Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Drewbot]

You said Bullet has nothing to do with the running of the MABRC and is just a member but wasn't he listed as not only a senior researcher but also co-founder? One gets the impression that the MABRC represents him and vice versa. By your response you sound as though you also don't believe his tales. I can't help but wonder if you've been privy to information that contributes to your apparent skepticism of Bullet tales.

She had better not have any information, because she let me HANG in a thread he started over there. No one backed me up and my criticisms got deleted.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...I dunno, I think Patty looks pretty Erectus-like. I wonder if part of the reason for the claims that Patty looks apelike is due to the depictions of prehistoric humans as "ape-men" at the time. William Parcher once posted an excellent Frank Franzetta magazine cover that illustrated this nicely (and bore a resemblence to Patty).

Well, it boils down, I think, to personal perceptions. I think Patty's body is just too bulky (especially the lower body) for an erectus-like being. As for the face, if I take in to account just PGF images, it looks gorilla-like. But then I remember the Wa Chang mask and M.K. Davis's enhanced versions and tend to go towards something more erectus-like. The images are just too blurry, I think, to say something with a reasonable ammount of certanity.

I posted these previously; the first is an early "pithecantropus" rendering, while the second are outdated artistic renderings of neanderthals. All of them would be available for Patterson and anyone else (such as alleged bigfoot contactees) to serve as templates for their wild apemen (or women).

As for size, well its no wonder that people would think about giant apemen. Even nowadays there are relics of the "pre historic = giant" thinking. Not to mention that back in the XIX century some really thought "primitive humans" could have reached giant size.

 

[LTC8K6]

Bob Heronimous in 1967 was fairly lean and would have needed padding to bulk up even the thinner Patterson drawings. Or they got a fat actor which rules out Bob H.

So what? I am not a subscriber to the idea that BH was in the suit. Nor do I feel any need to figure out who might have been wearing the suit.

Patty remains, by default, a human in a suit, until shown to be a real creature. So far, there is zero evidence that Patty is a real creature, so myself and science will have to stick with the default position.

Bob is round shouldered.

Just like Patty...

 

[LAL]

Then I am not sure how you can verify if Noll was correct. Again, this is a matter of you blindly parroting what others state. Is that all you do?

He posted it on BFF where other members do know trig and no one called him on it. I followed it as best I could, but as far as I got in math was HS geometry, and about all I remember of that is that the square on the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. It wasn't much help.

Again, you are blindly parroting the storyline.

Since when is citing people who have done the work "parroting"? The error could swing in a direction that makes it more apelike.

It is obvious that you are not being scientific. Using words like "stupid" demonstrates you are not even interested in opposing arguments or other possibilities. So much for bigfoot proponents being "open-minded". Meanwhile, I will try and keep an open mind and reserve the minute possibility that bigfoot might actually turn up.

Don't go stereotyping proponents because I used a word I changed twice before I decided to let it stand. I saw the film on a big screen in a theater in Portland, Oregon, in 1974, and that naturally moving figure looks nothing, nothing, nothing like a man in a suit. I've tried hard to imagine it's something else, but my mind just doesn't work that way.

I don't think referring to the suit arguments as "stupid" is nearly as bad as some of the things that have been said about proponents on this board. I usually keep my cool, but "stupid" seemed to express what I was trying to say as well as anything. Don Post masks? Mysterious costume makers? Guys built like Andre the Giant? Come ON.

Perhaps I should have said "untenable" but I didn't think of it in time.

I'm not being scientific because I'm not a scientist, okay? Has anyone around here been saying proponents are "open minded"?

 

[LAL]

She had better not have any information, because she let me HANG in a thread he started over there. No one backed me up and my criticisms got deleted.

I have no control over that. DW does not permit a JREF attitude on his board and he does the deleting. I do not do the moderating in Bullet's Den because it's better handled by others, due to a situation you know nothing about. You were not the only one out of line on that thread and darkwing noted that. I didn't see your comments until they were in the trashcan.

I went to bat on the other matter for you. I started a thread in an area you can't see and asked for a reevalution of the pictures in question. It may knock your socks off to know I agree with you - there's nothing there. (Try the paradolia test on paintballers in the bushes, too, though, okay?)

Kitakaze, Bullet is listed as a MABRC Organizational Member, that's all. He's not a co-founder. Senior Researcher is just a title, like Master Poster or Illuminator, and he does not have that title.

