Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[kitakaze]

Sorry to disappoint but you are incorrect about this as well. My name is Chris Bennett of the Bigfoot Research Project of Kentucky.Co-host Squatchdetective Radio and former Admin of the BFF. My phone number is on the home page of my website.

Hi there, Chris. Been a while. Good to see you here.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Wow, talk about aggression. Did Bill Munns run over <pablum snip> the subject's breasts in the film.

I don't know, maybe he did.

Joke son.

So anyway, aggressive bored is the more apt term. Aggressive Bored with ProBigfooters like you running their same ole number, "Yeah I saw one blah blah so you'll never change my mind." Well okay, I can admit when I'm wrong. As soon as you bring one in and show us, I'll eat all the crow you can supply. Too unreasonable? Okay I'll do it with just a good snapshot. Preferably from a Kodak™ Brownie™ camera. You know, to be faithful to the technologies of 1967 and stuff. 'Cause you know, 1967 is considered by most other galactic federations to be Earth's Year Of The Bigfooter. True story. Although the intergalactic newsmagazine LightYear™ headlined it best I think: 1967: Bigfoot's BIG Year.

Aggressive Bored yet?

Additionally, I think I'm really aggressive bored with you guys pretending you're seeking the Bigfoot 'truth'. How could you possibly be seeking Bigfoot truth when even the simplest of actual Bigfoot truths espoused here are virtually impossible for you (your ilk) to accept? How can we believe you're 'seeking truth' when you regularly deny the most basic of realities pertaining to the entire phenomenon? So much so you don't even argue them really, you simply discount them from the equation when they get in the way of allowing your version of Bigfoot to pencil.

Oh and I'm also really aggressive bored with Bigfoot never being the same 'beast' in any two stories. He's 10' tall, he's 6' tall, he's 8' tall, he's average, he's partly hairy, he's really hairy, he's average, he's furry, he's muscular, he's thin, he's average, he's white, he's black, he's fast, he's average, he's slow, he's red, he's handsome, he's average, he's caring, he's menacing, he's stealing my car, etc. etc. etc. The range of human beings isn't as diverse and there's 6 billion of us! Furthermore, the range in sizes and configurations of purported footprints is even more diverse so I won't even go there. Seriously, no two Bigfoot are the same. Hmmm. It's almost like Bigfoot is exactly the beast any one random person would THINK it is without the benefit of seeing one.

So do you have any idea how to get rid of all this Bigfoot aggression boredom you and your ilk regularly bring down upon us (me)?

I'll bet you don't.


ETA: Ahoy KK. Nice to see you here.

 

[kitakaze]

You too, Harry.

Speaking of aggression, the sense that I get from what I have seen of Bigfootery lately (which admittedly is not very much), is that there seems like some sort tacit understanding that Bigfoot isn't actually real outside of stories told amongst each other for entertainment purposes, and that the frustration that comes from that knowledge leads to a lot of the bizarre antisocial behaviour that you see within the subculture. Sometime ago I was added by someone on Facebook to a Bigfoot group called Bigfoot Warz which I recently unadded myself from. The thing which was of the greatest interest whenever these guys would pop up in the news feed is how very little to none of what they discussed had anything to do with Bigfoot or promoting belief in it. There actually seemed to be very little discussion period, and almost exclusively what I saw was people swearing at each other and having Tourette's fits about who was gay, who was a liar, etc.

I think Facebook is a new bastion and frontier for Bigfoot enthusiasts that allows them to dispense with the formalities and get right to the gong show behaviour which is apparently so much more entertaining.

 

[kitakaze]

Surely you must have seen the photo of Patterson with his many plaster casts - and that is just one example of how the most incredibly stupid and far-out caricatures of feet are taken as being real by the bleevers.
After all - Saint Roger and Salt o' the Earth Gimlin would never lie.

Here's an interesting example I can share of Gimlin doing the used car salesman routine he's so good at and just completely fabricating things on the spot.

Last year when I was still deeply involved in the PGF and participating at the BFF, a topic that I was heavily pursuing was the true circumstances surrounding the when and where of the filming of the scenes from the second reel, the plaster pour scene, the cast display scene, and the trackway scene. There was a regular member at the BFF by the name of Pat Beaton that would have the nail on chalkboard habit of typing every post in a feigned southern accent. So Pat calls up Gimlin regarding the trackway and plaster pour scene and Gimlin tells him that yes, that was him that filmed those scenes and they were just after they had encountered Patty. This is in 180 contradiction of Gimlin emphasizing that no way did he ever touch the camera nor did he even know how to use one that he discusses here...



