heironimus who had seen a fur suit in the trunk of his car at the Idle Hour Tavern.

More important is the time line in which it was seen. If I followed the story correctly, Bob Heironimus said that he saw the suit when Roger Patterson brought it out at Roger’s house and had Bob walk around in it in Patterson’s backyard. The next time Heironimus allegedly saw the suit was when Patterson and Gimlin had taken it to California where Bob said he then wore it for the movie. Heironimus also said that after he returned from Bluff Creek - the very next morning his mother seen the gorilla suit in the trunk of her car. While no one saw it happen - that suit was alleged to have been taken by Patterson and Gimlin later that same day and never seen again by Bob Heironimus.

Yet Les Johnson said that Bob Heironimus was telling a group of onlookers in the parking lot of the Idle Hour Tavern how he was going to fool everybody. According to Johnson, there was talk of such pranks all the time in the tavern by the Heironimus brothers. Johnson said, “The ‘monkey suit’ is what they called it. There’s four Heironimus boys. Bob. And Bill. Bill worked for me for a while. Then there’s Howard and Mike. The Idle Hour Tavern’s where we’d go to congregate, lie to each other, and tell these big stories and try to make out like we was really somethin’.”

Greg Long never pressed Heironimus to explain away the ‘monkey suit’ that Les Johnson said Bob carried around in his car well before the Patterson/Gimlin film came into existence, nor was Heironimus ever asked just how long had he been running around with such a ‘monkey suit’ in his car.

The only attempt Greg Long made at doing anything was to try and salvage some credibility for Heironimus by asking Bob if he had maybe stopped at the bar on the way back from California and told people about the suit. Long didn’t think about Les Johnson saying how Heironimus “was” going to fool everyone. That means the event hadn’t yet occurred.

Long also never did the math as presented by Heironimus to see if the 14 hour drive back to Washington would place him at the bar at a time when people could see the suit or hear Heironimus talking about it."

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

I'd like to know how you can consider Morris a fraud but not Heironimus.

 

[LAL]

If footers are photoshopping their own stuff, it's not our fault...

http://thebigfootshow.blogspot.com/2008/02/episode-3-owen-caddy.html

Thanks for the link. I'll have to clear out memory before I can download anything more, but you've saved me the trouble of asking Owen for details on his work.

BTW, where did you get the shot you posted? I still haven't found it on MQ and I've watched the show so many times now I think I have it memorized.

I know you were trying to be funny with the "sucking lemons" comment, but the shenanigans that go on on this board really distract from serious discussions.

I say this with no hope it will ever stop.

 

[William Parcher]

Gimlin only allows himself to be put in circumstances of interaction with people who regard him as an 'American Legend'. BTW WP, do you know of BG's and BH's last respective speaking engagements?

AFAIK...

Bob Gimlin:

Giants in the Mountains: The Search for Sasquatch, at Washington State Capital Museum, January 26, 2008. Gimlin's Q&A Part 1. Part 2.

Bigfoot Discovery Day II, Felton, California, August 9, 2008. I'm not sure if he gave a talk or was just a guest.


Bob Heironimus:

Bigfoot Live Radio Show (Tom Biscardi), March 14, 2007. Archived here.

X-Zone Radio Show (Rob McConnell), August 6, 2007.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... There's a lot more to that gait than a Groucho slouch.
.....

You and others keep saying that, but you keep ignoring that there are at most, six full strides, where the ( so called ) peculiarities of the gait can be observed.

There are never any frames where the ' wobbly ' knees can be observed from an angle that shows a full range of motion..

Hardly enough of a data set to come to any conclusions..

 

[LAL]

That is a major detail. It is consistent with the pattern we have of Patterson consistently enlisting the assistance of others around him to create the illusions that he was trying to acheive.

IOW, he used his friends and neighors in the documentary he was filming. I'm sure he would have preferred using Jay Silverheels as his faithful Indian companion, but he didn't have any money.

Is there anything about Roger Patterson's life you don't consider proof of a hoax?

John Napier calculated the MIM's IM index and came up with 88, the same figure Seindorf came up with for Patty. I think it's interesting these two possible unidentified hominid primates (or hoaxes if you prefer) had an australopithecine IM index in a time when nothing was known of australopiths below the jaw.

