• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris L said:
I had always assumed the boobs were to make Patty female so as to not have deal with the anatomical issues of a male one.
Click to expand...

Yes, making the sasquatch female removes at least two problem areas with a hoax/suit.

Male external plumbing...don't need to worry about creating that illusion or answering questions about it.

Size of creature...don't need to make the creature very big/tall.

Even so, Patty's boobs are unbelievably immobile...
 
Drewbot said:
Or, on one of his trips to Hollywood, could he have examined the recently sold Gemora suit, and relegated it to memory? Would that be all a man of his crafty ability would need?
Click to expand...

Well, he had a penchant for "borrowing" cameras so he could've taken some photos. He was also a talented artist and could've made sketches.

A direct Gemora angle is interesting, because it at least provides some context for what he might have been doing with those "Hollywood connections". Gemora seems so far-removed from us sitting here on the Internet in 2013, but his last appearance on film as a gorilla was 1958's Mardi Gras, just 9 years before the PGF was released.
 
The Shrike said:
Well, he had a penchant for "borrowing" cameras so he could've taken some photos. He was also a talented artist and could've made sketches.

A direct Gemora angle is interesting, because it at least provides some context for what he might have been doing with those "Hollywood connections". Gemora seems so far-removed from us sitting here on the Internet in 2013, but his last appearance on film as a gorilla was 1958's Mardi Gras, just 9 years before the PGF was released.
Click to expand...

Bigfoot basically was born about 1958, too.
 
Chris L said:
I had always assumed the boobs were to make Patty female so as to not have deal with the anatomical issues of a male one.
Click to expand...

It also matches the illustration of a female Bigfoot that Patterson plagiarized.


LTC8K6 said:
Even so, Patty's boobs are unbelievably immobile...
Click to expand...

They're also covered in fur, a trait not found in any primate.
 
Drewbot said:
There is some talk circulating in Ape Suit circles, that the body may be the Gemora suit, and the legs added by Patterson. Rumor is that the Gemora suit's chest was all messed up. Perhaps the boobs were used to cover that mess up. And the legs were hacked from the Morris suit. This would explain the thigh line.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a variation on Chris Walas' comments on the old BFF, where he noted that the brown-furred gorilla costume from "Phantom of the Rue Morgue" (1954) was sold to someone with TV connections despite the head, hands and feet having long since deteriorated. Vern Langdon once posted a picture of the (complete) suit on the BFF as an example of a high quality costume and it had a thigh line similar to Patty. Other than that, I didn't see much of a resemblance. There are some pictures of the suit available here and here, but nothing showing it in an upright position.

The missing chest seems to be a new addition to the tale. While a damaged or missing chest piece could explain Patty's tummy rocks, there are other potential explanations. They could be due to the costume already having that feature (I once linked to a picture of an ape suit with "breasts" in an older thread) or because Patterson really, REALLY wanted to copy the Roe sighting. And given how the Kunstler Klone matches up to Patty at certain points in the film, well...

Speaking of Walas, here's one of his amazing low budget ape suits. I found the notes about how it had new parts added for use in certain productions to be very interesting. That website is an amazing resource for gorilla suit pictures and information that I highly recommend visiting. In fact, they're currently doing articles about modifying a gorilla suit!
 
I love how proponents like to ignore that the footprints were faked by Patterson, and that he caught himself by filming proof of it.

"uhh yeah. the uhm suit, err patty could still be real!"
 
Legal expert needed: Is there a statute of limitations that would protect people involved in the PGF from being prosecuted for fraud or any similar charges?

It seems like this handy excuse for Deatley not to give up the costume, or for Bob G not to come out with the truth.

I thought it was like 7 years or something like that.
 
@Drewbot

Does selling rights to the film still constitute an active hoax? 7 years since the PGF publishing license fee has been paid? (as it is still used, and the rights to use it still sold, that would seem like an ongoing thing) Perhaps I am wrong though, and the "act" is the only hoax. Gimlin is pretty careful about what he says publicly to this day.
 
