Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[learner]

I just want to mention that the "keys in pocket" thing might be something of a false rumor attached to Bob Heironimus. Although I do not have Greg Long's book, I'm not aware of BH claiming that any visible thigh bulging is because of his keys.

I dont know if it was an original idea or not but I suggested that the bulge was keys sometime back.

Looks like it to me.

 

[Spektator]

Many more pictures illustrating the concept of forced perspective.

 

[William Parcher]

<yes I know he's not actually reading these posts>

I think he has been reading our posts for years. There have been a number of things in his PGF "works" that came from here. I think he may be posting here as well.

Blevins is certain that the PGF is fake and that Bob Heironimus is the man. But Blevins does believe that Bigfoot is real, and it exists, and it is written about in the Bible.

Bigfoot in the Bible

Now let us look at all we now know of what we call Bigfoot today. We have found out that the first Bigfoot was human and his name was Esau and this is the start of the bloodline of what we call Bigfoot. They live in the fields and mountains also they are cunning hunters. They look like man, however their skin is like a goat and they have a smell to them of the fields. They are vegetarians for one of their main food is Red Lentils. They were also stronger than we are. When they are angry they make an exceeding bitter cry. This is why people claiming to see Bigfoot today said they smell a bad smell and when they see them they are in the mountain ranges or fields. When they hear a cry they never heard before and they are big and hairy and they look like an Ape.

The location to find this kind of man is more likely in the mountain range or fields. Where there is Red Lentils grow and even, corn, and grapes. However, you must remember that their main source of food is the Red Lentils. This is one of the reasons that a lot of the Bigfoot sightings are in Washington State and some other states and in Canada for this place has mountain range and grow Red Lentils for red lentils grow in cooler climates.

Now we found a name for the Bigfoot, for they are Edomites, Now the true story of Bigfoot can be told.

 

[Drewbot]

Now this is some old-school wrath-of-God Bigfootry right here boy-O! I think there should be a Bigfoot - Biblical Origins thread.

 

[kitakaze]

(snip)

Now we found a name for the Bigfoot, for they are Edomites, Now the true story of Bigfoot can be told.

Edomites... PFFT! Do you smell burnt toast, Mr. Leroy Blevins? Everybody knows the Nephilim were Bigfoot.

 

[UGottaB]

Those responding to UGottaB in a matter-of-fact informative fashion may have misunderstood his/her position and intent. I could be wrong but I think this person is saying that there are multiple "hidden" cowboys that can be found in the PGF scenes.

You are correct. In the video about 5:20 there are three images on the page. The one noted as being enhanced shows a cowboy and horse in the lower left corner. If you look upward from him you’ll see a white object that is a blaze on a horses face. There is a huge differential in sizes. I tried to do a screen capture but had troubles trying to post it – something about 15 posts before loading a picture
.
While trying to figure out how to post the image I notice that the foliage around the large horse is green and the bush in the lower portion is red as is the other foliage in the original film. It caught my eye since I had just read about the Oct time that Bob H talked about and discussions about dates.

Anyway, I apologize for not explaining better what I was looking at.

 

[GT/CS]

Don't forget about the cowboys that were erased from the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9RFXk7SxEU

 

[William Parcher]

Here we go. What the hell are we looking at here?

You agree with Leroy Blevins that Heironimus' horse "Chico" is standing right there facing the camera in the same scene as Patty (Creature)? That the white vertical stripe is Chico's blaze?

 

[UGottaB]

Here we go. What the hell are we looking at here?

You agree with Leroy Blevins that Heironimus' horse "Chico" is standing right there facing the camera in the same scene as Patty (Creature)? That the white vertical stripe is Chico's blaze?

Looks to be but its the upper left image that is much clearer and shows the large horse over the rider (appears to be the same blaze in both pictures). That's the one that appears out of place and in my sphere of logical reasoning I can't come up with a reason for Patterson to put that in his film. Or is it that Patterson never showed this portion to anyone? But since yesterday I'm beginning to wonder about the green vegetation more than the horse. It's just a mystery why go to the trouble if there is nothing more in the clip this came from unless the rider is Patterson. It wasn't Gimlin.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is the full scene. This shows Bob Gimlin riding on Bob Heironimus' horse (Chico). Next to him is the small white packhorse with wooden boxes that can be seen in other scenes. Roger Patterson is presumed to be operating the film camera.

UGottaB.... are you Leroy Blevins or Dave Davis?

 

[LTC8K6]

Cue the Twilight Zone music please...

 

[Óðinn]

What I wanna know is why Gimlin is looking up at that giant horsey that's about to pummel him, and wearing a dress?? Gimlin that is, not the horsey. Silly to think that a giant horse would wear a dress. Must be a Clydesdale. The horsey, not the dress.

