Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Ah, the good old days when Dfoot challenged Walas in defense of the PGF before he began spinning his Roger-in-Hollywood tales

Well, I recall that Roger's friend Jerry Merrit did confirm visiting Hollywood with Patterson, so it's not like Dfoot dreamed up the idea.

It was pointed out on the first page on BFF lines like that can be observed on gorillas, and, as I found out to my horror, in the mirror.

Ah, but did they show them in motion? This is a common request whenever a skeptic points out a suit detail that can be found on Patty, so I don't see why the proponents shouldn't do the same.

In the interviews I've seen, there's no attempt to explain the proportions.

Perhaps this is because they know costumes can disguise proportions?

Of course, Dfoot decided Janos was in on it too because Janos knew how long it would take to glue the hair on.

Wrong. Although it's hilarious that he gave a time estimate for an "impossible" suit, that's not why Dfoot said he was in on it. It was largely because Janos' statements blatantly contradicted his work experience, such as his claim of not knowing where to find someone big enough to play Patty (despite working with such men on "Star Trek").

Baker apparently changed his mind (Chorvinsky article) so I guess he wasn't in on it.

You might want to read that more carefully. He changed his mind that John Chambers made the suit, not that it was a hoax.

Thanks for the clip of one of the "Half Human" suits, though. It's a shame those costumes have long since rotted away, as I'd love to see if the fur would look as Patty-like as it does to me when filmed from the same distance as Patty was.

 

[kitakaze]

Ah, the good old days when Dfoot challenged Walas in defense of the PGF before he began spinning his Roger-in-Hollywood tales and set you folks off on quests for the Chang/Post mystery mask and the real maker of the suit.

Wow. Sounds like you are saying that Dfoot was being dishonest. Sounds like you are saying that Patterson did not make trips to Hollywood. You have factual information to support that implication I hope? We have not only Jerry Merritt's confirmation but Patterson himself writing in his own book about having business in LA to attend to.

Oops for you.

Patterson made trips to LA, had connections in Hollywood, had financing to rent a suit, and had a pretty good sob story to endear himself to the service and assistance of a Hollywood professional.

 

[tube]

Verne Langdon called me last night and we spoke at some length about various subjects. He was fairly polite about it on BFF, but he has no doubt at all that the Patterson film subject was a costume. I asked him what he thought it might be made of. He suggested bear hair, or even horse hair. Evidently some people cut horse's tails off and use them for various purposes. Langdon suggested it might take 20 tails to produce enough hair to create a full Bigfoot suit. The hair would be sewn on to a pre-existing suit and the whole thing dyed. He added though, that "a number of methods could be used".

The horse hair angle is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that Patterson was heavily involved with horses.

Langdon was adamant that John Chambers did not make the suit as "Patterson couldn't have afforded him".

Langdon didn't feel the mask was one created by Don Post studios.

 

[kitakaze]

Verne Langdon called me last night and we spoke at some length about various subjects. He was fairly polite about it on BFF, but he has no doubt at all that the Patterson film subject was a costume. I asked him what he thought it might be made of. He suggested bear hair, or even horse hair. Evidently some people cut horse's tails off and use them for various purposes. Langdon suggested it might take 20 tails to produce enough hair to create a full Bigfoot suit. The hair would be sewn on to a pre-existing suit and the whole thing dyed. He added though, that "a number of methods could be used".

The horse hair angle is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that Patterson was heavily involved with horses.

Langdon was adamant that John Chambers did not make the suit as "Patterson couldn't have afforded him".

Langdon didn't feel the mask was one created by Don Post studios.

Very cool. That must have been quite an interesting conversation. Was there any discussion of any other specific individuals and their possible involvement?

I'm thinking about an individual alleged to have done the hair work for the suit.

 

[LAL]

Wow. Sounds like you are saying that Dfoot was being dishonest. Sounds like you are saying that Patterson did not make trips to Hollywood. You have factual information to support that implication I hope? We have not only Jerry Merritt's confirmation but Patterson himself writing in his own book about having business in LA to attend to.

Oops for you.