So after getting Gimlin turning around and saying that he did in fact film the trackway and plaster pour scenes on Patty Day, I was immediately wanting to get his commentary on the cast display scene that you see here beside the plaster pour...



Here's the actual plaster pour footage...



And here is the cast display scene...



The reason all of this is relevant, of course, is because of the prominent beard growth that Patterson has in the cast display scene compared with the clean shaven plaster pour scene. PGF proponents have tried to explain it away saying it was a night shot and that the lighting is from a spotlight or that it was taken back in Washington after returning from the trip to Bluff Creek.

So what I did was to go straight to Gimlin with the cast display footage. Because of my involvement in exposing the film as a hoax Gimlin would not speak with me, so using a contact who was connected to Gimlin, I had a person who knows Gimlin question him about the cast display scene. I was highly of the impression at this point that Gimlin had been made aware by "Gimlin Guard" associates (Bigfoot enthusiast people who defend and shield him from critical scrutiny) of the beard issue.

So what does Gimlin say about the cast display scene? Does he say he filmed it along with the plaster pour and trackway scene he says he filmed right after Patty?

No.

This is where it gets very interesting. Gimlin goes and says that he in fact did not film that scene at all, but it is Bluff Creek. Here's the catch. He has a very specific answer for where, when and how this was filmed. Gimlin says that it was not he who filmed the scene, but rather Rene Dahinden who filmed it and that it was filmed nearly a year later when Dahinden and Patterson returned to Bluff Creek together in August/September 1968 and that Dahinden and Patterson had returned there numerous times! This tidily removes Gimlin from any involvement in the scene as well as apparently discarding the beard growth issue.

But Patterson never returned to Bluff Creek.

The only mention anywhere ever of Patterson returning to Bluff Creek is his nutty brother Les Patterson saying they mounted a giant expedition which he was part of (never happened). I checked this personally with John Green and Jim McClarin who confirmed to me that Patterson never once returned to Bluff Creek. Green told me he had always found this odd. This immediately puts Gimlin's statement about Roger returning the following year in doubt, especially considering that is the same time that Green and McClarin went to Bluff Creek to film McClarin trying to estimate Patty's path.

But here is what makes it an outright fabrication by Gimlin. Nevermind that Roger is wearing the same hat, shirt, jeans and boots in the plaster pour scene and cast display scene, complete with matching plaster splotches on Roger's left leg. Proponents explain it away by simply saying the scenes must have been filmed on separate days and that Roger just didn't change his clothes. What makes it impossible that the cast display footage was filmed one year after the plaster pour scene lies in the casts themselves, specifically the right one. You see, in the cast display scene on the right corner of the right cast is a protruding piece of plaster of spill over when the cast was made. Yet as early as October 26, 1967, only six days after the alleged filming, that protruding plaster has been chiseled off the cast. Here are Gimlin and Patterson displaying the PGF casts along with two others belonging to Patterson on October 26th, 1967 shot in the Tudor Room of the Georgia Hotel in downtown Vancouver at a showing of the film there...



Note the date on the newspaper.

The following is a far clearer shot...

The two held by Patterson and Gimlin are supposed to be Patty's. The one held by Gimlin is the cast that has been altered to remove the excess plaster. The following is a later shot that also show clearly the plaster has been removed from beside the small toe...

The final image shows the cast display in which the excess plaster can clearly be seen. Gimlin was lying when he said this scene was filmed the year after the PGF and was filmed by Dahinden with Patterson on a return trip to Bluff Creek. From everything I have researched, I think that the scenes were staged at Bluff Creek weeks after the actual filming of Bob Heironimus in the week leading up to October 20th and pretending they had just filmed Bigfoot on that day.

(click to enlarge)

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It doesn't matter what Munns says, and no one needs to rebut him in order to dismiss the PGF. I've already asked you what you expect from us, and I still wonder.



I want to see some evidence for bigfoot, and there is nothing anywhere that's even close to good enough. The PGF fails to convince just about everyone, because it looks so fake. How is anything that I say self-serving?

Do you think that I have an interest in the nonexistence of bigfoot? I couldn't care less either way, but if you want to convince me that bigfoot exists, you have to show me, and it seems very clear that you cannot even begin to do that.

