Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LTC8K6]

Is this the source? It's customary to post it so people can read the rest.

I grovel before you oh great Lu and beseech you to restrain your wrath before my horrible error of forgetting to include links.

Oh wait, you make mistakes too, Lu......

Whew! For a minute there I thought I was in trouble.

 

[LTC8K6]

A bunion is a bony prominence at the base of the big toe, so obviously what you referred to as bunionettes would be bunions, and as, bunions wouldn't be on the wrong side at all.

They are clearly on the wrong side, as anyone can see.

I also put a smiley, so that no one would take it seriously.

Oh well......

Still not filtering through that bonnet.

That's a Foghorn Leghorn reference, btw.......

 

[LAL]

Yet, if Bob H. has any minor inconsistencies in his story like the length of the drive to Bluff Creek, he’s lying!

I’m glad you’re consistent.

That's the least of it. If there was any chance this normal-sized guy could have been a 500 lb. 6'5" -7' animal I'd make excuses for him too.

"Much of the book is a transcript of what people had to say about Roger Patterson, mostly, but by no means entirely, unfavorable things, and Long makes clear that he thought that would have been enough to disprove the film even if he had never interviewed the man who claimed to have worn the suit or the man who claimed to have made it.

He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms to short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows. .

Long does have witnesses who say that Heironimus had a long history of claiming to have been the "man in the suit" and that they once saw such a suit in his car, but they make no connection to Patterson, there is only Heironimus' word on that.

And Long has fitted blinders on himself so closely that he can see nothing wrong with his two key witnesses describing, with many specific details, two totally different suits--a three-piece suit made of raw horsehide and a six-piece suit made of cloth. Philip Morris' story was apparently a
last-minute addition after the book was finished. It would have been to Long's credit that he chose to add material so damaging to the case he was trying to make, except that he apparently thought he was making the case stronger.

Long obviously worked hard on his book and I learned some things from it, so perhaps I should feel sorry for him being so easily taken in. It is his own fault however. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who investigated the film in the beginning and those who have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/reviews/long.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

If there was any chance this normal-sized guy could have been a 500 lb. 6'5" -7' animal I'd make excuses for him too.

If only you could show that the P/G film shows such an animal, you'd have a point.

 

[LAL]

Is that supposed to be an authoritative source?

Noll posts there. He might be considered an authority on why he doesn't want to give Radford access until the Skookum Cast goes on display.

Here is where the Dr. Hill quote is from, btw.

National Wildlife, April May Issue 1968 Volume 6 Number 3

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

So far, I can find no one from Yerkes authenticating anything related to bigfoot, thank goodness.

Thank goodness?

These too.

"What do the experts think?

In the Argosy article, the editors interviewed three well-known scientists on that subject:

Dr. John R. Napier, Director of the Primate Biology Program of the Smithsonian Institution, said that he saw nothing in the film that, on scientific grounds, would point conclusively to a hoax. He expressed some reservations about the exaggerated fluidity of movement of the creature in Patterson's film, and suggested that despite the apparent breasts, he would tend to think the creature a male because of the crest on its head, which occurs only in male primates.

Dr. Joseph Wraight, Chief Geographer for the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, confirmed that a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska has existed several times in the past million years, and at those times, the climate in the bridge area was relatively mild. A migration from Asia, then, would have been logically possible.

Dr. Osman Hill, Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, confirmed that the creature in the film must be hominid- manlike- rather than pongid - apelike. He went on to say that this opinion does not eliminate the chance of a masquerade, but added that if such was the case, it was extremely well done. Dr. Hill expressed the thoughts of dozens of hopeful men as well: Whatever was shown in the film, it should stimulate the formation of a truly scientific expedition to the area, to seek really concrete evidence one way or the other:

Thanks for the article. See how informative it is to post things in context and give the link?

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, I was refuting the claim that Yerkes primatologists had authenticated the P/G film.

It was entirely appropriate to quote only those from Yerkes.

You are a really strange person, Lu.

Care to back up the claim that Yerkes primatologists authenticated the P/G film?

 

[LAL]

I grovel before you oh great Lu and beseech you to restrain your wrath before my horrible error of forgetting to include links.

Oh wait, you make mistakes too, Lu......

Whew! For a minute there I thought I was in trouble.

<Resists impuse to plant foot in a place that the grovelling position makes extremely accessible.............>

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Same to you, fella.

The part of the second roll wasn't returned but not before it was shown, but all it was was scenery. If you were expecting to find Bob Heironimus disrobing, you would have been sadly disappointed.

Sorry Lu, but I can't take your word for it..

De Atley said he thought he would have chartered a plane and knew how long the flight was (9hrs.).

Ought to be pretty easy to verify if a plane was chartered..



Still tring to account for the greater part of two rolls of film.. Even if it's mostly scenery, shouldn't hurt the case, should it?

 

[LAL]

Lu, I was refuting the claim that Yerkes primatologists had authenticated the P/G film.