Patterson made trips to LA, had connections in Hollywood, had financing to rent a suit, and had a pretty good sob story to endear himself to the service and assistance of a Hollywood professional.

Did I say he didn't go to Hollywood? It's what all he did there that's pure conjecture. He wrote a song, too. I suppose that means he had secret connections in Nashville.

If you've read Green you should remember he said Patterson made a trip to check on copyrights. It's not like other researchers didn't know that.

No oops there at all. You read something in in hopes of tripping me up, but I deftly jumped over your foot. Sorry about that.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Dfoot has demonstrated quite enough. At least to a rational observer. Is Longtabber uttering heresies?
Sounds like he is running the risk of becoming a "Suppressed Person".

Yes I am ( according to PM's and some posts)

I have a running battle over there and if anyone follows the thread ( and others on the subject)

ALL I have said is the film doesnt have the necessary information to measure it ACCURATELY ( and is doesnt) so all the trig, all the math, all the ratios et al are nothing more tha a GUESS based on estimated data. ( no matter how many times sweaty wants to argue in circles, as was stated in an old ST eposide- "his words are not important and we dont hear him") and I dont argue facts against denial ( its the never ending circle and I just dont have the time for it)

I realized I was posting against someone who has a working knowledge of the subject ( and i knew he knew he was misrepresenting the facts) and finally called him out and even he finally admitted the film couldnt be measured accurately ( big surprise there) but "relative measurements" could be made. ( despite the circular reasoning and back walking from original positions and "explaining it away" which I found rather entertaining)

relative measurements= educated guess= scientifically useless for any meaningful study ( thats how it works)

The question of X with a (+/-) added to it ( this "relative measurement") doesnt mean anything unless "X" is a known. ( and it isnt) ( try building a part to tolerance without knowing what the baseline measurement is)

all the kings horses, arguments, ignorance, denial, jabberwocky, talking around, quoting "pseudo experts" isnt going to change the MATERIAL FACT presented into evidence. It all boils down to this:

1) the film subject CANNOT be measured accurately with any degree of certainty ( the camera internals are not known, proper field measurements do not exist and enough images at necessary angles dont exist) Nothing is going to change that.

2) This "relative measurement" issue is a simple back door attempt to skirt 1 above. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the film subject of the PGF has a range between X and Y. ( plug in whatever number suits you at that point because they are all equally worthless) Theres your woo "relative measurement"

The proof is equally as simple- show the measurements and show how they were derived ( nothing else matters) You either have them and can validate how they were derived from field data or you dont. ( there aint a 3rd answer)

This talk about me "proving" it cant be measured is straw. I admit I cannot solve A+B+C=X in any meaningful manner and nobody else can either.

 

[mangler]

Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.


m

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......
If you've read Green you should remember he said Patterson made a trip to check on copyrights. It's not like other researchers didn't know that.

Check on copyrights ?

Why would he have to go to Hollywood to do that ?


Or is this a case of " If Green said so, that's all I need .. " ?



( can someone quote me to see if Lu will respond to this )

 

[LAL]

Check on copyrights ?

Why would he have to go to Hollywood to do that ?


Or is this a case of " If Green said so, that's all I need .. " ?



( can someone quote me to see if Lu will respond to this )

I was just about to get around to that. According to the interview with Merritt in Greg Long's book, Roger wanted to copyright the name "Bigfoot". Merritt had the connections, not Roger. Merritt said they had $700 (no, he didn't say anything about the Radfords), and were trying to find backers for the documentary. They tried to get $5000 from Newty Cohen, who made sequined suits for western stars (The Making of Bigfoot, pg. 110).

I don't know if Cohen ever made horsehair suits, but you guys might as well add him to the list of suspects. It seems he could sew.

 

[tyr_13]

Wait, he was trying to copyright the name "Bigfoot"? Why? Or was he trying to copyright it as the name of the film he was making?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.


m

>>>Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

ALL I have tried to do is stand on facts and data and tell the truth as best as my knowledge,education and experience knows it- I dont know what else I can do and maintain my character and reputation.

>>>BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.

I presume you to be USN. ( know some SEAL types) and that comment means more to me than you may realize. Thank you- I have tried to do my best

 

[LAL]

...... Patterson himself writing in his own book about having business in LA to attend to.

