Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Skeptical Greg]

How many times do we have to point out that those incredible muscles in
motion don't look or behave like real muscles.

Softball lumps on back of left leg
So called calf muscle of right leg positioned off to the side
Donut shaped lumps down entire length of arm .. ( not just the wrist, Crow .. )
Upper arm moves independently of shoulder
Upper chest moves independently of right breast.
Left breast bounces while right one remains rigid
Breasts attached to upper abdomen
Upper thigh disappears into pelvic area
etc.
etc.
etc.

 

[kitakaze]

John WS posts #814, #819 - Big time.

ETA: Excellent point about Gorn and the Xenomorph. Put a Wah Chang mask on Gorn and cover with fur, shoot shaky from a distance on film, call it Bigfoot, there's your PGF.

 

[JohnWS]

You mention the Gorn (yet it comes up again). Seeing that thing in motion fairly screams "guy in rubber suit".

Something I have been saving for a rainy day. Something that bothers me about the PGF subject - see the following montage:

In the first picture we see a realistic ape costume from 25 years ago or so - post Star Wars giving the special effects community a very profitable kick in the butt. Producers were now willing to spend more cash on FX to get more bums on seats (the bottom line - 'scuse the pun).

Next we see the PGF subject.

Finally a real ape.

Now the PGF is touted as possibly two things by some of the more vigorous proponents. Firstly, a real live bigfoot that is a magnificent creature that could not possibly be duplicated by the 'technology' of 1967 (*the only realistic alternative). When pushed some will respond that if a hoax, the suit far exceeds what was possible in 1967, and that RP (if he made it) would have been the toast of Hollywood with such superior artistry on display.

However when I line up the three possibles, something is not right. In my eyes if it's a suit, it looks nothing like the fine example in figure 1. It seems a throwback to an earlier era of suit design. If it's a real creature then again it doesn't seem to stack up with something real as shown in figure 3.

When compared side by side, I don't see a magnificent creature, nor do I see an ahead of it's time costume. I see a creature suit that displays much of the 'cultural tracking' I would expect to see from it's era.

I have to thank former BFF poster Morgoth who, eons ago posted a series of montages of various creatures suits/animal and artwork (for an entirely different reason) that started this train of thought.

*It was the mid 80's before computer technology would be used to record camera movement to scale and track a miniature stop motion figure into wildly shaking pre-photographed backgrounds.

 

[kitakaze]

When the PGF is viewed as a re-enactment of the William Roe encounter which I believe it draws heavily on, it starts to make a lot of sense:

I could just see the top of the animal's head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw that it was not a bear.

This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly towards me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide and probably weighing somewhere near 300 pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown, silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female.

And yet, its torso was not curved like a female's. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man's arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man's, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.

The shape of this creature's head some-what resembled a Negro's. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of its hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human's ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear's. And its neck was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man as I had ever seen.

Finally, the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through on opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/william_roe.html

Desperado footer's will employ a perversion of Occam's Razor on you and tell you that the simililarities are simply because of the natural appearance and behaviour of a female sasquatch. As Huntster would say - Bullspit! The only female Bigfoot encounter that Patterson ever knew of (or at least spoke and wrote about) he was so impressed by that he wrote about the encounter in detail in his book the year prior to the PGF and was inspired to make his own drawings based on the encounter.

Anyone who can not see the obvious and screaming similarities between the William Roe account and the PGF is either is deep denial or deep stupidity.

 

[JohnWS]

Good grief Kitakaze - I too had thought that the Roe encounter was a possible blueprint for the PGF, but never had I noticed so many similarities as you highlight here.

Off to watch the Gorn clip again .

 

[makaya325]

Something I have been saving for a rainy day. Something that bothers me about the PGF subject - see the following montage:

[qimg]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/John_WS/JREF/comparisons.jpg[/qimg]

In the first picture we see a realistic ape costume from 25 years ago or so - post Star Wars giving the special effects community a very profitable kick in the butt. Producers were now willing to spend more cash on FX to get more bums on seats (the bottom line - 'scuse the pun).

Next we see the PGF subject.

Finally a real ape.

Now the PGF is touted as possibly two things by some of the more vigorous proponents. Firstly, a real live bigfoot that is a magnificent creature that could not possibly be duplicated by the 'technology' of 1967 (*the only realistic alternative). When pushed some will respond that if a hoax, the suit far exceeds what was possible in 1967, and that RP (if he made it) would have been the toast of Hollywood with such superior artistry on display.

However when I line up the three possibles, something is not right. In my eyes if it's a suit, it looks nothing like the fine example in figure 1. It seems a throwback to an earlier era of suit design. If it's a real creature then again it doesn't seem to stack up with something real as shown in figure 3.

When compared side by side, I don't see a magnificent creature, nor do I see an ahead of it's time costume. I see a creature suit that displays much of the 'cultural tracking' I would expect to see from it's era.

I have to thank former BFF poster Morgoth who, eons ago posted a series of montages of various creatures suits/animal and artwork (for an entirely different reason) that started this train of thought.

*It was the mid 80's before computer technology would be used to record camera movement to scale and track a miniature stop motion figure into wildly shaking pre-photographed backgrounds.

Why dont you post a healthy orangutan, instead of a thin one to support your claim?

 

[makaya325]

When the PGF is viewed as a re-enactment of the William Roe encounter which I believe it draws heavily on, it starts to make a lot of sense:







http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/william_roe.html

Desperado footer's will employ a perversion of Occam's Razor on you and tell you that the simililarities are simply because of the natural appearance and behaviour of a female sasquatch. As Huntster would say - Bullspit! The only female Bigfoot encounter that Patterson ever knew of (or at least spoke and wrote about) he was so impressed by that he wrote about the encounter in detail in his book the year prior to the PGF and was inspired to make his own drawings based on the encounter.

Anyone who can not see the obvious and screaming similarities between the William Roe account and the PGF is either is deep denial or deep stupidity.

If patterson encountered a bf, it would have to be male or female. Just because it was a female, doesnt mean its fake. Kitz, i thought the film was too BLURRY to make out details, ohh wait, only when proponents call out details! Hypocritical

 

[kitakaze]

If patterson encountered a bf, it would have to be male or female. Just because it was a female, doesnt mean its fake.

It is not at all a matter of Patterson simply writing about and illustrating a female Bigfoot the year to encountering and filming one. It's the fact that the encounter had many exact point by point matches to the only encounter of a female Bigfoot that Patterson had demonstrated knowledge of and did so in an explicit manner just prior to filming a Bigfoot almost exactly as described in his book.

With every post you make, you show an ever diminishing ability to deal with the facts that are in front of you.

Kitz, i thought the film was too BLURRY to make out details, ohh wait, only when proponents call out details! Hypocritical

Stop playing with these:



Show the post where I made such an argument or retract the the position you ascribe to me. I argue that the resolution does not support claims of teeth, shotgun blasts, zippers, etc. I never said that the film was too blurry to make out details. Also, while making a fool of yourself, you will note that the details matching the Roe description are exactly what is shown on the film or described by Patterson and Gimlin themselves.

Your comically poor arguments are an embarrassment to Bigfoot enthusiasts. I'm surprised more haven't come here and told you to stop.

 

[Crowlogic]

If you are trying to deny that certain types of artistry and processes were available pre 1967 - I guess it doesn't - sorry but that's all I see here. So muscle definition and custom made flexible furs 'don't count'.

Gemora's work and the other pictures prove that motion picture artists were aware of and, were applying exaggerated musculature to figures long before the PGF. But that doesn't count either.

The Gorn, as has been pointed out to you before, gives a classic hammy monster on the rampage performance. It's also shot in close-up. That's a lot of the reason it doesn't sell and you know it. Ridley Scott was savvy enough to know how to get a frightening performance out of a guy in a rubber suit in 'Alien' by bucking that very trend.

I know why KK has those goalpost images now, not that I didn't expect this very request of course. It's so predictable.

The key to the issue was whether or not the means existed to tie the entire range of possibilities into a cohesive working suit. Some things today are pretty good but its 40 years down the road. For instance the Gorn with its muscles could have served as a good blueprint for a hominid fursuit that showed muscle defination. But the catch is covering the rubber with a convincing fur cloth that would move in a convincing manner in the era when the Gorn was made.

Perhaps there were genius unknown suit makers who could craft "super suits" but where are they? Who are they? Its like saying that in the early years of flight that there were unknown aircraft makers who exceeded the speed of sound at a time when the industry, as is known to history, could not achieve that kind of performance. My dad was an aircraft engineer and could look at an airplane and predict how a new plane would perform whether he had had a hand in designing it or not. He also got it right when the British Comet began breaking up in flight. Getting back to the suits there is no denying that there exists a range of techniques to add life to models and suits. However its easy to slip into the cozy mode that shurely it could have been done back then. Back then is easy to speculate on with the knowledge and materials of the present. A lot of things are very easy to do today. But perspective on the times is important. Its why the Wright Brothers didn't put a tubro prop on the Wright Flyer at Kittyhawk.

 

[Crowlogic]

If patterson encountered a bf, it would have to be male or female. Just because it was a female, doesnt mean its fake. Kitz, i thought the film was too BLURRY to make out details, ohh wait, only when proponents call out details! Hypocritical

You learn well my son.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....But the catch is covering the rubber with a convincing fur cloth that would move in a convincing manner ....

Convincing to who ?


Hardly a catch, since relatively few people find it convincing at all ...

 

[kitakaze]

You learn well my son.

You teach intellectual failure with excellence. You perhaps can find the posts where I state no details can be seen in the PGF? You can also perhaps explain the mind-boggling fortune for Patterson to capture on film the creature described almost exactly in his book the year prior to the film?

 

[kitakaze]

The key to the issue was whether or not the means existed to tie the entire range of possibilities into a cohesive working suit. Some things today are pretty good but its 40 years down the road. For instance the Gorn with its muscles could have served as a good blueprint for a hominid fursuit that showed muscle defination. But the catch is covering the rubber with a convincing fur cloth that would move in a convincing manner in the era when the Gorn was made.

Why could the hair not be glued on directly to something like Gorn? You've moved the goalposts so much, nobody even cares where you go now. Why, oh why, are you speaking like you know something about suits when it takes one sentence for you to make yourself look like an ass?

Perhaps there were genius unknown suit makers who could craft "super suits" but where are they? Who are they? Its like saying that in the early years of flight that there were unknown aircraft makers who exceeded the speed of sound at a time when the industry, as is known to history, could not achieve that kind of performance. My dad was an aircraft engineer and could look at an airplane and predict how a new plane would perform whether he had had a hand in designing it or not. He also got it right when the British Comet began breaking up in flight. Getting back to the suits there is no denying that there exists a range of techniques to add life to models and suits. However its easy to slip into the cozy mode that shurely it could have been done back then. Back then is easy to speculate on with the knowledge and materials of the present. A lot of things are very easy to do today. But perspective on the times is important. Its why the Wright Brothers didn't put a tubro prop on the Wright Flyer at Kittyhawk.

Squawk squawk, squawk. Where are these compelling features on the PGF that put Gorn to shame? Are you ineffectual or what? To embarrassed to break out red circles and arrows?

 

[LTC8K6]

If patterson encountered a bf, it would have to be male or female.

Why? Bigfoot may be unique. No one knows how it reproduces. There's no evidence of male and female bigfoots. Patty may be both.

 

[Crowlogic]

Excelent FX Chimp BTW. It has the benefit of crisp image to detail the fur as does the Orang. Lets compare this little ditty with the PGF

 

[kitakaze]

Excelent FX Chimp BTW. It has the benefit of crisp image to detail the fur as does the Orang. Lets compare this little ditty with the PGF

[qimg]http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo269/CrowLogik/g3.jpg[/qimg]

Go right ahead. Maybe with a bigger image.

