Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

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".

Here's a foot for you, Sweaty:

Don't use it on kitekaze, though. He doesn't believe in Morris suits.

 

[LAL]

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.

Here's that "anecdote" again:

".....I recently had spoken to a man named William DeHollander who had some information that seemed to explain the true motive behind Heironimus's claim. It seems that DeHollander's wife worked at Central College University and had become friends with a woman named Denise Coffey. When William had first heard that an unnamed Yakima man was saying that he was involved in the Patterson/Gimlin film taken at Bluff Creek in 1967, DeHollander asked Denise if she had heard the story coming out of Yakima? (William had known that Denise was from Yakima and maybe had already heard about this mystery man.) Denise looked at William DeHollander and rolled her eyes and said you must be talking about Bob Heironimus. Denise went on to tell William that her husband (Neil), Bob Heironimus, and Barry Woodard use to sit around at her house and drink and tell stories. Denise had heard the guys laughing and going on how funny it would be if Heironimus told everyone that he was the guy in a monkey suit in the Bigfoot film that Roger Patterson shot in Northern California. They talked about how much they could sell such a story to the “Sun” newspaper for. The Sun is a type of tabloid newspaper and the price Denise remembered them talking about getting was $50,000. DeHollander placed the time of Denise telling him about Heironimus at nine years ago. Denise's story truly explains why Heironimus wanted to discuss talking to his lawyer before doing an interview with Greg Long. When Long first talked to Heironimus, Bob had told him that he had nothing to do with Patterson and Gimlin's Bigfoot film. It was only after Long opened the door about there being a Bigfoot documentary Patterson was said to have been making prior to the Bluff Creek footage that Heironimus was willing to consider talking to Long and only after Bob consulted his attorney (Barry Woodard) who happened to be one of the men at Denise Coffey's house when all the talk about making up a story to sell the Sun had been taking place. ..."

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

 

[LAL]

Four people on record stating they saw a suit in his car.

Here's another one:

"A fellow named Gary Record of Yakima, Washington was interviewed by Roger Knights and described seeing a gorilla suit in Bob Heironimus' car in the spring of 1968, about 6 months after Patterson and Gimlin are alleged to have removed the suit Heironimus allegedly wore in the film from Heironimus' mother's car trunk. The major points of this inconsistency are as follows:

1. Record was in the service in 1967, and estimates he saw the suit in 1968.
2. There was no one else besides Heironimus with Record.
3. He did not recall hearing of Heironimus pulling pranks on motorists with the suit.
4. It had no odor that Record could detect at that distance.
5. The color of the suit was dark brown or black.
6. It had a torso section (above the waist) and a separate torso and a pair of legs.
7. No rubber hip-boots in the legs.
8. The torso section was a pull-on style with no zipper in the back.
9. There was no rigid latex chest piece or breasts.
10. Its material seemed to be lighter than leather, most likely cloth.
11. The upper torso portion most likely weighed about two to three pounds.
12. It felt as if it was padded with flexible padding, possibly cotton.
13. It was not oversize-the height and girth would have fitted a Heironimus-sized person.
14. The hair was straight, and somewhat fluffier than human hair; midway between fluffy and coarse. It was about 4 or 5 inches long.
15. There was no helmet inside the head, which was not oversized.
16. The face was not observed, only the back of the head. No ears were noticed.
17. No hands or feet were observed.
18. Greg Long did not interview him."

http://40thanniversaryofpatty.blogspot.com/2007/08/one-other-thing-to-consider-about-bob.html


Roger Knights gets dismissed as a "wanna be" and a "pseudo-intellectual", but if he'd found a Wah Chang or Don Post mask, he'd be "brilliant", I suppose.

I should retract my statement about the pro-suit arguments being "stupid"; it wasn't strong enough.