My expectations include a little common courtesy. I realize you want to see some genuine evidence for bigfoot, but I'm not here to provide that for you. Indeed I can't provide that for you and have never claimed otherwise.

It seems very clear because I have made it very clear that it is not my intention to try to convince anyone of anything. I simply wanted to hear what the rebuttal was on Munns' presentation. And to see if that rebuttal would be based on fact and testing or opinion.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Hi there, Chris. Been a while. Good to see you here.

Thanks Kit, good to see you.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, I feel that HarryHenderson's post is worth reading again. Do you think he is spiteful just because? Just feels like being hostile to Bill? Try to diffuse yourself from his remarks and just consider what Harry is saying and what Bill is doing.

You claim that you have read both Bob H threads, and the previous three parts of the PGF megathreads. You must then know that the claim that Patty is some kind of masterpiece suit is a hollow one, because there are numerous examples of suits that are just as good, from the same time or earlier. You must also know that there is good reason to reject any claims of discernible tissue movement because of the limitations of the film.

So, what gives?

Where are the suits from the same time or earlier that are just as good?

 

[kitakaze]

One Million Years BC from 1966...







Patty looking "good" is something you immediately come to understand as completely subjective once you step beyond the boundaries of mutual backpatting society in Bigfootery. Patty looks terrible to many people, including primatologists and award winning FX artists Chris Walas and Richard Smith.

 

[William Parcher]

Where are the suits from the same time or earlier that are just as good?

The Patty suit isn't good (per se) because it reveals itself as being a suit in various ways which have already been pointed out here. But for some reason it has fooled a tiny minority of the world.

The PGF hoax is like many others in that it only requires a small percentage of believers to crank out a profit for the producer. More so, it continues to create profits for those who promote it. It's like Patterson lit a torch that is carried by a cult of weirdos. I think he recognized a society that had people who liked the idea of Bigfoot existing as a fantasy and he gave them what they wanted. But I don't think he was a believer. I think he knew better.

 

[kitakaze]

I simply wanted to hear what the rebuttal was on Munns' presentation. And to see if that rebuttal would be based on fact and testing or opinion.

I would be glad to address a specific point if there is one you would like me too.

I would ask you, why would an experienced professional suit creator when going to see if he can make breast movement with prosthetic breasts take the time to create a device to replicate the impact of striding, yet...

a) Rely on a single two frame gif to demonstrate what may or may not be neglible breast movement.

b) Use unmoving materials to make the breasts - slip rubber, polyurethane, latex foam? If I was a director and I asked my FX guy to give me an ape suit that had moving breasts and he came back with something that featured materials that won't move, I'd find a new FX guy, no?

 

[River]

Here's an interesting example I can share of Gimlin doing the used car salesman routine he's so good at and just completely fabricating things on the spot.

Last year when I was still deeply involved in the PGF and participating at the BFF, a topic that I was heavily pursuing was the true circumstances surrounding the when and where of the filming of the scenes from the second reel, the plaster pour scene, the cast display scene, and the trackway scene. There was a regular member at the BFF by the name of Pat Beaton that would have the nail on chalkboard habit of typing every post in a feigned southern accent. So Pat calls up Gimlin regarding the trackway and plaster pour scene and Gimlin tells him that yes, that was him that filmed those scenes and they were just after they had encountered Patty. This is in 180 contradiction of Gimlin emphasizing that no way did he ever touch the camera nor did he even know how to use one that he discusses here...



So after getting Gimlin turning around and saying that he did in fact film the trackway and plaster pour scenes on Patty Day, I was immediately wanting to get his commentary on the cast display scene that you see here beside the plaster pour...

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigrogerbeard.jpg[/qimg]

Here's the actual plaster pour footage...

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigplasterpour.gif[/qimg]

And here is the cast display scene...

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigrogercastdisplay.jpg[/qimg]

The reason all of this is relevant, of course, is because of the prominent beard growth that Patterson has in the cast display scene compared with the clean shaven plaster pour scene. PGF proponents have tried to explain it away saying it was a night shot and that the lighting is from a spotlight or that it was taken back in Washington after returning from the trip to Bluff Creek.

So what I did was to go straight to Gimlin with the cast display footage. Because of my involvement in exposing the film as a hoax Gimlin would not speak with me, so using a contact who was connected to Gimlin, I had a person who knows Gimlin question him about the cast display scene. I was highly of the impression at this point that Gimlin had been made aware by "Gimlin Guard" associates (Bigfoot enthusiast people who defend and shield him from critical scrutiny) of the beard issue.

