• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leaving their horses tethered at their campsite, the two men started out in their truck for a local airport, probably Murray Field in Arcata. On their way, they stopped at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek to talk to their friend, Al Hodgson. As it was after 6:00 p.m., however, the store was closed. Patterson therefore telephoned Hodgson at his home. Hodgson and other friends, including Sly McCoy, thereupon met with Patterson and Gimlin, presumably at Hodgson's store. Patterson and Gimlin then related their experience to their friends. Also, during this time Patterson telephone Al De Atley to inform him of the pending film shipment. Patterson shipped the film to the Seattle, Washington airport for pick-up by De Atley the next day.
Click to expand...

LTC8K6 said:
So it's getting late on Friday and I need to air ship this film. So why do I stop at my friend Al's closed store on the way to the airport? It's already after 6. When I find the store closed, why do I call Al and wait for him and friends to meet me and waste time telling them the story? Why don't I go straight to the airport and worry about telling Al when I get back, or call him from the airport?

Why don't I know that my friend Al's store is going to be closed after 6 on a Friday? Why isn't my plan to go straight to the airport with the film and make any necessary phone calls from there?
Click to expand...

And how long did they leave the horses tethered at the campsite? So if I understand this correctly Roger borrowed Bob H's horse and he leaves his friend's horse tethered in an area that is crawling with bigfoots. Horses are deathly afraid of bigfoots and they leave them tethered there to be terrorized? Hell, for all they knew, bigfoots may eat horses!!! A couple mountain lions or a big bear might find them to be a nice snack, too.

No wonder BH sold Roger out. His horse probably came back a skittish nervous wreck, and was probably useless for the rest of it's life!
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
So it's getting late on Friday and I need to air ship this film. So why do I stop at my friend Al's closed store on the way to the airport?
Click to expand...

But...but...salt of the Earth Bob Gimlin said that they went to a post office and not to an airport in his 1992 interview with John Green!
 
LTC8K6 said:
No, that can't be correct. That would be a huge discrepancy and everyone would be questioning it...
Click to expand...

Who would question it? It's the Word of Gimlin. It might as well be etched on golden tablets.
 
Not merely "funny."
No, something much much more...
clearly Aepervius is psychic and in telepathic contact with the other writer!!!!
 
Well, this is my question, and it may be a dumb one, but I'll ask it anyway: In your opinion, why is the PGF still such a hot topic after 40+ years? Is it because it is, ultimately, inconclusive? Or is it because proponents widely use it to argue that Bigfoot is real - and, conversely, skeptics use it to argue that it was a hoax and, thus, no real evidence of Bigfoot exists?

I've noticed, here and on several Bigfoot forums, the PGF is the most analyzed and debated film clip of an alleged Bigfoot. Usually, the arguments follow the same lines, and end up in the same place: one man's shadow is another man's moving muscle is another man's ripple of a costume. The suit could/could not have existed in 1967. Bob Heironomus could/could not have been Patty. Mrs. Patterson does/does not have the original film. Etc, etc. Obviously, unless some further evidence comes to light-Bigfoot is proven to be a real creature; the Patty suit mysteriously turns up; or Bob Gimlin comes clean-it's unlikely that it will ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the PGF was 'real' or a hoax...yet the fascination continues.

(For myself, I believe it was a hoax-and not an especially brilliant one at that. If Patterson tried the same hoax today, it wouldn't hold up for 24 hours.)
 
desertgal said:
Well, this is my question, and it may be a dumb one, but I'll ask it anyway: In your opinion, why is the PGF still such a hot topic after 40+ years? Is it because it is, ultimately, inconclusive? Or is it because proponents widely use it to argue that Bigfoot is real - and, conversely, skeptics use it to argue that it was a hoax and, thus, no real evidence of Bigfoot exists?
Click to expand...

That's precisely why.
It's just ambiguous enough (no real clarity, poor focus, long distance, shaky camera) that those who want it to be something other than a man in a fur suit can convince themsleves that that's what it is.
Like a horoscope.
Reasonable people look and see it as a purposely vague thing.
Believers see something of tremendous significance and continue to assault the public and uninformed individuals with lies about how "science" is ignoring them or somehow failing.
 
desertgal said:
Well, this is my question, and it may be a dumb one, but I'll ask it anyway: In your opinion, why is the PGF still such a hot topic after 40+ years?
Click to expand...

My answer is rather ironic. The PGF remains a hot topic because Bigfoot does not exist. If the creature existed, we would have specimens and all sorts of films that are way better than the PGF. Everyone would be a BF believer just as much as they believe that meerkats exist. At that point, the PGF would only be a piece of trivia. Debates about its authenticity would have less relevance because BF would already be confirmed to exist. The whole world (including all present Bigfooters) could switch their opinion to it being fake and it wouldn't matter much.