Here is what I found just Googling. Not a lawyer myself. But it seems the limitation is 3 years for the state of California, but that is 3 years from the moment the plaintiff realized that he/she was duped. Not from the original act of duplicity itself.
 
Whatever the law says, Deatley has not been perpetrating any fraudulent activity since the late 1960's with regards to the PGF. So anyone who felt defrauded since then wouldn't have a case. The case would be towards BobG and PatP who are still actively working to uphold the 'reality' of hte film.
 
Drewbot said:
Legal expert needed: Is there a statute of limitations that would protect people involved in the PGF from being prosecuted for fraud or any similar charges?

It seems like this handy excuse for Deatley not to give up the costume, or for Bob G not to come out with the truth.

I thought it was like 7 years or something like that.
Click to expand...

Not a legal expert, but wouldn't there be a burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove the PGF was indeed not a real sasquatch?
 
Think of it another way.

If a Plaintiff sued Defendant A, because Defendant A sold them a genetic sample of a Unicorn by claiming it was real and Defendant A had a college professor who vouched for the sample, would the Plaintiff have to prove that Unicorns were not real?
 
How about if a driver claimed BIGFOOT darted in front of his car, and he veered to the shoulder hitting a pedestrian? Would the prosecutor have to prove Bigfoot didn't exist in order to show that the driver had fallen asleep or was reckless?
 
Or...

You have boasted that you will shoot the next Bigfoot that walks over that hill. You shoot the next Bigfoot that walks over the hill. I turns out to be a teenager in a varsity jacket obscured by bushes.

I guarantee you that the defense is not going to claim that you were out there trying to collect a Bigfoot specimen for science. Unless their defense is insanity, and they try to claim you were suffering from delusional thoughts, brought upon by your obsession with fictional beasts, and were unable to differentiate between reality and fiction.
 
Northern Lights said:
Not a legal expert, but wouldn't there be a burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove the PGF was indeed not a real sasquatch?
Click to expand...

I wonder if a doctor could be sued for malpractice for diagnosing and treating a person as delusional because they claim multiple Bigfoot sightings and it has affected their mental health.

Is the doctor vulnerable because they can't support the diagnosis because they can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? Delusion is about believing in things that aren't real. So doctors must be EXPERTS on knowing what exists and what does not... including all possible cryptid creatures.

Can you sue a doctor who is a Bigfoot Denialist?
 
William Parcher said:
What's notable to me is the artistic professionalism when Gimlin is holding the camera. Smooth perfect panning away from the subject (Patterson) to show surrounding scenery. As if Gimlin had been trained in making a beautiful documentary with that specific camera.
Click to expand...

For me what is notable is how wildly you have to be shaking the camera on purpose in order to produce how badly it is done in the bigfoot walk portion.

It isn't difficult at all to hold a camera steady. I did some experiments with shaking it around like the PGF walk sequence though and was surprised how violently you have to do it in order to get the PGF level of shaking.

I think I posted examples of it long ago, but anyone can take a camera and try it themselves. Even running while holding the camera it is easy to hold it steady enough to get far, far more stable filming than seen in the PGF walk sequence. It's proof of how hard Roger was working to make it more difficult to see, and gee isn't that curious with a once-in-a-lifetime shot to be doing so.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Devastating to skeptics. Bill made a mask, and you can't see out the eye holes of Bill's mask.

Seems like even I can find something snarky to say with that kind of opening. Great work, Bill.
Click to expand...

Even more devastating to believers: almost 46 years later, no one's ever caught a bigfoot, found a body, found a skeleton (fossilized or otherwise), or taken a better film (despite the preponderance of cell phone cameras capable of shooting both photos and videos). 45 years -- nada. They CAN'T exist.
 
P&G basically debunked their own hoax with all of the **** they babbled. Gimlin has no memory of filming Roger? he drink much?

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom