Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

As far as I'm concerned, the case for Patty is rock solid.

Rock solid?

Heironimus was trying to sell his story for years, but he didn't get anywhere with it until Long bit.

Trying to sell? Can you demonstrate consistent attempts by Heironimus to tell his story for profit over a period of many years? It seems hardly objective and unbiased to take the fact that only one man has claimed to be in the suit and done so for years and imply that it shows a greed motive.

The man's proportions are normal human and he looks like a big teddy bear in the Morris suit.

Patty has human proportions even considering a suit. Why do you keep talking to me about Morris? You don't seem to be able to function without doing that.

If Patterson ever did film him for the documentary I'd guess he sidelined the film as unuseable.

Patricia Patterson has rolls of film Roger took. If by chance there's film of Bob in a suit there, it would be very interesting to compare it to the PGF. She has a master copy, BTW.

Master copy? You say that like it goes right over your head.

I want to study the PGF. The film is MIA. Problem? Yes or no.

You seem to have an emotional investment in converting me to your POV. Will it break your heart when I say it's not going to happen?

I believe you.

 

[kitakaze]

He says Roger was up on his (Bob's) horse and that's not problematic?

Can you give me a clear and concise explanation how this eliminates Bob's story?

No padding was used, huh? (Click to activate.)

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

When you know full well that it was stated the head piece was like an oldtime football helmet and that shoulder pads had been sowed into the suit for added bulk why would you ask the above question?

I love that capture, BTW. Heironimus' walk is a dead match.

 

[William Parcher]

He says Roger was up on his (Bob's) horse and that's not problematic?

No, it's not a problem. It would be a problem if he said Patterson was mounted on the horse for the entire filmed Patty scene. He didn't say that.

Patterson may be filming from horseback for the very first Patty scene in the PGF. This is when you can see the creek water and the uprooted tree next to the creek. Patty is off in the distance walking away. Then there is a sudden scene change where Patty is much closer and RP is obviously moving on foot.

BH could be revealing something that is really never talked about or speculated. For the first few seconds, Patterson is filming from the back of Heironimus' horse while intentionally shaking the camera.

 

[Correa Neto]

Radford's ten reasons...

On Radford's ten reasons

His ten reasons, in a nutshell, are actually only one: the absence of reliable evidence. There's no escape to this fact; the bigfeet are real claim is not backed by reliable evidence. Like the B-26, it has no visible means of support.

There's also a reminder that anedoctal evidence such as sighting reports are not reliable evidence (some footers will never this). He also speaks about how hoaxes are entangled within bigfootery. Regardless of the hopes tendered by some that part of the "evidence" presented by hoaxers may be good, every single bit of data suspected of being a hoax must be dumped if footers want to be taken seriously.

I just would like to make two comments.

The first is related to his statement on the absence of fossil creatures fitting bigfoot's description. Known fossil bipedal apes never reach the size bigfeet are said to be (with the exception of the controversial meganthropus) and gigantopithecus, despite being of the right size, probably was a knuckle-walker. But if you stick to ape-looking and bipedal or ape-looking and large, there are matches - but not in North America. Of course, this will bring us again to the methodology issue, but I shall skip this for now. One could even look towards large South American extinct monkeys (caipora genus, for example) while seeking support at the fossil register for unknown North American primates. Sure, this can be quite a stretch, but my point is that I think we can not actually say there's nothing like bigfeet in the fossil record. I think the correct thing to say is that there's an absence in North America and Asia near the Bering land bridge.

The second comment is related to the evidence level he is talking about. He is correct in his evaluation that the excuses for the absence of a body are flawed. Roads, disease, fights hunting, predators, accidents, etc. all the above can kill real animals. The alleged extreme acidity of PNW’s soils, intense scavenging, bigfeet burying their bodies, small numbers and other excuses require a very unlikely combination. Bigfeet should try the lotto since they are so lucky avoiding their carcasses to be found, but I digress. What I want to say is that if these critters were real, it is expected that evidence other than specimens would also be available, such as good quality footage or stills not suspected of being a hoax, DNA samples from blood, poop, hair, tissue, etc. Such pieces of evidence -obtainable from real animals- would be more than enough to take bigfootery out of the pit it is.

 

[tyr_13]

Dude? I'm female, son.

Dude is being used in this case as an exclamation, or a simple ejaculation and so your gender has no baring on it's use.

I'm also curious to the claim that Bob has a large profit motive. First and foremost, I take exception at the assumption that wishing to make money makes one a liar. If you can make money telling the truth so what? But in this case it seems that Bob isn't very good at making money from his story if that is his motive because he's been telling it for free.

The only way Bob makes money from it is if Bigfooters or Paterson pushes the film. If Paterson tries to make money from the film, then Bob can make some from his story.

If Patterson made a documentary with Bob in a suit, he should have shown it. Wouldn't it have supported his case? He could have said, "Here is bigfoot and here is a guy I filmed in a suit. See how they are different?" Too bad this isn't the case. Patterson didn't even mention it.