I included a red circle for completeness (actually it's an ellipse..but anyway)

Blevins must be the Bizarro Erik Beckjord. PGF skeptics should be proud!

 

[GT/CS]

What I wanna know is why Gimlin is looking up at that giant horsey that's about to pummel him, and wearing a dress?? Gimlin that is, not the horsey. Silly to think that a giant horse would wear a dress. Must be a Clydesdale. The horsey, not the dress.

I included a red circle for completeness (actually it's an ellipse..but anyway)

[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/horsepummel.gif[/qimg]

Blevins must be the Bizarro Erik Beckjord. PGF skeptics should be proud!

Would you please outline Gimlin, too. I sure don't see anything that looks Gimlinish in that blob.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Looks to be but its the upper left image that is much clearer and shows the large horse over the rider (appears to be the same blaze in both pictures). That's the one that appears out of place and in my sphere of logical reasoning I can't come up with a reason for Patterson to put that in his film. Or is it that Patterson never showed this portion to anyone? But since yesterday I'm beginning to wonder about the green vegetation more than the horse. It's just a mystery why go to the trouble if there is nothing more in the clip this came from unless the rider is Patterson. It wasn't Gimlin.

Why are you wondering about green vegetation in a Pacific Northwest forest ?

You did read our comments about foreshortening didn't you ?

If that's a horse, it's probably at least 20 feet tall, and it ain't Chico ..

 

[Óðinn]

Would you please outline Gimlin, too. I sure don't see anything that looks Gimlinish in that blob.

 

[GT/CS]

[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/horsepummel2.gif[/qimg]

Well, that's a side of Gimlin I didn't know existed!

 

[Óðinn]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[LTC8K6]

How many people had to keep quiet then?

 

[UGottaB]

Why are you wondering about green vegetation in a Pacific Northwest forest ?

What time of year would be represented by the mix of colors between the different scenes on the film? Around here trees at 2500' elevation have all changed or changing colors by mid October. It would probably require someone living in the area to note whether the mixture is out of phase with the seasons/supposed time.

[/QUOTE]You did read our comments about foreshortening didn't you ?..[/QUOTE]
Yes. Which is why the picture looks so weird.

[/QUOTE]If that's a horse, it's probably at least 20 feet tall, and it ain't Chico ..[/QUOTE]
I agree with your size analysis. I wouldn't know Chico if he/she were standing in front of me with its name tattooed on his withers.
So how was the frame made. And my original question sought to find a reason for the sequence whatever the reason. It isn't Gimlin on the small horse (note his hair) so who was filming.

I was looking for ideas/reasons why the clip might be in the film but it seems that I'm unable to pose the question correctly or no one wants to speculate. Either way I'll make up a reason and toss it up - always someone to tell you your mistakes.

Oh, and my first name is Mikhail but most people call me Michael.

 

[William Parcher]

What time of year would be represented by the mix of colors between the different scenes on the film? Around here trees at 2500' elevation have all changed or changing colors by mid October. It would probably require someone living in the area to note whether the mixture is out of phase with the seasons/supposed time.

It's obviously the fall season as foliage color is changing. Good luck trying to declare a specific week. FWIW, Bob Heironimus said that the day he was filmed was "hot".

Yes. Which is why the picture looks so weird.

The picture doesn't look weird at all. What is weird is the workings of Leroy Blevins mind and his analysis.

I agree with your size analysis. I wouldn't know Chico if he/she were standing in front of me with its name tattooed on his withers.

It isn't a horse at all. What you and Blevins think is a blaze is actually a tree trunk. Your perception is totally screwed up. You are absolutely incorrect about what you think you see. There are only two horses shown in that scene. Chico (being ridden by Gimlin) and the white packhorse next to him.

So how was the frame made.

With a 16mm Kodak film camera. What we see here is a single frame from the filmed scene.

And my original question sought to find a reason for the sequence whatever the reason. It isn't Gimlin on the small horse (note his hair) so who was filming.

Patterson was filming something like a fictionalized documentary. He had filmed scenes in Washington and California. This particular scene shows Bob Gimlin on horseback at Bluff Creek and probably somewhat near the Patty location. Gimlin is not wearing the Indian wig. We only have two still images of Gimlin in the wig.

I was looking for ideas/reasons why the clip might be in the film but it seems that I'm unable to pose the question correctly or no one wants to speculate. Either way I'll make up a reason and toss it up - always someone to tell you your mistakes.

To be specific, this clip is actually not included in the Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF). The PGF is strictly the scene which shows the first moment that Patterson films the subject (Patty) and then the film (supposedly) runs out.

This scene (Gimlin on Chico) is part of additional footages shot by Patterson (and sometimes Gimlin) which has been included in various television shows and can now be seen on the Internet.

Oh, and my first name is Mikhail but most people call me Michael.

How and when did you first become exposed to the analyses of Leroy Blevin? Do you live in the USA or Canada?