I'm going to ask both of you to knock it off about MABRC now. It's off topic and I'm not going to be plastering MABRC information all over JREF.

If you have questions, PM me.

 

[SweatyYeti]

mangler wrote:

Sweaty,

Lets put on our common sense caps ok.


Now please explain to me why this couldn’t possibly be the subjects shadow cast upon a high piece of substrate/earth

Sure. Apparently you weren't wearing yours' earlier, mangler.


Here is how we can know that that apparent foot movement is definitely not a shadow of Patty's head.


In this animated-gif of Patty's left foot....we can see exactly the same foot movement that we see with Patty's right foot....

In both gifs, Patty's feet start out level, or parallel, with the ground...and then, either the front half of the foot, or just the toes, lift upward.


So....I'm sorry to report, mangler....it is the front part of Patty's feet that we see moving upwards just before her foot hits the ground completely........not the shadow of her head.

This is surely a major disappointment for you, since you chose....based on your belief system....to concoct a ridiculous explanation, rather than just taking a close look at the film, and seeing the obvious for yourself.



Any other foolish alternate explanations out there......something other than the SIMPLE truth?

 

[SweatyYeti]

From this article....

"Rossiter: Bigfoot mystery at Sandy Creek":


http://onlineathens.com/stories/090608/liv_328979840.shtml


......an interesting line...

"We think it's fun from kind of a natural science standpoint," said Randy Smith, the facility supervisor.

"Why couldn't there be one (Bigfoot)? We're kind of arrogant to say we know everything."

He's talking about William Parcher, there.....I'm guessing.


And another quote:

"I don't see any reason why there can't be," said Berkeley Boone, a naturalist who helped put together the exhibit. "It would be fun and add a lot to science."

I agree with him....there is no reason that would make Bigfoot's existence implausible.

 

[Crowlogic]

That is your opinion based on...? Tell me, what are the measurements of BH's current midsection and Patty's midsection?

I'm not particularly troubled by that. You seem to fail to understand that the strength of the circumstantial has little to do with his word or memory. Three points of contact in '67 to Patterson and Gimlin and the PGF. Four people on record stating they saw a suit in his car. Ongoing friendship with Gimlin. Gimlin took legal action against Patricia Patterson but not Heironimus. Heironimus' walk matches Patty. Heironimus passed a polygraph test (yes, I know what little that means). All of this circumstantial and none of it based on BH's word or memory.

Would you like to try again?[/QUOTE

Bob may have decided to cash in on the circumstantial evidence.

 

[mangler]

Go with the Duck Feet sweaty, it suits you.


m

 

[tyr_13]

Bob may have decided to cash in on the circumstantial evidence.

Well a couple of things wrong with that. First of all, Bob isn't cashing in very well now is he if he is telling his story for free. Second, if wanting money invalidates Bob's word, it invalidates Patterson's and Gimlin's as well. Third, his deciding to 'cash in' would in no way change that evidence.


As for the claim that it is a real foot because it bends, again I say, fake feet bend.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Since when is citing people who have done the work "parroting"? The error could swing in a direction that makes it more apelike.

"parroting" IMO is somebody who repeats arguments without understanding them. So far, you just repeat things you have read in bigfoot forums without demonstrating you understand anything behind them. It is all based on your will to believe than verifying what is said is accurate.

Don't go stereotyping proponents because I used a word I changed twice before I decided to let it stand. I saw the film on a big screen in a theater in Portland, Oregon, in 1974, and that naturally moving figure looks nothing, nothing, nothing like a man in a suit. I've tried hard to imagine it's something else, but my mind just doesn't work that way.

Your choice of words and not mine. I could easily have resorted to saying how something is stupid but try and refrain from doing so. Maybe if you showed some restraint, then you would be able to explain yourself better. As for seeing the original film on "the big screen" back in 1974, what does that mean. I have shown, as well as others, that plenty of fx guys, who have viewed the film state it looks like a guy in a suit. Call them biased or call them "stupid" if you like but, in their opinion, it looked like a guy in a suit. My guess is if you showed the film to scientists/anthropologists with no previous opinion, they would probably say it looks like a guy in a suit. In fact, here is a quote from one of the original scientists (Warren Houck,vertabrae anthropologist at Humbold Stae College at Arcata) who viewed the film in Vancouver:

"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."

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

Now this is a guy who got to run the film backwards and forwards. You got to see it in one sitting in 1974 and made the conclusion it was not a guy in a suit. Seems to me, that you need to reconsider your opinion. This was a guy who is a trained expert in anthropology and he drew the impression it looked like a guy in a suit. Is he "stupid"?

I'm not being scientific because I'm not a scientist, okay?

Just because a person is not a qualified scientists doesn't mean they can not apply scientific methods. There are plenty of informative things on the web besides bigfoot stories you know. Some are very good at explaining scientific methodology. I would think that anyone who is interested in researching bigfoot would try and take a scientific approach. As an amateur astronomer, I can understand how the pros work and approaches they take. I am not a professional and am far from it. However, I definitely read and inform myself on the subject and how to assist in some of the areas I can help (mostly meteors and occultations).

Has anyone around here been saying proponents are "open minded"?

This is usually a phrase reserved by proponents for skeptics/debunkers. They like to refer to them as close-minded because they are not open to possibilities. The truth is that Skeptics/debunkers are open-minded but to a point. Provide good evidence (i.e. body or good physical evidence) and you can change a skeptic/debunker's mind. However, proponents will not accept the possibility that bigfoot may not exist. Excuses are made. Like, "The reason bigfoot bodies are not found is because they decay too fast or the vast wilderness hides them". This rejects the fact that in all of recorded US history, there are no reliable reports of bodies being found. With the expansion of the population into more remote areas, Bigfoot continues to evade detection. Therefore, for 40 years the sole piece of evidence that "Bigfoot" actually exists is this film. A film shot under suspect conditions and, in the opinion of some independent experts (I would say a majority but I don't have any numbers to back that up), appears to be a guy in a suit.

 

[Crowlogic]

Well a couple of things wrong with that. First of all, Bob isn't cashing in very well now is he if he is telling his story for free. Second, if wanting money invalidates Bob's word, it invalidates Patterson's and Gimlin's as well. Third, his deciding to 'cash in' would in no way change that evidence.
B]

You say that Bob didn't cash in very well but you're looking at it with 2020 hindsight. At the time Bob first decided to go public whether real or fake he had no way of knowing of how well he'd cash in. He may have thought there would be some money in it more than its turned out.

 

[captain koolaid]

From this article....

"Rossiter: Bigfoot mystery at Sandy Creek":

http://onlineathens.com/stories/090608/liv_328979840.shtml

I agree with him....there is no reason that would make Bigfoot's existence implausible.

"It's a really fascinating story," Davis said. "There were all these stories about these strange fish. Smart, sciency people didn't believe

Real heavyweight types there. "Naturalist" huh? That's basically anyone who picks a flower, then gives it some thought. Sounds like the Sandy Creek Nature Centre is a virtual hotbed of serious scientificky type discourse. Especially amongst the Footers...

"Could an undiscovered ape live in Georgia?"

That's what naturalists at Sandy Creek Nature Center are asking those who dare slip into the corner of its interpretive science area, where one exhibit challenges conventional thoughts on, you guessed it, Bigfoot.

"We think it's fun from kind of a natural science standpoint," said Randy Smith, the facility supervisor. "Why couldn't there be one? We're kind of arrogant to say we know everything."

Hell yeah! Those sciencey people think they're so clever, with their fancy degrees, and high falutin' titles. Bah!

An "Interpretive Science Area"? This is a real Science thing, yes? Not just a side-show for Footery?...

Part of the encased-glass display includes a bottle of Sierra Nevada's Bigfoot beer, a movie poster for "Harry and the Hendersons" and a reference to a popular television advertisement for beef jerky titled "Messin' with Sasquatch." The takeaway line: "Feed your wild side"

Dude! I wonder if the Shroud of Bluff Creek will be on display?...

What the center is encouraging, however, is visitors feed their minds. Camouflaged material, life-size cutouts, leaves and tree shrubs provide the display's backdrop. Replica footprint casts of those collected by credible scientists as well as images isolated from the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film are presented as possible evidence.

Check! The PGF! "Credible scientists" ... Sweet! No way would this be linked to assorted Footery figures, and their pet projects though, right?...

"In the same vein is a photo taken of a model developed from actual fossil finds from Southeast Asia named Gigantopithecus blacki. And yes, the replica looks a lot like what we perceive today as a Bigfoot."

Awesome! I feel totally confident that this interactive Interpretive Sciencey thing is not a fluff promo...