 

[mangler]

Lu,

The aspect ratio of the BH image you posted is off in the horizontal close to 20%. Miller did same thing with the gorilla suit image right below the image you posted. Millers a Hack.


m

 

[Crowlogic]

I'm still waiting for an answer on this.

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 a horse Bob owned?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

So far the only rebuttals are he made a mistake on a measurement and supposedly made an error in his triginometry. However, you stated you do not do Trig and therefore do not understand the error and can not verify it. That is blindly accepting that the error is correct.

You keep bringing up these red herrings to show that what Daegling has written is false. This is not exactly correct. If he made a few errors in his calculations, what does this mean for the overall picture. His arguments that many comparisons that you have presented are not shown to be false. For instance, it is very possible that the comparison footage shot was shot from a different location and the subject was at the wrong position for comparison. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that is not true. This makes any comparisons invalid because of problems with judging height, size, and stride. Additionally, the argument about the issue of the subject being coplanar for measurements is also valid because it introduces errors. These are all factual. If he made an error in some of his computations (at least according to you - I haven't still seen any of these computations), it still does not obscure these issues that have to be considered.

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!

However, before you were stating that when you saw the film, you could not see how it was a guy in a suit.

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.

Now you are saying that it wasn't the film that influenced this conclusion but an event that happened in 1969.

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.

My original intention of bringing out Houck and mentioning Fx experts was to demonstrate that people who saw the film in detail formed the "unheard of/stupid" opinion that it was a guy in a suit. Apparently, you missed that and now list a select list of "experts" who say it is not a guy in a suit. For every "expert" you present, there is always another who says it appears and acts like a guy in a suit. So it is really a worthless argument. However....

Munns has written a lot here and the bigfoot forums. I have read some of his work and found some flaws that I pointed out. So, Munns is not the final word on anything. When Munns decides to present his work to a peer-reviewed journal that it is not a guy in a suit, then we can examine it. Until then, he is still performing "a work in progress".

Exactly how many peer-reviewed papers has Krantz written on bigfoot in journals devoted to anthropology? Sure, he can write papers for bigfoot newsletters and books about bigfoot but does it pass through journals devoted to the subject

It is easy to find those supporting these claims but there is only one way the to actual prove that it is not a guy in a suit and that is to provide good physical evidence that bigfoot exists. 40 years and counting and not one scrap has been presented that points directly towards bigfoot existing as an actual creature.

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.....................

This is completely irrelevant to this discussion. There are a lot of things science suggests exist because of what is observed and measured but can not prove. However, there is good reason to propose these things exists. It is this film that is the centerpiece of any claim that bigfoot exists. Without it, it is all stories and mysterious footprints found in the dirt.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm still waiting for an answer on this.

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 a horse Bob owned?

From BFF.

Long interviewed Gimlin for 45 minutes (p. 423) and, although "Gimlin denied over and over again every aspect of Heironimus's story," it's unlikely he denied that BH's horse Chico was there. Chico (seen on p. 39 of Long's book) has a distinctive broad blaze and white foreleg-socks, and is unusually tall--16 hands. She could be identified from the film. If Gimlin had denied that Chico was present, Long could really have nailed him. Since Long didn't, I infer that Gimlin didn't deny that.

Chico is the horse that BH is riding in the actors photo and the filmed scene with him pulling a packhorse. Chico is a large "red" quarter horse with a distinct white blaze to the nose, a black forlock (bangs) , and four white socks (front socks are uneven height). Patterson is sitting on the same horse in the Argosy cover shot. In the PGF, we see Gimlin riding on Chico shown from behind.

Gimlin and Heironimus both say that Chico was at Bluff Creek at the time of the Patty filming. This is not in dispute. It is reasonable to think that we actually are seeing Chico in these stills and filmed scenes.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here's a foot for you, Sweaty:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-3-1097156923.jpg

Don't use it on kitekaze, though. He doesn't believe in Morris suits.

Thank you, Lu.......that's a super-realistic foot....but it doesn't look like it's got flexible, movable toes, like Roger's fake feet did.