 

[RayG]

John Napier calculated the MIM's IM index and came up with 88, the same figure Seindorf came up with for Patty.

Come now LAL, shoddy science is no way to strengthen the case for bigfoot.

Calculated the IM index? Since an IM index is obtained by actual measurements: [(humerus + radius) x 100]/)femur + tibia), and no actual measurements of a sasquatch humerus, radius, femur, or tibia have ever been produced, the best anyone can do is a speculative guesstimate.

Unless of course you're using calculated to mean a rough estimate, in which case I'd be correct calculating the length of a football field as 109 yards.

RayG

 

[rockinkt]

Come now LAL, shoddy science is no way to strengthen the case for bigfoot.

Perhaps someone should remind Meldrum, Farenbach and Bindernagel of that as well.

I would love to see a system whereby you could be brought before your peers and loose your PhD for such obvious and stupifying errors in science.

 

[kitakaze]

IOW, he used his friends and neighors in the documentary he was filming.

And yet strangely one of those friends and neighbours from that so-called documentary, the owner of the horse on which Roger Patterson sits on the cover of Argosy magazine, came forward and implicated the man in a hoax.

I'm sure he would have preferred using Jay Silverheels as his faithful Indian companion, but he didn't have any money.

And the lack of self-awareness award goes to Lu. No, Roger Patterson was unable to find someone more authentic to create the fictional native tracker character for his documentary.

Is there anything about Roger Patterson's life you don't consider proof of a hoax?

For people who aren't invested in an irrational belief system regarding the PGF the things I've listed are far above sufficient.

John Napier calculated the MIM's IM index and came up with 88, the same figure Seindorf came up with for Patty. I think it's interesting these two possible unidentified hominid primates (or hoaxes if you prefer) had an australopithecine IM index in a time when nothing was known of australopiths below the jaw.

Yeah, right. The Patterson/Gimlin hoax and Minnesota Iceman gaff are really a couple of relict australopithecines. Lu, have you even listened to the Verne Langdon interview?

 

[kitakaze]

I'd like to know how you can consider Morris a fraud but not Heironimus.

Let's see, I'm supposed to consider Heironimus a fraud because...

Back in 1967, I could not imagine anyone making that 20 plus mile trip up the old logging road in less than 60 to 90 minutes depending on how hard and dangerously someone wanted to drive it. Yet Bob Heironimus claimed it to be a mere four to five mile ride.

Nearly forty years after the fact Heironimus has an inaccurate recollection of the distance travelled.

Heironimus said to Greg Long, “There may have been more than one Bigfoot suit.” Is this not something that Heironimus would know if he was part of an elaborate hoax?

Heironimus speculated about something he didn't have definite knowledge of.

More important is the time line in which it was seen. If I followed the story correctly, Bob Heironimus said that he saw the suit when Roger Patterson brought it out at Roger’s house and had Bob walk around in it in Patterson’s backyard. The next time Heironimus allegedly saw the suit was when Patterson and Gimlin had taken it to California where Bob said he then wore it for the movie. Heironimus also said that after he returned from Bluff Creek - the very next morning his mother seen the gorilla suit in the trunk of her car. While no one saw it happen - that suit was alleged to have been taken by Patterson and Gimlin later that same day and never seen again by Bob Heironimus.

People say they saw a suit in Heironimus' car.

Yet Les Johnson said that Bob Heironimus was telling a group of onlookers in the parking lot of the Idle Hour Tavern how he was going to fool everybody. According to Johnson, there was talk of such pranks all the time in the tavern by the Heironimus brothers. Johnson said, “The ‘monkey suit’ is what they called it. There’s four Heironimus boys. Bob. And Bill. Bill worked for me for a while. Then there’s Howard and Mike. The Idle Hour Tavern’s where we’d go to congregate, lie to each other, and tell these big stories and try to make out like we was really somethin’.”

Some guy named Les Johnson gave an anecdote of Heironimus being in a tavern parking lot speaking of involvement in a hoax.

Greg Long never pressed Heironimus to explain away the ‘monkey suit’ that Les Johnson said Bob carried around in his car well before the Patterson/Gimlin film came into existence, nor was Heironimus ever asked just how long had he been running around with such a ‘monkey suit’ in his car.

The only attempt Greg Long made at doing anything was to try and salvage some credibility for Heironimus by asking Bob if he had maybe stopped at the bar on the way back from California and told people about the suit. Long didn’t think about Les Johnson saying how Heironimus “was” going to fool everyone. That means the event hadn’t yet occurred.

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

Either Bill Miller or Les Johnson believe that Heironimus was in possession of the suit prior to the filming although the rationale is unclear.

Lu, if this is the best indictment you can bring against Heironimus, a cut and paste of a Bigfoot enthusiast article that depends much on Philip Morris' bogus claim for traction, than your position really has no hope. At this point that the PGF was a hoax involving Bob Heironimus is for me a near certainty. The only thing that your opposition is proving is that you've invested way too much belief in Bigfoot enthusiast deceptions and half-thruths. Do you really expect anyone not chained to the same beliefs as you to believe knowing what we now know about Patterson that he just got miraculously lucky? That even though he was the 'worst guy it could happen to' that it did and no one has been able to repeat the achievement after over forty years of constant searching with ever more sophisticated technology and greater manpower? Ludicrous. Totally and utterly ludicrous.

 

[Mad Hom]

I think it's interesting these two possible unidentified hominid primates (or hoaxes if you prefer) had an australopithecine IM index in a time when nothing was known of australopiths below the jaw.

No Lu what's interesting is that you draw any kind of Bleef reinforcement whatsoever from comparing two wildly speculative IM indexes to anything at all.

 

[Correa Neto]

I don't see any angels here:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Children_of_Lehi_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

He does cite Richard Dawkins.

Ken Miller wrote Finding Darwin's God and lectures on reconciling religion and science. He raised his daughters in his faith and calls himself a theist. Does this mean he's not credible when he speaks on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, the blood cascade and the evolution of the eye?

Last I heard, Catholics believe in angels.

Oh, you see no angels at Meldrum's article...

Tell me, how do you think the Book of Mormom was "revealed"?
Is it so hard to see that believing in the Book of Mormom implies on believing on how it was revealed?

I guess you have not missed the parts where Meldrum's belief in the whole completelly baseless and fantasious tale of preColumbian Jews and the historical reality of the Jewish patriarchs became evident. Oh, and do not forget the highly nonsensical story of how the Book of Mormon was revealed...

Found any article from Ken Miller defending similar nonsense?
If there is a single one, then, I will be forced to conclude, his reasoning, when it comes to faith and beliefs can be as clouded as Meldrum's.

In Meldrum's case, his defense of the Book of Mormon is, in my opinion, indicates that he accepts evidences of very low quality and rely on flawed and highly biased reasonings to back his beliefs. Note that this is also pretty evident, for example, at his paper on bigfoot footprints.

Once again, those who already tender a belief are more prone to embrace a new one.

 

[kitakaze]

No Lu what's interesting is that you draw any kind of Bleef reinforcement whatsoever from comparing two wildly speculative IM indexes to anything at all.

Madness, you and me both know that Bigfoot enthusiasts just like saying 'intramembral index', 'mid-tarsal break', etc. It just rolls out and gives them that squeaky Irish Spring clean science feeling. It's like the basic woo abuse of the word 'quantum'. They think if they just kinda lob it out there other people are going be too impressed to know what to do. Watch me do it:

That intramembral index is classic austrlopithecine through and through. Indubitably!

Oh man, give me a bushy white moustache, reading glasses, a pipe, put me on MonsterQuest with purple lighting behind me - it's over, pal.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One of the more astute members over at BFF just declared:

" No suit, No hoax .. "

That settles it for me. Let's go home..

Happy Labor Day everyone ...

 

[LAL]

Now this was good:

http://thebigfootshow.blogspot.com/2008/02/episode-3-owen-caddy.html

Thank you very much, Bill. I usually pass on blogradio, but that was worth my time this morning.

Owen explains exactly what process he used. The lines drawn were a vis ed for the audience at Pocatello. I have some other pics from another presentation that I can't post, but I understand what he was getting at with the MQ show. (All TV docs should be checked for accuracy. I had a ball with Exodus Decoded.)

The detail came out in the enhancements. It wasn't drawn in.

I don't think we can do this with Paint, Drew.

 

[kitakaze]

Oh, you see no angels at Meldrum's article...

Tell me, how do you think the Book of Mormom was "revealed"?