It was entirely appropriate to quote only those from Yerkes.

You are a really strange person, Lu.

Care to back up the claim that Yerkes primatologists authenticated the P/G film?

Yeah, as soon as I can remember where I read that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Care to back up the claim that Yerkes primatologists authenticated the P/G film?

Oh, come on .. It was an authentic film...

 

[LTC8K6]

Let me refresh your memory, Lu.

I know how you hate to go back and read.

You made this claim just one page ago:

He and De Atley took the film to Yerkes where primatologists pronounced it authentic. Does that sound like the action of a hoaxer?

To refute that, I then listed two Yerkes primatologists who had seen the film shortly after it was made who did not authenticate the film.

I forgot to include links, but I corrected that error.

You then chastised me for not including quotes from people who were not from Yerkes.

I then said I did not need to include quotes from those folks, since they were not relevant to my point.

So I ask again.

Would you care to back up your claim?

He and De Atley took the film to Yerkes where primatologists pronounced it authentic. Does that sound like the action of a hoaxer?

 

[LAL]

Sorry Lu, but I can't take your word for it..

Ought to be pretty easy to verify if a plane was chartered..

Funny Long didn't do that. He's my source on what DeAtley said. You know, the Long who wrote the book on Heironimus?

Still tring to account for the greater part of two rolls of film.. Even if it's mostly scenery, shouldn't hurt the case, should it?

Did you miss my post on what happened to it?

 

[William Parcher]

Lu, you forgot to mention that National Geographic, Bronx Zoo and Life Magazine all rejected the PGF after viewing the evidence (which would have been a viewing of whatever portion of the film Patterson presented and enlarged printed still images).

The National Geographic Society completely dismissed the evidence.

Life Magazine assembled a group of scientists to view the film evidence at the American Museum of Natural History. The scientists viewed the film only once, made no measurements and did not ask for any stop-framing. Patterson, Gimlin and De Atley were asked to wait outside after the viewing. Within fifteen minutes the scientist announced that the film was "not kosher." With this news, the magazine people started to lose interest in the project.

The people at the Bronx Zoo were somewhat more open-minded. They requested at least two replays and asked for several stop-frames. Their final opinion, however, was negative. They reported that there was "something wrong" with the film. They did not substantiate their opinion with any additional information. With two rejections, as it were, Life Magazine lost interest and did not enter into a contract with Patterson and his associates.

This information comes from Chris Murphy's The History of the Patterson-Gimlin Film. This is a seemingly good source for the events concerning the attempted marketing of the film after the event.

 

[LAL]

Let me refresh your memory, Lu.

I know how you hate to go back and read.

It took one of the researchers on BFF hours to read this thread. If you'll note, I have gone back and answered posts from days before. BFF has a feature where you can search all the posts of any member, but I don't see anything like that on this board. I'm spending hours a day at this as it is.

You made this claim just one page ago:

To refute that, I then listed two Yerkes primatologists who had seen the film shortly after it was made who did not authenticate the film.

Did you read what they said? We may have a problem of semantics here. Primatologists at Yerkes, who were the first scientists to see it, considered the film authentic. Is that clearer?

I forgot to include links, but I corrected that error.

You then chastised me for not including quotes from people who were not from Yerkes.

No, I just included more quotes along with the whole quote. I didn't chastise you at all. The overall tone of the article seemed favorable, don't you think? I was a subscriber to National Wildlife, back then. It's too bad Life folded before they were able to publish the 7-page spread. It was about as mainstream as you can get.

I then said I did not need to include quotes from those folks, since they were not relevant to my point.

So I ask again.

Would you care to back up your claim?

I will when I can remember the source. I'm not sure it did have names, but the gist was that primatologists at Yerkes considered the film authentic and that reactions were favorable until someone at the Smithsonian thought there was "something wrong with it". The Smithsonian backed off, then everyone else did too, except for Napier.

Re your recent post on Chilcutt (I really have to leave now and don't want to take time to look it up), again, I suggest you see LMS. There are close-ups of what he's seeing. He explains how careful he has to be because his testimony puts people in jail. The dermals and the flow are quite clear.

Dermal ridges were "discovered" in 1982. Chilcutt was by no means the first person to see them.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure it did have names, but the gist was that primatologists at Yerkes considered the film authentic and that reactions were favorable until someone at the Smithsonian thought there was "something wrong with it". The Smithsonian backed off, then everyone else did too, except for Napier.

Oh no! Not another conspiracy........

Lu, wouldn't it be huge if such a respected primate center had authenticated the P/G film?

It would be like NASA authenticating a UFO film.

I think it would in fact be the strongest evidence in support of the film, yet the claim is tenuous at best, and appears to be poorly documented.

It is a claim that should be well documented and trumpeted to the world as strong evidence in support of the film. Yet it isn't.

Probably because the claim cannot stand much scrutiny.