That Roger....he sure were a wiz, if ever OH ever a wiz there waz!!

 

[Correa Neto]

Interesting.

Patty's feet don't seem to have flexible feet with moving toes also. May I suggest some bias and pareidolia may be -once again- be seeping in?

 

[LAL]

Lu,

The aspect ratio of the BH image you posted is off in the horizontal close to 20%. Miller did same thing with the gorilla suit image right below the image you posted. Millers a Hack.


m

It's not as stretched on the second link I posted as on the first. It looked okay when I copied the properties this morning but now looks stretched in my post. It's even worse on the school Gateway I'm using right now. Don't blame Miller for that.

I designed a banner for MABRC that looks fine on my laptop, but is seriously stretched vertically on every other computer I've viewed it on. This is serious because it features the logo, which is supposed to be circular, not oval. If I do it on my desktop so that the logo is circular, it may be squashed horizontally on some computers.

I can scan the photo from Long's book and see if that's any better. The gorilla suit is a $1200 Morris job. It came right along with the BH image. I didn't have time to edit it out.

The picture of Bob shows his build in 1967 well enough. Since the tire he's standing by shows clearly whether the picture is stretched or not, computer whizzes with basic picture editing software should be able to correct the distortion.

 

[RayG]

I'm still waiting for an answer on this.

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 a horse Bob owned?

Proof? None.

What proof do we have that Patterson and Gimlin filmed a bigfoot/man in a suit on October 20, 1967?

RayG

 

[tyr_13]

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.

There are many possible reasons for why he didn't come forward for decades. Most whistle blowers don't come forward right after the fact, so I don't know why you expect Heronimous to. Maybe he was embarrassed about being part of the hoax, or he thought that it might open himself up to legal action of some kind. Or maybe he didn't think anyone but idiots and nuts believed the film until later.

Isn't the, "If he was that important we would have known about him," the argument used against bigfoot? Now because footers didn't know about Heronimous for years he must not be important or outright lying?

As for the horse thing, it's already been addressed.

 

[mangler]

Ya, whatever Lu.


m

 

[LAL]

So far the only rebuttals are he made a mistake on a measurement and supposedly made an error in his triginometry. However, you stated you do not do Trig and therefore do not understand the error and can not verify it. That is blindly accepting that the error is correct.

As you wish. This is the link:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8738&view=findpost&p=176577

Anybody got a cracker?

You keep bringing up these red herrings to show that what Daegling has written is false.

I've given my sources on his errors in calculation (also see Meldrum's book). Since both are trying to show the figure in the PGF is within human range, they're rather important errors to make.

Does it make sense to you that hoaxers would call each other about getting dermatoglyphics into their creations? Should he have gone along with Crook rather than examining the Skookum Cast himself?

(BTW, there are casts of a left and right that show the characteristics, just not consecutive casts from a the same trackway.)

However, before you were stating that when you saw the film, you could not see how it was a guy in a suit.

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.

Now you are saying that it wasn't the film that influenced this conclusion but an event that happened in 1969.

Several events, actually. I was mildly interested from reading John Green's first three books and the article on the PGF in National Wildlife:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

This is the sighting that got my attention:

I saw the story on the front page of the Vancouver Columbian. It was backed up by track evidence and just miles from our property in the Columbia Gorge. Later I got to talk to one of the deputies in on the investigation. He told me that bank was 14' high with toe impressions 8' up and that they found a full print by the river. The sheriff had a cast on his desk for years (I don't know from which event - there were more).

The PGF did not lead me to the conclusion there are sasquatches in North America, but it helped.

My original intention of bringing out Houck and mentioning Fx experts was to demonstrate that people who saw the film in detail formed the "unheard of/stupid" opinion that it was a guy in a suit.

I was referring more to suit arguments I've seen here than to the rather vague dismissals of the fx experts.