So what does Gimlin say about the cast display scene? Does he say he filmed it along with the plaster pour and trackway scene he says he filmed right after Patty?

No.

This is where it gets very interesting. Gimlin goes and says that he in fact did not film that scene at all, but it is Bluff Creek. Here's the catch. He has a very specific answer for where, when and how this was filmed. Gimlin says that it was not he who filmed the scene, but rather Rene Dahinden who filmed it and that it was filmed nearly a year later when Dahinden and Patterson returned to Bluff Creek together in August/September 1968 and that Dahinden and Patterson had returned there numerous times! This tidily removes Gimlin from any involvement in the scene as well as apparently discarding the beard growth issue.

But Patterson never returned to Bluff Creek. (snipped for brevity)

I spoke to Gimlin personally about two years ago and he said he filmed the plaster pour scene of Patterson at Bluff Creek. I asked because of the mistake Patterson made with that footage showing he faked the footprints. I've never seen any documentation of Patterson returning to Bluff Creek after the claimed events on Oct 20.

Gimlin is very careful about what he says and doesn't say these days.

Welcome back kitakaze. At this point I'd like to see any proof of the claims you've made regarding the alleged suit being found. At one time you claimed to have seen some images made by a cell phone and that you had made contact with a relative of the person holding the suit. After you abandoned the cause, it seems a lot like empty claims made by others on the opposite side of the issue.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Actually, there is a point in the film where the right boob bounces and the left one doesn't.

Another flaw that is easily spotted, is that as the right arm swings back, it should pull the breast ( pec muscle ) back with it.. It doesn't . I'm not sure how Munns explains this, if at all..

Putting together a visual would be a waste of my time, besides we have been over it all before and even pointed these things out to Munns, which he manages to dismiss for one reason or another..

Chris, Did Munns explain the disappearing upper thigh ?

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/waderline_zps108b59a3.gif[/qimg]

Did he explain why patty has do-nut like shapes circling the arms, instead of long muscles that run the length of the arm like every other animal on the planet that has arms and legs ?

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/donuts2_zpsef0989eb.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/elboa_zpse50fab4b.gif[/qimg]


Did Munns explain why the shoulders have the underlying shape of shoulder pads, instead of the shape that real deltoid muscles have..
[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/delshape_zpsb1e74876.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/delshap3_zpsf228ca73.gif[/qimg]

Chris, if you will give me the time-stamp in the Munns' presentation where he explains these things, I will give it a look, and we can discuss further..


P.S.


Here is another illustration that indicates the shape of shoulder pads under the fabric of the costume..

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/newone4.gif[/qimg]

No Problem, I've marked the specific areas that interested me. For quick reference:


Armpit structure starts around 14:30 with chimp comparisons at 17:14

For the top of the leg and the notch starts around 34:30
The human model comparison starts around 39:30

Subduction is specifically addressed at 43:25

The shockwave discussion. It starts around 20:26 Two frames were used and put in motion. 23:15 starts the comparison of the prostetic breasts

I've never had any issue with Patty's deltoid and arm muscles.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I would be glad to address a specific point if there is one you would like me too.

I would ask you, why would an experienced professional suit creator when going to see if he can make breast movement with prosthetic breasts take the time to create a device to replicate the impact of striding, yet...

a) Rely on a single two frame gif to demonstrate what may or may not be neglible breast movement.

b) Use unmoving materials to make the breasts - slip rubber, polyurethane, latex foam? If I was a director and I asked my FX guy to give me an ape suit that had moving breasts and he came back with something that featured materials that won't move, I'd find a new FX guy, no?

A) We know Bill has some of the highest resolution scans of the PGF. The film is not that long, I would guess these are the best two frames to show the same movement of the shockwave experiment.

An experiment showing left and right movement would also be possible IMO as this movement is also demonstrated in the PGF.

B) The nonmoving prostetic breasts should not have been considered for the comparison. A couple of bladder type devices filled with water would have been a better comparison as I think most can agree no matter if Patty was a suit or a living creature, the breasts show movement.

edited to add: He may have used the nonmoving breast prostetics for those that do not see movement of the breasts on the PG subject?

 

[eerok]

I realize you want to see some genuine evidence for bigfoot, but I'm not here to provide that for you. Indeed I can't provide that for you and have never claimed otherwise.