I believe the claim actually has no merit, and is in fact untruthful.

**********

I have this film that NASA examined and authenticated as film of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, but I can't remember who at NASA said so. Anyway, here's one NASA scientist who thinks the film could be genuine. "Insert quote here".

Oh well, it's not important. What's important is that I have genuine UFO footage.....

>>What! Wait a minute! NASA saw the film and agreed that it's real?

Yeah, but who cares..... we know the film is real.

**********

 

[LTC8K6]

I think sceptics will be interested in the Argosy magazine article of Feb 1968 at this link. The story of the filming is quite interesting.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php

It appears Patterson kept filming Patty even as she went up into the thick woods. Patterson himself apparently ran all the way into the thick woods.

Does Patty ever actually stop dead and look back?

"She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her."

While Roger took the film, Bob got the horses calmed down and then rode over the creek. Roger was running again after the Bigfoot, still hand-holding his movie camera. Despite the logs and trash on the route she took — and it was not even a game trail — he got some parting shots which turned out to be of particular interest to the scientists. But we will come to that later.

At that point, I asked Bob — because he was then what is called "the back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly — "Just what was Roger doing?"

"He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush."

"Did you see her, too?"

"Yeah, Ivan, but way ahead and really taking off for the hills."

Hmmmm...running again after the bigfoot. Again? Strange.

It reads like Patterson shot the first part of the film that we have all seen in clips, then ran after Patty again and shot more film.

I have been wondering about the angle towards Patty in those stills I can't find in clips. It has bothered me that it seemed to be from more directly behind Patty than the clips I had seen. A second film would explain that. Interesting.

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off-running, I mean — because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three-and-a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel. Man, she was running just like you and I do!"

Lost a huge heavy primate in pine needles? One that leaves such deep tracks? Tracks that "sank into hard sand" ? I suppose it's possible, but my eyebrow is twitching.

 

[Thurkon]

That's the least of it. If there was any chance this normal-sized guy could have been a 500 lb. 6'5" -7' animal I'd make excuses for him too.

Now you know the exact weight of Patty? Where did you get this? Numerous people have attempted to guess the weight of Patty over the years, coming up with figures that range from 200 lbs. to 2,000 lbs. You just pick a number in the middle or something?

Surely you’ve seen the graphic juxtaposition of Bob H. and Patty, right? It’s dead-on. If they aren’t the same size, they’re at least the same proportions. Claiming otherwise is downright deluded.

He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms to short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows. .

This is what I mean by Bigfoot website fuzzy facts. First, one expert on a site will state that Patty is of human proportions because she’s a female Bigfoot, and another will then claim there’s some kind of consensus that Patty has proportions that are inhuman. Which is it? The bottom line is there’s no way to definitively state the exact weight, height or proportions of Patty. There are experts on both sides of the fence (albeit more on the skeptical) that will make the claim on one side or the other.

So cherry picking the conclusions of one does nothing to discredit Bob H’s story.

Long does have witnesses who say that Heironimus had a long history of claiming to have been the "man in the suit" and that they once saw such a suit in his car, but they make no connection to Patterson, there is only Heironimus' word on that.

So…let me get the razor-sharp reasoning on this one. Bob H. showed the suit to numerous people at the time…said people testified that they did see the suit…but since Patterson wasn’t there, even though Bob H. knew Patterson, said monkey suit wasn’t necessarily the Patty suit? Did I get that right?

Smells like desperation.

And Long has fitted blinders on himself so closely that he can see nothing wrong with his two key witnesses describing, with many specific details, two totally different suits--a three-piece suit made of raw horsehide and a six-piece suit made of cloth.

How many times are you going to post this dud? Morris never claimed he sold Patterson a Bigfoot suit. He sold him a monkey suit. Patterson modified the suit. Get it? Bob H. only saw the modified suit…Morris only saw the original suit. Two suits. Get it yet? Patterson told Bob H. he made it from horsehide…but Bob H. didn’t do a hair chemical analysis of the friggin’ thing. How was he to know it wasn’t? Who knows…maybe the modifications were of horsehide?

Long obviously worked hard on his book and I learned some things from it, so perhaps I should feel sorry for him being so easily taken in. It is his own fault however. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who investigated the film in the beginning and those who have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself."

And this kicker reveals the motives of the writer…to discredit Long at any cost. Such bile in that last paragraph. Why? Why does the author need to discredit this story?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Did you miss my post on what happened to it?

The point is not ' what happened to it', the point is that a big chunk most credible ( according to some ) Bigfoot evidence ever is missing .

What we have is an ' edited ' (de' facto ) version of the film..

Don't you understand that there is a problem with that, if you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[LTC8K6]

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

I guess this is the first report about the P/G encounter.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.... BFF has a feature where you can search all the posts of any member, but I don't see anything like that on this board. ................

Just click on the ' Profile ' button at the bottom of any post.. It will bring up the members profile and an option to find all of their posts..