Exactly how many peer-reviewed papers has Krantz written on bigfoot in journals devoted to anthropology? Sure, he can write papers for bigfoot newsletters and books about bigfoot but does it pass through journals devoted to the subject.

You need to do your homework. He had articles published in an anthropological journal (I'm not sure of the name so I won't say 'til I find it), which is lightly reviewed, but by no means a bigfoot publication.

If you're trying to imply no one's tried to publish you're wrong there too. Meldrum, Fish and Meldrum/Swindler all wrote for publication. Meldrum has had papers accepted for presentation by the AAPA Pacific Division.

No one's made Nature yet.

It is easy to find those supporting these claims but there is only one way the to actual prove that it is not a guy in a suit and that is to provide good physical evidence that bigfoot exists. 40 years and counting and not one scrap has been presented that points directly towards bigfoot existing as an actual creature.

Yes, we know. Tell the no-kill groups they're just going to have to bring in a body.

This is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Will you lighten up? I see nothing in the guidelines to suggest a little humor/sarcasm is not allowed.

Surely with the new collider, the boson won't be a mystery much longer. I was struck by the time - forty years there too. It took sixty to bring in a Giant Panda after they were "discovered". Gorillas were thought to be a native myth, but surely you already know this.

There are a lot of things science suggests exist because of what is observed and measured but can not prove. However, there is good reason to propose these things exists. It is this film that is the centerpiece of any claim that bigfoot exists. Without it, it is all stories and mysterious footprints found in the dirt.

There are other films. Dahinden offered to hit people with casts if they didn't think the casts were "hard" evidence.

If the sightings are just stories, someone needs to do a study to find out why so many people see an animal that doesn't exist.

 

[Correa Neto]

Pro-suit arguments are stupid... Yeah... Say "hi" to the ape costume.

Kicks Patty's diaperous butt IMHO. Feel free to look for features that "prove" this is a real animal.

Oh, yes...

Someone needs to fund a study to find out why so many people see aliens, ghosts, lake monsters, Jesus, Mary...

Got reliable evidence to defend bigfeet as real creatures?
No.

But there's plenty of hoaxes, misidentifications and flawed reasonings used to defend bigfeet as real creatures...

 

[Drewbot]

Someone needs to fund a study to find out why so many people see aliens, ghosts, lake monsters, Jesus, Mary...

Why fund a study? There are numerous sighting reports for each of the above listed phenomena, if only one of those sightings is real... plus many of those sighters are credible... You're not calling the sighters of those things 'LIARS'? are you?...

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, when it comes to Jesus sightings, you are pro-kill or not?

I'm pro. If its the real Jesus, He won't be hurt -and it'll be PROOF! If not, too bad for them. People should not walk around dressed like a hippie the Son of Dog.

 

[Yeah_Right]

It took sixty to bring in a Giant Panda after they were "discovered". Gorillas were thought to be a native myth, but surely you already know this.

The point here LAL, is that they were eventually found. Bigfoot seems immune to being found since it is quickly devoured by predation or is quite good at hiding or whatever excuse is used by Footers that it can't be found.

And what's the story on the people seeing things that don't exist? It's people wanting attention, misinterpretation, mass-hysteria. As for the dogs being torn apart by Bigfoot? Are you certain it was Bigfoot? Could it have been another animal? Bear maybe? They seem large and strong enough to tear a dog up. Or maybe it is just anecdotal evidence and no dogs have been torn up. Just a guess on that last part of course.

 

[Yeah_Right]

OK, when it comes to Jesus sightings, you are pro-kill or not?

I done seed Jesus. he ate my beans and bacon and tored my dog up.

 

[LAL]

Ya, whatever Lu.


m

Is this better? I stretched and cropped it.

You seem so judgemental. Do you have something personal against Bill Miller or are you just blaming him because images can look different on different computers and look different from site to site (the second one I linked to is much clearer). Or didn't you know that?