I thought that you were promoting the idea that the PGF was genuine evidence for bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

A) We know Bill has some of the highest resolution scans of the PGF. The film is not that long, I would guess these are the best two frames to show the same movement of the shockwave experiment.

An experiment showing left and right movement would also be possible IMO as this movement is also demonstrated in the PGF.

You are supposing these to be the best images of alleged breast movement. I can show gifs which make Patty's skull appear to move. This could as easily be play of light and dark and if your only evidence is the milliseconds of only two consecutive frames, you're not bring sufficient data to back the claim.

A woman hairy or not with breasts that large walking along at a good clip is going to have some significant bouncing going on and you wouldn't need to be strapped with only two frames to maybe kind of hope to show it.

B) The nonmoving prostetic breasts should not have been considered for the comparison. A couple of bladder type devices filled with water would have been a better comparison as I think most can agree no matter if Patty was a suit or a living creature, the breasts show movement.

No, I don't think you have that agreement at all. Patty's fingers move? SO what? Patty's breasts move? If at all it's near negligible.

But yet this is the expert. A former professional FX guy can't come up with better solutions to make fake breasts move than to use static materials. Why? Because they were available at the time? Was sand not available at the time? Or flour? Or oil? Or water? Isn't an FX artist supposed to be a natural improvisationalist? I could get two whoopie cushions, some lard and some fake fure and do better than that. You can't show that to anyone outside belief culture who's going to look at that and not see an experiment that was obviously designed to fail for the purpose of making believers nod and clap like trained seals.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I edited to add in that last comment Kit, that Bill may have used the nonmoving breasts for those that cannot see movement.

 

[kitakaze]

I spoke to Gimlin personally about two years ago and he said he filmed the plaster pour scene of Patterson at Bluff Creek. I asked because of the mistake Patterson made with that footage showing he faked the footprints. I've never seen any documentation of Patterson returning to Bluff Creek after the claimed events on Oct 20.

Gimlin is very careful about what he says and doesn't say these days.

Welcome back kitakaze. At this point I'd like to see any proof of the claims you've made regarding the alleged suit being found. At one time you claimed to have seen some images made by a cell phone and that you had made contact with a relative of the person holding the suit. After you abandoned the cause, it seems a lot like empty claims made by others on the opposite side of the issue.

Hi, Ben. yes, I remember you speaking with Gimlin. I don't think that's an unfair assessment at all and it's perfectly expectable if one were to think up anything I have said about finding the suit. I essentially gave up on trying to get the suit into public view when I left North America and returned to Japan. The only access I had was never directly through the owner, but I have never claimed to be in possession of photos of the suit. If I had such images, I would have posted them for good or ill a long time ago.

I expect that unless someone continues where I left off and gets better results than I did, the suit won't be shown in public before either Patricia Patterson or Al DeAtley passes away. There is enough rumour and speculation on the subject for anyone with the time, resources and connections to try and get farther than I did.

 

[kitakaze]

I edited to add in that last comment Kit, that Bill may have used the nonmoving breasts for those that cannot see movement.

LOL, I like that. But seriously, why do something like use static materials unless you very obviously intended to fail? Neither of us are FX people and even so we both came up with better solutions to showing movement in prosthetic breasts. Now why couldn't a seasoned professional think better than you or I if not to say look how hard I tried and see this contraption I built and look, that polyurethane is not even moving an inch!

If I wanted to make bouncy boobs, I would not use the same material as for skateboard wheels.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

LOL, I like that. But seriously, why do something like use static materials unless you very obviously intended to fail? Neither of us are FX people and even so we both came up with better solutions to showing movement in prosthetic breasts. Now why couldn't a seasoned professional think better than you or I if not to say look how hard I tried and see this contraption I built and look, that polyurethane is not even moving an inch!

If I wanted to make bouncy boobs, I would not use the same material as for skateboard wheels.

I agree Kit, but some do say Patty's breast do not move. That's my guess as to the nonmoving prostetics used.

To me, I see movement, so the comparison with living models was what I needed to see. I would have made the tests with moveable prostetics. To suit my own idea of what the comparisons should be.

 

[kitakaze]

Oh wow, I though that was a joke. No, if you watch the presentation, Bill was very obviously working under the pretext with his shock rig a three separate materials available at the time that he was trying to make a replication of what he was saying was the breast movement. Check it out yourself from 21 minutes...



Whole point was ok, let's try and make the shaking with things available in 1967. Slip runner, polyurethane, latex foam. 3 strikes, you're out. You were meant to be out, this was meant to fail.