You know what would be funny? Some Bigfoot enthusiast out there giving someone the works on Bigfoot 'facts'. They're intramembral index and mid-tarsal breaking all over the place and then they drop a Meldrum reference. Right then the person stops them and says "wait a minute. Meldrum? Isn't that the guy who lectures about the historical veracity of the Book of Morman?" The footer is standing there blinking, no idea what the other person is talking about. "No, no. Meldrum, the anthropologist." Oh, that'd be a hoot.

Hey, wouldn't it be super to find out more about anthroplogist and Mormon scholar Jeff Meldrum's faith?:

At 17 years of age Joseph Smith Jr. said that an angel of God, named Moroni, appeared to him[4] and told him that a collection of ancient writings, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets, was buried in a nearby hill called Cumorah in Wayne County, New York. This ancient record is believed to describe a people whom God had led from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere 600 years before Jesus’ birth. Moroni was the last prophet among these people and had buried the record, which God had promised to bring forth in the latter days. Smith called the language written on the golden plates Reformed Egyptian.[5] Smith stated that he was instructed by Moroni to meet at the hill annually each September 22 to receive further instructions and that four years after the initial visit he was allowed to take the plates and was directed to translate them into English.[6]

In addition to Smith's account regarding the plates, eleven others signed affidavits that they saw and handled the gold plates for themselves. Their written testimonies are known as The Testimony of Three Witnesses[7] and The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.[8] These affidavits are published as part of the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon.

Smith enlisted the help of his neighbor Martin Harris (later one of the Three Witnesses), who mortgaged his farm to underwrite the printing of The Book of Mormon. Harris, prompted by his wife, Lucy Harris, consistently requested that Smith relinquish the current pages that had been translated. Smith reluctantly relented to Harris' requests. Lucy Harris is thought to have stolen the first 116 pages.[9] Smith recorded that he had lost the ability to translate for a time and that Moroni took back the plates at this time and that they would not be returned unless Smith repented.[10][11][12][13] Smith later stated that that God allowed him to resume translation, but directed that he begin translating another part of the plates. Smith then says he returned the plates to Moroni upon the publication of the book.[11][14].

Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that the book was either the original creation of Joseph Smith (with or without the assistance of one or more of his associates),[15][16][17][18][19][20] was based on a prior work such as View of the Hebrews,[21][16][17] or was plagiarized in part from an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding.[22][23][24] For a few followers of the LDS movement, unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence have led them to adopt a compromise position that the Book of Mormon may be the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was nevertheless created through divine inspiration.[25] Most of the LDS movement believe Joseph Smith's position that it is a literal historical record[26].

Really? Well, surely 'voice of reason' Meldrum wouldn't believe such things without solid historical background.

From the section titled 'Historicity':

Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account, although unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon, though inspired, may not be a literal historical record.[25] Most outside the LDS movement do not consider it accurate, and the majority opinion is that it is contradicted by scientific and archaeological research, virtually all of which has been conducted since the book's publication. The following are the principal areas where historical and scientific criticism are focused:

The lack of any correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.[63]
References to animals, plants and technologies in the Book or Mormon that did not exist in pre-Columbian America.[64]
The lack of any linguistic connection between any Native American language or language family and any Near Eastern language or language family.[65]
The absence of any DNA evidence linking Native Americans with descendants of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon

For anyone interested in criticisms of the book that Meldrum lectures on the historical veracity of and the Mormon faith in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

 

[Mad Hom]

One of the more astute members over at BFF just declared:

" No suit, No hoax .. "

That settles it for me. Let's go home..

Happy Labor Day everyone ...

Hah...well one good turn deserves another....No Body,No Bigfeetsus.

What's funniest though about this Rank-N-File Tru Bleever's "No Suit" exclamation is that all we ask for is A Body....I mean given that Bigfeetsus seem to roam freely from the Purple Mountains Majesty to the Amber Waves of Grain A body should prove far easier to produce than what they require of us.....which is The exact suit...a suit roughly 40 years old that has probably long been destroyed...although I speculate that it's probably in the Widow Patterson's attic but I digress....

Bigfeetsus are dropping dead all over the country all the time...and new ones replace the dead ones all the time. A healthy breeding population should number in the low thousands...yet they have exactly NO bodies to date....and we are supposed to find THE suit. A suit by the way which has many many reasons why certain people would'nt want it found.

Sure seems fair to me.