It is funny how bigfooters can pick apart Bob's story with semblances of logic can't apply any of that to Patterson's story or film. Why is that?

 

[Drewbot]

LAL-
The 'Dude...' reference, it is as TYR said and exclamation at your comment about the Skookum Cast hair flow patterns matching another set of Hair flow patterns in another state. It was meant to be read as though I was the 'Bud Light Dude Guy', listening to you claiming what you did about the hairflow patterns. And I responded to your claim as such.

 

[kitakaze]

If Patterson ever did film him for the documentary I'd guess he sidelined the film as unuseable.

Patricia Patterson has rolls of film Roger took. If by chance there's film of Bob in a suit there, it would be very interesting to compare it to the PGF. She has a master copy, BTW.

RP: "Yeah, I don't know, Bob G. This footage of Bob H is just no good. He doesn't look very Bigfooty. Isn't it great that we have this real footage of a Bigfoot?"

BG: "I need a nap."

If Patterson made a documentary with Bob in a suit, he should have shown it. Wouldn't it have supported his case? He could have said, "Here is bigfoot and here is a guy I filmed in a suit. See how they are different?" Too bad this isn't the case. Patterson didn't even mention it.

It is funny how bigfooters can pick apart Bob's story with semblances of logic can't apply any of that to Patterson's story or film. Why is that?

Dude.

 

[kitakaze]

Also, I know who put the hair on PATTY. He's still alive. But like Janos' widow he won't talk in public about this hoax. I've tried.

They cobbled together a hoax suit for a guy with a death sentence and now his widow gets whatever funds it brings in. To them that's just fine and that's how they plan on leaving it.

As we have seen in the case of Verne Langdon and the Minnesota Ice Man, Dfoot was privy to insider information regarding Hollywood involvement in a well known hoax. That information was confirmed at the source without any of Dfoot's involvement.

Based on that fact in conjunction with records of Patterson's travels, financial arrangements, and connections I have every reason to believe that Dfoot has insider information on a person involved in the fabrication of the Patty suit.

That person by Dfoot's telling does not wish to reveal themselves and nor can we hope for Dfoot to break professional bonds by revealing the identity of this person.

I personally am intrigued.

 

[Aepervius]

LAL I was refering to this above in the psot of diogene : [qimg]http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/billmiller13.gif[/qimg]
where you see the leg of the person of the left (mclarrin) beeing behind a mound of dirt, which is then again behind the tree whereas patty seem to be before the mound, behind the tree.

 

[William Parcher]

Sasquatch Research

John Green filming Jim McClarin walking in the same area that the Patterson subject walked through. In the overlay you can see the slight difference in perspective from where the camera angle was.

 

[RayG]

Who said they were scientists?

Are you kidding?

For years the BFRO promoted itself as the "Professional and amateur scientific researchers exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery", or "The only scientific organization probing the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery".

Scientist LeRoy Fish was a member of the BFRO skookum quest which listed its expedition objectives as:

• Track physical evidence of Sasquatch through spoor (tracks, hair, scat, discarded food/cache, views)
• Observe wildlife sound responses to high volume broadcast of purported Sasquatch recorded calls
• Test viability of using Infra-red thermal & starlight imagery as nighttime detection tools for wildlife
• Entice wildlife into favorable tracking conditions and possible observations by placing bait food items
• Attract Sasquatch to favorable tracking conditions and potential viewing by placing pheromone chips

Surely Dr. Fish was leading this scientific expedition, and he coordinated the scientific protocols and methods that were to be followed? Unless he left his scientist hat at home that day, because the BFRO didn't/doesn't actually engage in the pursuit of bigfoot using scientific methods and protocols, they merely have some scientists who are members, so they could flash that 'scientific' label around in an attempt to impress.

Well then what about other scientists who examined and were involved with the Skookum cast? Scientists like Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Swindler, Bambenek, Fahrenbach, and Sarmiento.

Surely some of them used scientific methods and protocols, right?

Drs. Meldrum and Swindler wrote up the cast for publication but the paper was rejected on grounds of "You can't tell anything from an imprint" or something like that (per Owen Caddy).

Call me skeptical, but I'd rather be shown a quote from the actual letter of rejection.

As long as science continues to turn a blind eye, the field trips are mostly in the hands of amateurs and amateurs make mistakes.

When has science turned a blind eye? Haven't scientists examined the Skookum cast, various hairs, DNA, the PGF, and footprints?

When people from widely separated parts of the country report the same details and those details hold up anatomically, it's difficult to ascribe it all to confabulation.

You mean like alien abductees and the descriptions they give of the 'greys'?

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

Ray, I think the alleged consistency of anatomical details is not actually that good in both cases (bigfeet and UFOnauts). Both only come after a significant amount of selection of eyewitnesses' reports and details from their descriptions and renderings. I think this homogeneity will only appear after biased data selection by someone who already has a preconceived idea of what bigfeet or UFOnauts look like.

Check this collage- it is composed by renderings and drawings from alleged CEIII/IV cases at UFOevidence.org; all these cases seem to be regarded by them as being good stuff. Some may be grey-like, but many others...

Now, this is a collage of bigfoot renderings (hopefully no copyrighted image seeped in). If it seems relatively homogeneous, note that four of them are linked somehow to the PGF and despite of this, there are significant differences between them.

The discrepancies would be even greater if the images at the following site (http://www.kentuckybigfoot.com/pictures.htm) were not copyrighted. So, I suggest you folks to look at them when comparing with the UFOnaut variety and thinking about the alleged homogeneity of bigfoot descriptions across North America. Basically the common links between bigfoot renderings are bipedal, wild and usually (but not always) hairy. It seems the alleged homogeneity between anatomical details, in both cases (bigfeet and UFOnauts) is not as good as some try to sell.

But even if these homogeneities were much better, so what? Both images (bigfeet and greys) are deeply rooted in pop culture and our imagination. It is no wonder that some similarity would exist. These images, BTW, are rooted but not static, check how UFOnaut imagery changed from the 50's to nowadays.

 

[JohnWS]

As we have seen in the case of Verne Langdon and the Minnesota Ice Man, Dfoot was privy to insider information regarding Hollywood involvement in a well known hoax.

Yes - after recently searching & filtering Dfoot's BFF posts I have just made a comment as such over there (word of Mr Langdon's posts rekindled my interest in posting on that site).

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Here's the source, AMM.

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

Thanks. I'll review this and post a response for you over in the Iceman thread.

That person by Dfoot's telling does not wish to reveal themselves and nor can we hope for Dfoot to break professional bonds by revealing the identity of this person.

I think I know who Dfoot is talking about. I'm not going to name names, but a careful read of this article should be of interest to you.

Now, this is a collage of bigfoot renderings (hopefully no copyrighted image seeped in).

One of them appears to have an itty-bitty copyright notice, but I can't tell which picture it belongs to due to the placement of the pictures. The big orange fella seems to be a Marvel comics character called "Sasquatch," who is presumably trademarked.

Oh, and does anyone have any information about the type of lens that Patterson used while filming the PGF?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Would it be possible for anyone here to isolate and post the separate "frames" used to make this .gif?

 

[LAL]

Rock solid?

Trying to sell? Can you demonstrate consistent attempts by Heironimus to tell his story for profit over a period of many years? It seems hardly objective and unbiased to take the fact that only one man has claimed to be in the suit and done so for years and imply that it shows a greed motive.

He wasn't he only one. Read Green.

Patty has human proportions even considering a suit.

Total BS.

Why do you keep talking to me about Morris? You don't seem to be able to function without doing that.

The reenactment was in a Morris suit. Did you want me to call it a Gemora suit instead?

Master copy? You say that like it goes right over your head.

She has a master copy. Is there something wrong with that? Dahinden had one too.

I want to study the PGF. The film is MIA. Problem? Yes or no.

There's a whole thread on where it might be on BFF. Check it out. It was getting scratched up the first day - of course copies were made. It's a wonder they didn't burn holes in it.

If you're looking for the part where BH takes off the suit and asks Roger for his money you're not apt to find it.

I believe you.

Will wonders never cease?

 

[LAL]

LAL-
The 'Dude...' reference, it is as TYR said and exclamation at your comment about the Skookum Cast hair flow patterns matching another set of Hair flow patterns in another state. It was meant to be read as though I was the 'Bud Light Dude Guy', listening to you claiming what you did about the hairflow patterns. And I responded to your claim as such.

I've never heard of the Bud Light Dude Guy. I did meet the Clydesdales at Hollywood Park.

I get taken for male a lot; I thought it had happened again.

It's not my claim. You do know who made the claim, don't you?

 

[rgann]

Would it be possible for anyone here to isolate and post the separate "frames" used to make this .gif?

AMM

Here you go.

Found this site that did it pretty quickly, UI is a bit wonky

http://gifworks.com/cgi-bin/gifworks.pl?com=transfer_open

Might come in handy in the future

Rick

 

[LAL]

Thanks. I'll review this and post a response for you over in the Iceman thread.

Did you miss my post where I said I do not want to get involved in another thread on JREF?

I dutifully listened to an hour and a half of Verne Langdon (did you happen to count how many times he said "crummy"? and explained he didn't mean crummy?) and I'd be very interested in getting Bill Munns' take on it.

So now Patty is bear hair and made in a costume shop. Geez.

 

[captain koolaid]

She has a master copy. Is there something wrong with that?

Whatever it is, it isn't the master edit. And not the developed rolls. How incredibly fortuitous that the camera Patterson used ensured that there would be no negative.

Dahinden had one too.

Really? He had a copy too? Good for Rene.

There's a whole thread on where it might be on BFF. Check it out. It was getting scratched up the first day

A copy was getting all scratched up? Damn.

- of course copies were made. It's a wonder they didn't burn holes in it.

In the original developed roll? It was likely subject to more than burnt holes. Just burnt, period.