But what most captivates visitors, Boone said, is the chart relative to Georgia. All sightings reported to Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization are referenced.

There is only one sighting listed for Athens-Clarke, according to the organization's Web site, www.bfro.net.

Represent!

"Could an undiscovered ape live in Georgia?"..."I don't see any reason why there can't be," said Berkeley Boone,

Apart from not having really given it much thought? "Berkeley Boone"? (*snigger*)

 

[tyr_13]

You say that Bob didn't cash in very well but you're looking at it with 2020 hindsight. At the time Bob first decided to go public whether real or fake he had no way of knowing of how well he'd cash in. He may have thought there would be some money in it more than its turned out.

And my other two points about that? Nothing on those?

So you believe that Patternson's and Gimlin's words are invalid because they stood to profit? That would be the logical conclusion based on your line of reasoning would it not?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

However, proponents will not accept the possibility that bigfoot may not exist.

I certainly can accept the possibility that Bigfoot may not exist......since undeniable, hard proof of it's existence has yet to be provided by anyone.

Stated a little differently.....

I don't know that Bigfoot exists....until it's proven to exist.



And by the very same token....(just the opposite side)...

I don't know that Bigfoot doesn't exist....until it's proven not to exist.

 

[Crowlogic]

And my other two points about that? Nothing on those?

So you believe that Patternson's and Gimlin's words are invalid because they stood to profit? That would be the logical conclusion based on your line of reasoning would it not?

I have nothing against the idea of Patterson or Gimlin seeking profit. But Bob Gimlin has been a known quantity since the film was made. Bob Heronimous on the other hand was in complete obscurity for over there decades. Rather odd that it took him that long to blow the whistle.

 

[Crowlogic]

Since the idea that Patterson and Gimlin had Chico Bob H's horse at Bluff Creek which has raised suspecions about whether Bob H was there I'll pose this question. How do we know that the horse everyone assumes is Bob H's Chico was actually Bob H's horse at all? What proof do we have that the photo where Bob H is shown on a horse thought to be his was in fact his horse?

 

[SweatyYeti]

captain koolaid wrote:

Sounds like the Sandy Creek Nature Centre is a virtual hotbed of serious scientificky type discourse.

Here's an excellent example of what you're talking about, Captain.......serious scientific thinking......

Go with the Duck Feet sweaty, it suits you.

After mangler's make-believe analysis of Patty's foot-movement....(his "Head shadow theory").....was mangled, and trashed.....he responds with another bit of solid scientific thought...

"It's duck feet".

 

[LAL]

"parroting" IMO is somebody who repeats arguments without understanding them. So far, you just repeat things you have read in bigfoot forums without demonstrating you understand anything behind them. It is all based on your will to believe than verifying what is said is accurate.

Would you mind going back and reading all my posts on this forum?

I know what an interscye measure is because I looked it up. You might want to read this from a bigfoot forum:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13157&mode=threaded

If you're going to use Daegling (did you know he was once Jeff Meldrum's roommate?) at least look at the rebuttals.

My conviction stems from events in Skamania County Washington in 1969 - nothing to do with the PGF or John Green's books or the Internet (which wasn't around at the time). Having lived in a PNW forest, I can tell you that's one of the last places you'd expect to find a body - of anything!

Sure the costume guys took a look and dismissed the film (with the notable exception of Janos Prohaska) as a guy in a suit. So did scientists who seemed to have a problem with hairy breasts and and saggital crests on females.

You also have Bill Munns (have you listened to the interview yet?) doing some actual research which is something Stan Winston apparently didn't do. In Russia, Nikita Lavinsky, who was a sculptor and expert on human anatomy and costume concluded the filmed subject was by no means a man in a suit. So did the Russian biomechanics experts. Dr. Krantz' s conclusion was quite different than Houck's and he wrote chapters on why.

(Note to self: Stop telling creationists they're "parroting" when they copy and paste from AiG.)

....40 years the sole piece of evidence that "Bigfoot" actually exists is this film...

That isn't true.

They've been looking for the Higgs boson for 40 years too and haven't found it yet. Of course, it's a little smaller.....................

 

[LTC8K6]

In both gifs, Patty's feet start out level, or parallel, with the ground...and then, either the front half of the foot, or just the toes, lift upward.


So....I'm sorry to report, mangler....it is the front part of Patty's feet that we see moving upwards just before her foot hits the ground completely.......

Somebody tell Jeff Meldrum.