ETA: Great, you made it bigger. Now give us a source and let's see it moving. Hey! Moving goalposts is fun!

 

[kitakaze]

Good grief Kitakaze - I too had thought that the Roe encounter was a possible blueprint for the PGF, but never had I noticed so many similarities as you highlight here.

Off to watch the Gorn clip again .

JohnWS, compare what is written in the Roe account there with the very first description by Patterson to a reporter here:

Patterson said the creature stood upright the entire time, reaching a height of about six and a half to seven feet and an estimated weight of between 350 and 400 pounds.

"I moved to take the pictures and told Bob to cover me. My gun was still in the scabbard. I'd grabbed the camera instead. Besides, we'd made a pact not to kill one if we saw one unless we had to."
Patterson said the creatures'(sic) head was much like a human's though considerably more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

"It's arms hung almost to its knees and when it walked, the arms swung at its sides."
- o -
PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

"She never made a sound. She wasn't hostile to us, but we don't think she was afraid of us either. She acted like she didn't want anything to do with us if she could avoid it." Patterson said the creature had an ambling gait as it made off over the some 200 yards he had it in sight. He said he lost sight of the creature, but Gimlin caught a brief glimpse of it afterward.

"But she stunk, like did you ever let in a dog out of the rain and he smelled like he'd been rolling in something dead. Her odor didn't last long where she'd been."

Thanks to LTC for the link:

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

Wow. Just holy crap, man.

 

[SweatyYeti]

That's an excellent quality Cibachrome image of Patty, in the comparison image you posted earlier, John...

One interesting thing I noticed is that Patty's left hand can be seen very distinctly from the bright, whitish ground color.
I darkened the image, to make the distinction even clearer...

The fingers on her left hand should be clearly visible....but, instead, the background is clearly visible, where her fingers should be.
There seems to be a problem with the fingers.

So, what is the more likely explanation....Roger skimped on his masterpiece, and just didn't bother to put fingers on the left hand......while he put some type of special hand on the right arm, with remote-controlled fingers???.....or is the more likely explanation simply that Patty has either an injured, or deformed hand?

 

[Crowlogic]

That's an excellent quality Cibachrome image of Patty, in the comparison image you posted earlier, John...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattyFrame352Cibachrome2.jpg[/qimg]


One interesting thing I noticed is that Patty's left hand can be seen very distinctly from the bright, whitish ground color.
I darkened the image, to make the distinction even clearer...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PFRame352Hand.jpg[/qimg]


The fingers on her left hand should be clearly visible....but, instead, the background is clearly visible, where her fingers should be.
There seems to be a problem with the fingers.

So, what is the more likely explanation....Roger skimped on his masterpiece, and just didn't bother to put fingers on the left hand......while he put some type of special hand on the right arm, with remote-controlled fingers???.....or is the more likely explanation simply that Patty has either an injured, or deformed hand?

I think we don't see the fingers on the left hand in that frame because Patty has her hand clenched. In the frames associated with the one you posted the hand is seen.

 

[xblade]

So, what is the more likely explanation....Roger skimped on his masterpiece, and just didn't bother to put fingers on the left hand......while he put some type of special hand on the right arm, with remote-controlled fingers???.....or is the more likely explanation simply that Patty has either an injured, or deformed hand?

Or maybe.....and I realize I'm going out on a limb here....but maybe the more likely explanation is it's a really crappy image. Either that, or Patty, the only living bigfoot ever caught on film, has 2 deformed hands.

Yeah, that's probably what is. Image distortion is just too far-fetched. I've argued before that Patty is a mentally challenged bigfoot, because she acts so unlike bigfoots are supposed to act. Turns out she might be mentally and physically challenged. That's what makes the slaughter at Bluff Creek all the more heartbreaking.