He didn't say what the business was, but he and Rod Thorton left a few weeks early and took a side trip to Happy Camp and then to Willow Creek. He met Pat Graves, the Forest Service timber cruiser, who'd found tracks on numerous occasions in remote locations, and Graves took him to "Leard Meadow".

You've read his description of the trackway?

He'd read the article in Argosy about the Crew tracks, but hadn't seen anything about it after that, not even a debunking. He had heard interesting things on the Yakima res but there was nothing new he could check out there.

 

[Spektator]

You cannot copyright a name, a single word, or even a title. Patterson wouldn't have had to go anywhere except his local library to learn that.

 

[LAL]

Wait, he was trying to copyright the name "Bigfoot"? Why? Or was he trying to copyright it as the name of the film he was making?

The Bigfoot name, not the film (pg. 105).

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You cannot copyright a name, a single word, or even a title. Patterson wouldn't have had to go anywhere except his local library to learn that.

Patterson probably got "copyright" mixed up with "trademark." Although it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to titles. The magazine/newsletter "Imagine" has a very informative article on the matter called "Protection of Titles" by Mark Litwak in their September 2006 issue.

Oh, and I should note that Merrit was referring to Nudie Cohn.

 

[LAL]

You cannot copyright a name, a single word, or even a title. Patterson wouldn't have had to go anywhere except his local library to learn that.

This is according to Jerry Merritt, which you would know if you'd read the book. When Long pointed out the term had been used in 1958, Merritt said they were talking about the commercial name, Bigfoot. Merritt said he was suppose to get part of it, that he "set up the copyrights, the original copyrights". He was very clear it was DeAtely who took over and apparently cut out Roger's friends. Walter Hurst "did" the contracts.

The trip was also to try to get backing. According to Merritt Roger believed in his documentary and thought he could sell it to a big company. Merritt believed the PGF was real.

 

[LAL]

Oh, and I should note that Merritt was referring to Nudie Cohn.

It's spelled "Newty Cohen" in the book. When asked how long it took him to say no, Merritt said, "About thirty minutes."

 

[LAL]

You might want to read that more carefully. He changed his mind that John Chambers made the suit, not that it was a hoax.

You might want to read my post more carefully. I didn't say anything about Baker changing his mind about a hoax. Evidently my sarcasm is too subtle for this board. Didn't Dfoot's assertion that Janos was in on it because he knew how long it takes to glue hair on strike you as slightly absurd?

I was living in the LA area in 1967, I've been to Hollywood. Has anyone suspected me yet? Heck, I've even owned horses.

Rumor had it John Landis started the rumor. I think Chorvinsky showed rumors go around Hollywood. Quelle surprise.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You might want to read my post more carefully. I didn't say anything about Baker changing his mind about a hoax.

The statement in question (tacked onto some comments about Janos Prohaska):

Baker apparently changed his mind (Chorvinsky article) so I guess he wasn't in on it.

Without a reference to Chambers, what would you expect people to interpret that as meaning?

Didn't Dfoot's assertion that Janos was in on it because he knew how long it takes to glue hair on strike you as slightly absurd?

I repeat:

Wrong. Although it's hilarious that he gave a time estimate for an "impossible" suit, that's not why Dfoot said he was in on it. It was largely because Janos' statements blatantly contradicted his work experience, such as his claim of not knowing where to find someone big enough to play Patty (despite working with such men on "Star Trek").

 

[LAL]

The statement in question (tacked onto some comments about Janos Prohaska):

Namely that Dfoot included Janos in the hoax because Janos knew how long it would take to glue on the hair. (Janos said ten hours.)

Without a reference to Chambers, what would you expect people to interpret that as meaning?

I would expect them to understand I was being snide. It seems all it takes for someone to be a suspect in this great PGF costume conspiracy is being in fx in Hollywood at the time. Who's the latest now? The guy who cut John Chambers' hair?

I didn't bother to follow Dfoot's comments on this board. I read them on the old BFF thread where he began having these great unsubstantiated ideas. That's where he said it.