(For myself, I believe it was a hoax-and not an especially brilliant one at that. If Patterson tried the same hoax today, it wouldn't hold up for 24 hours.)
Click to expand...

I've said the same thing. Nowadays, even the Bigfooters themselves would not universally accept the PGF. Many of the present PGF believers are quick to discount new filmed evidence based on flimsy or incredible backstories. The crazy convoluted and impossible backstory would sink it. What, you can't provide the original unedited film? Forget it Patterson. We can tell you are scamming us. I don't care what she looks like. We don't believe your story.

There will never be another filmed "Bigfoot" to replace the PGF as the pinnacle of visual evidence. It's been grandfathered in with all of its warts. Fifty years from now the PGF will be defended exactly the same as it is now. Oh, there will be an evolution of what and how details are argued. But essentially, the believers will still say "You can see with your own eyes that it isn't a guy in a suit."
 
Last edited:
Who would question it? It's the Word of Gimlin. It might as well be etched on golden tablets.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm...my post was pure sarcasm.

If you look at what Gimlin actually says, it's even worse. He says it was already 8:30 or 9:00 by the time they got to Hodgson's store to find it closed. On a Friday, remember. They still have to make a call to Hodgson and company and wait for them to arrive so they can tell them the story. And they still have the undeveloped film with them.
 
William Parcher said:
<sniparoo>There will never be another filmed "Bigfoot" to replace the PGF as the pinnacle of visual evidence. It's been grandfathered in with all of its warts. Fifty years from now the PGF will be defended exactly the same as it is now. Oh, there will be an evolution of what and how details are argued. But essentially, the believers will still say "You can see with your own eyes that it isn't a guy in a suit."
Click to expand...

Hypothetical: Bob Gimlin gets up tomorrow morning, eats his breakfast, then calls CNN and says: "It was all a hoax. Roger and I cooked it up together. ------made the costume. -------wore it for the film. ---------made the fake footprints. Roger rented the camera. We picked the time, the place, etc, etc. Roger destroyed the suit. We edited the film, and destroyed the original. Come to my house. I'll give you an interview and tell you all the details."

Granted, given the passage of time, it might not be possible to prove that the costume was made by whomever, or that the footprints were faked, which would be key to proving a hoax - but, in your opinion, would such a confession make a difference among Bigfooters? Or would they simply consider it a betrayal of Patterson and cling to their belief that Patty was real?

(I'm simply curious about the tenacity of Bigfooters.)
 
(I'm simply curious about the tenacity of Bigfooters.)
Click to expand...

I think your question is more directed towards asking of the tenacity of PGF believers (Pattycakes). The tenacious ones are very much so.


desertgal said:
Hypothetical: Bob Gimlin gets up tomorrow morning, eats his breakfast, then calls CNN and says: "It was all a hoax. Roger and I cooked it up together. ------made the costume. -------wore it for the film. ---------made the fake footprints. Roger rented the camera. We picked the time, the place, etc, etc. Roger destroyed the suit. We edited the film, and destroyed the original. Come to my house. I'll give you an interview and tell you all the details."

Granted, given the passage of time, it might not be possible to prove that the costume was made by whomever, or that the footprints were faked, which would be key to proving a hoax - but, in your opinion, would such a confession make a difference among Bigfooters? Or would they simply consider it a betrayal of Patterson and cling to their belief that Patty was real?
Click to expand...

We've entertained this question before. Obviously, there would be many who would accept his confession right away and just deal with it. Some may insist that the supporting details he gives to go along with the confession must be believable. There could be hold-outs who theorize that his confession is false and that he was forced or pursuaded somehow. Many PGF believers say that it simply cannot be a suit built in that era based on available materials and methods. A confession is not supposed to change physical realities like they are declaring. It would be interesting to see how he would be examined in relation to how Heironimus is now. If Gimlin's confession story had any weirdness, errors or "holes" it could be rejected just the same as BH. Those people would dictate what constitutes weirdness, errors and holes... just like they do now for BH.

I think there would be the whole predictable range of reactions. No matter what Gimlin presented as proof of the hoax, I think there would still be room for a new subculture within a subculture... Bigfooters who reject Gimlin's confession and any evidence he provides.

It would send shock waves through Bigfootery. No doubt about it.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree that the main reason the PGF is so much alive is because it is inconclusive. Look at nessie : until Sturgeon admitted to the hoax (or was found out) it was as far as I can tell the most touted and promoted evidence of Nessie's existence. I can think also of a few blurry photo for UFO too.

If this was a clear cut film with a lot of detail, it might have been showed for a hoax a long time ago (or with an extremely low probability a live animal). But because it is so blurry and without any details, you can't conclude either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom