Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Of course that happens. That's what "woo" is, isn't it?: Falling in love with your views/ideology/opinion/statements?

No. A passionate defense of positions does not necessarily involves poor critical thinking skills. This is woo redux-> poor critical thinking skills.

...snip...Did you ever see plaster casts of footprints, photographs, or films of mapinguari, caipora, or boitata?

We have of sasquatches.

Do you?
I hope they are not like those presented so far...

That is correct.

And that basis MIGHT be because a real, uncatalogued (not unknown) primate may be lurking in North America's forests.

Yes, MIGHT be. But this is highly unlikely.

In the case of Nelson's Koyukon study, the Koyukon taught him that woodsmen were formerly human who had committed grave sins, and were relegated to the forests, where they turned into what they are today.

The part that I find useful today is the part where they are recognized to exist. ...snip...

What have you done?
You picked up a part of the legend. The second step was to interpretate it according to your cultural background, completely removing this piece from its original context. Why?

Because it fits with your view.

All the parts that you considered to have a poor fit were removed and are no longer considered.

For example:
1)The original sasquatch description, how is it originally? How close it is to today's bigfoot myth?
2)It is said that similar myths can be found among Native Americans from other areas. How exactly are these descriptions? Are they really similar? The descriptions say, of the Wendigo and the sasquatch are really so similar that one can say they are the same mythical creature?

And if the answer is "yes, because the myths describe wild hairy men that live in the forests", I will have to say its not enough. Why? Because "wild hairy men that live in the forests" can very well describe werewolves, for example. And werewolves are not supposed to be bigfeet or to live in PNW...

 

[Huntster]

No. A passionate defense of positions does not necessarily involves poor critical thinking skills. This is woo redux-> poor critical thinking skills....

The definition of “woo”:

1. To seek the affection of with intent to romance.
2.
a. To seek to achieve; try to gain.
b. To tempt or invite.
3. To entreat, solicit, or importune.

v. intr.
To court a woman.

Originally Posted by Huntster :

...snip...Did you ever see plaster casts of footprints, photographs, or films of mapinguari, caipora, or boitata?

We have of sasquatches.

Do you?
I hope they are not like those presented so far...

Your “hope” is yours to enjoy and “woo”.

Originally Posted by Huntster :

In the case of Nelson's Koyukon study, the Koyukon taught him that woodsmen were formerly human who had committed grave sins, and were relegated to the forests, where they turned into what they are today.

The part that I find useful today is the part where they are recognized to exist. ...snip...

What have you done?
You picked up a part of the legend. The second step was to interpretate it according to your cultural background, completely removing this piece from its original context. Why?

Because it fits with your view.

That is completely incorrect. I read Nelson’s account of what he was taught, I reflected on his words, I appreciated the fact that these aboriginal people recognized the fact that these creatures exist, I spat at the thought that western science is to busy playing ideological games to look into the matter, and I set the Koyukon interpretation of where these creatures came from in the back of my mind for further, future reflection.

I removed nothing, I disregarded nothing, I appreciated it all.

I SIMPLY APPRECIATED MOST THE FACT THAT THESE SIMPLE PEOPLE ARE MORE WISE THAN THOSE IN MODERN SCIENCE.

...All the parts that you considered to have a poor fit were removed and are no longer considered....

Incorrect.

In the desperate hope that you can understand the English language in it’s written form, I will hereby stress the following:

I do not reject the Koyukon view of the origin or history of these creatures, and I fully and completely appreciate their acceptance of these creatures, and abhor modern science’s rejection of the same.

Comprende?

For example:
1)The original sasquatch description, how is it originally? How close it is to today's bigfoot myth?
2)It is said that similar myths can be found among Native Americans from other areas. How exactly are these descriptions? Are they really similar? The descriptions say, of the Wendigo and the sasquatch are really so similar that one can say they are the same mythical creature?

And if the answer is "yes, because the myths describe wild hairy men that live in the forests", I will have to say its not enough. Why? Because "wild hairy men that live in the forests" can very well describe werewolves, for example. And werewolves are not supposed to be bigfeet or to live in PNW...

Are these nuts and bolts (werewolves) thrown into the gears intended to merge the common aspects of aboriginal legends with European legends, or to discredit any one thing?

 

[UrsulaV]

And if the answer is "yes, because the myths describe wild hairy men that live in the forests", I will have to say its not enough. Why? Because "wild hairy men that live in the forests" can very well describe werewolves, for example. And werewolves are not supposed to be bigfeet or to live in PNW...

It could also describe the "Al," a shaggy animal-man with fiery eyes and iron teeth and brass fingernails believed to live in the woods in Armenia, who caused infants to be born blind and could only be fended off if the woman slept surrounded by cold iron.

Or some variations of the Jinni, described as part-wolf, part-hyena, who walked upright, and were shaggy and beastlike, and could only be seen by roosters and donkeys, who were sensitive to their prescence. (Has anybody tried hunting sasquatches with roosters?)

Or the leshy, who wore mostly his very shaggy beard and lived in the woods and was teeny on the edges of the forest and huge in the center (hmm, that would explain some things.)

And that's just five minutes spent with children's books within reach of my computer, and I didn't get past "L."

Hairy man myths are one of the classics. It's just an easy jump--"Hey, there's like people! That live....um...in the woods. Like the animals. Actually they're part animal! Yeah! And...uh...they don't wear clothes. No, shut up, they don't get cold, they've got a lot of hair. Yeah, like your weird uncle kinda hair. You could lose change on that guy's back, yes, I know. Shut up, kid, you wanna hear this story or not...?"

 

[Yeah_Right]

Admittedly I have not read this entire thread, and am just in the process of doing so, since the idea of Bigfoot has always intrigued me. I do think the P&G film is more than likely a hoax, but I do wonder what it is that Heironimous would admit to being the guy in the suit? Did he have something against Patterson and Gimlin?

 

[Huntster]

...(Has anybody tried hunting sasquatches with roosters?)...

Not that I know of.

I haven't hunted for a sasquatch with anything. I'm too busy hunting moose, caribou, bear, and deer, and having a tough enough time keeping my success rate for those species above 75%. A sasquatch is clearly too rare for me to waste my time trying, and I'm not geared up properly to try it in prime sasquatch habitat.

But, I figure, as long as I'm after the moose, caribou, bear, and deer, I'll keep my eyes peeled for bipedal apes. And I won't be armed with a rooster.

I sure hope folks don't walk around these woods in ape suits.

Under the potential circumstances of that scenario, I'm a believer in the "Three S's":

Shoot
Shovel
Shutup

 

[LTC8K6]

I have not read this entire thread, and am just in the process of doing so

You have my sympathy....

 

[Dfoot]

Remember HUNTSTER that I've tried to explain this (but no one seems to care). I know and worked with the creature suit designers who gave that red ape suit to the BBC producer to use. He didn't have enough money to pay them to recreate anything. They gave him the red ape suit to use right off the rack specifically because it didn't resemble Patty at all. That was the point. The idea (of this particular producer) seemed to be that if you used the same filming techniques as Patterson you could make anything hairy walking along look as good as what is shown.

To you and I this isn't true. We've studied the film more closely than that. But believe me... I know Vulich and his guys. They could make something far better than what Patterson used (a simple modified gorilla suit of the time period with caveman face). There's only one problem... they are pros and expect their pay. Otherwise forget it. They could care less and think it's all very funny.

Me on the other hand... I am a Bigfoot Buff. I'll take up the challenge and give it a go - even though I'm no creature suit artist at all - as soon as my schedule permits. The suit guys have told me that it's no big deal and from what I've experienced first hand that is certainly true.

So remember... when you see the guy in the BBC project bending his ape foot (that looks like a hand) it's not because he thinks he's "recreated" Patty. He's only showing you what a rubber foot does when you bend it. He had no idea anyone would ever post his picture on a web page and use it to proclaim that Hollywood cannot recreate the incredible Pattyiness.

IN THE COMP BELOW... is a breast I made by simply squeezing some silicone from a tube into a plastic mold I threw together.

Also, check out the unnatural shoulder pad on the creature from IT and the type of thigh padding that goes under "Patty's" skin overlaid on "her". This was typical of the 1960's suits.

The two "gorillas" arguing have the same line in the back of their necks as Patty does for a good reason; because they are also suits.

This is the truth-- Whether there are Sasquatch out there or not, I'm sorry to say, Patterson never filmed one.

- Dfoot

 

[Z]

Duckbilled platypus.

I'd say that goes in there with the giant squid and the gorilla, does it not?

 

[Huntster]

Duckbilled platypus.

I'd say that goes in there with the giant squid and the gorilla, does it not?

Yup.

I just know there are a whole bunch more, but they aren't coming to mind.

How about the narwhal?

 

[Flange Desire]

I SIMPLY APPRECIATED MOST THE FACT THAT THESE SIMPLE PEOPLE ARE MORE WISE THAN THOSE IN MODERN SCIENCE.

Bolding and capitalising your words does not alter the fact that they are just your opinion, unsupported here by any evidence.

In an earlier post of yours, you stated that reports indicated that hunting dogs learnt to avoid bigfoot. But you provided nothing to support that either.

My opinion is that it is all ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP!

 

[Huntster]

Remember HUNTSTER that I've tried to explain this (but no one seems to care). I know and worked with the creature suit designers who gave that red ape suit to the BBC producer to use. He didn't have enough money to pay them to recreate anything. They gave him the red ape suit to use right off the rack specifically because it didn't resemble Patty at all. That was the point. The idea (of this particular producer) seemed to be that if you used the same filming techniques as Patterson you could make anything hairy walking along look as good as what is shown....

Well, my opinion is that they failed miserably, because that sorry figure they filmed doesn't even surpass many of the other half-assed hoax attempts produced by Billie Bob and Goober back behind the barn.

What you are describing is a total failure on the part of the BBC to give a good attempt at outperforming or even trying to approach similar realism with the PG film because of:

1) not as much budget as a rodeo rider, or
2) a simple inter-industry, inter-organizational budget struggle, or
3) a complete lack of consideration by one of the world's noteworthy networks.

I'm not sure which is worse for the BBC; thinking that all the their programming is approached in this way, or realizing that they'd lend their name to a production like this by reviewing it, then broadcasting it.

...To you and I this isn't true. We've studied the film more closely than that. But believe me... I know Vulich and his guys. They could make something far better than what Patterson used (a simple modified gorilla suit of the time period with caveman face). There's only one problem... they are pros and expect their pay. Otherwise forget it. They could care less and think it's all very funny....

Now you're sounding good. I would hope that the movie industry's best could surpass the PG film, even if the PG film subject is a real, live sasquatch.

But it hasn't happened.

Don't tell me Vulich and his guys are so expensive that such a production wouldn't pay their fee and return a handsome profit.

So what's the reproduction?

...Me on the other hand... I am a Bigfoot Buff. I'll take up the challenge and give it a go - even though I'm no creature suit artist at all - as soon as my schedule permits. The suit guys have told me that it's no big deal and from what I've experienced first hand that is certainly true....

I've said it before, you work at your own pace. Don't hurry for me or Diogenes. Take your time and make it good. Even though you're not a creature builder on the level of some of your friends, I suspect you should be able to impress us beyond that Patterson cowpoke.

I appreciate your effort to actually do something. That beats my work.

 

[Huntster]

Bolding and capitalising your words does not alter the fact that they are just your opinion, unsupported here by any evidence.....[/B]

Correct.

However, for folks who seem to skim-read, or have other trouble with comprehension, my hope is that THOSE PARTICULAR WORDS WILL CATCH THEIR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION.

...In an earlier post of yours, you stated that reports indicated that hunting dogs learnt to avoid bigfoot. But you provided nothing to support that either....

Earlier post?

Like, weeks ago?

You're not even skimming, are you?

...My opinion is that it is all ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP!

Duly noted.

 

[Dfoot]

Well, my opinion is that they failed miserably, because that sorry figure they filmed doesn't even surpass many of the other half-assed hoax attempts produced by Billie Bob and Goober back behind the barn.

What you are describing is a total failure on the part of the BBC to give a good attempt at outperforming or even trying to approach similar realism with the PG film because of:

1) not as much budget as a rodeo rider, or

HUNSTER: It's a guy named CHRIS PACKHAM who sold his production to the BBC for broadcast. No... he couldn't afford to pay the Vulich guys to take time off from BUFFY to make a suit for him when they were already so busy that they had to cannabalize suits at times from various episodes.

Patterson "borrowed" $700 from VILMA RADFORD. That's $4000 according to the inflation calculator in today's dollars. (Forget the millionaire brother-in-law partner who made a mint off the flick for himself) Yes... Patterson could afford to have a guy rent him a gorilla suit and head/helmet complete with fake breasts.



Now you're sounding good. I would hope that the movie industry's best could surpass the PG film, even if the PG film subject is a real, live sasquatch.

But it hasn't happened.

God I hope you are joking. The PG film simply shows the blurred and shaky images of Bob Heironimus in an ordinary modified gorilla suit. On the BFF I've already shown you suits (in focus) from the 1930's that are as good as that one.


Don't tell me Vulich and his guys are so expensive that such a production wouldn't pay their fee and return a handsome profit.

Yes... Packham couldn't pay and agreed to use the red ape suit that they were not using. Any of the suits in the background you can clearly see in the show would have been closer to the PG film than that one. They simply didn't care. It's just another gorilla suit with a latex caveman face on the front of the helmet to them. Nothing special. I've shown you already how it works on the BFF.



I've said it before, you work at your own pace. Don't hurry for me or Diogenes. Take your time and make it good. Even though you're not a creature builder on the level of some of your friends, I suspect you should be able to impress us beyond that Patterson cowpoke.

You know I'm busy working right now. I'm hoping in April I'll get a break. Till then I can stop by and post some pics -- but it doesn't seem to matter too much.

There seems to be some strange hold that this gorilla suit has on people. With Patterson dead and Gimlin backed into a corner and vouching for it people can write their own conclusions - no matter how wrong they may be. Patty Patterson's own brother says Heironimus wore the suit. Patterson's partner in crime, DeAtley, says he participated in a hoax and regrets it. Patty Patterson has already been found lying in an attempt to get out of paying Vilma Radford for the loan to Roger. And then there is the problem of the suit looking like a suit and nothing else.

Yet it doesn't seem to matter. Too much emotional investment in this idea of "Patty" being real has driven some to lose their grip on what's real. Patterson is a more successful hoaxer after his death without any effort.

I appreciate your effort to actually do something. That beats my work.

Really, all I've done is take a couple of Halloween masks from the 60's and glue them together and then stuck them onto my dummy wearing a padded-out wookie hair suit. It took less than the weekend to make. Yet that was just as good as "Patty".

BELOW: You should be able to see that "Patty" has a butt pad like the photo next to her.

The guy up top is 7 and half feet tall. That's not his skin. That's just a suit Vulich and the boys put on him. Trust me, it's a lot more involved than a hairy gorilla suit to make AND it's actually in focus.

- Dfoot

 

[Yeah_Right]

You have my sympathy....

It's not that bad, I've certainly learned more about bigfoot myth in what I have read thus far than anything I have seen on tv over the years. LAL and Huntsters posts are entertaining to say the least. I saw the P&G film on my comp and I forgot how far Gimlin was from Herionimous. Yeah I said it. Anyway I cannot really believe that anyone could believe Bigfoots existence from such an incredibly absurd piece of cinema. I feel emberassed for the experts like Krantz and Meldrum who have utterly wasted their time with this nonsense. And really the suit doesn't look that impressive so I am pretty sure that it could be made in the mid sixties or any other time for that matter.

 

[LTC8K6]

Krantz and Meldrum put their own blinders on, so no sympathy from me.

I have learned more about bigfoot believers than about bigfoot.

 

[Orthoptera]

Yup.

I just know there are a whole bunch more, but they aren't coming to mind.

How about the narwhal?

Yes, those are animals that were thought unlikely, but later verified: I think the Komodo dragon, okapi, giant panda, Kodiak bear, etc. also fit there. I should have been clearer when I wrote

And can you think of any creature at all that cryptozoology has posited and then produced?

I was specifically referring to Heuvelmans and his following (I believe he coined the term 'cryptozoology'), which coalesced around 1960. The thing is, I can't recall a single animal that has been produced from his "follow the rumors" concept; all the new species recently discovered have either been found by accident or described by scientific expeditions poking around new places. I can't think of any sea serpents, surviving dinosaurs, bipedal primates, giant birds, alien cats, chupacabras, etc. that have been proposed, chased, and subsequently verified. I think it's a given we will find new and astounding marine life, since the deep ocean has hardly been explored. I'm sure even large quadrapeds remain undiscovered in the more remote areas of the earth. But they never seem to be the ones proposed by cryptozoologists, or indeed found by them. Please tell me if I have forgotten any.

The gorilla story is to my mind an anti-bigfoot example. The gorilla was news only to the first European explorers; they were not mysterious or legendary creatures to Africans living in gorilla country, who considered them agricultural pests and could easily provide De Chaillu with specimens. The same cannot be said of North Americans whose habitat sasquatch shares.

 

[LTC8K6]

Discovery Channel will be showing the "Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science" program on Feb 18th and 22nd, 11am, if anyone is interested in some pro-bigfoot propaganda.

DSC — Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science

The legend of a North American Ape species known as Sasquatch, Bigfoot and Yeti has been around since recorded time. Even today, sighting and physical evidence are gathered on a regular basis. Is this creature fact or fiction?

The blurb acts as if the show is a balanced look at bigfoot.....

 

[Hitch]

Dfoot,

Bigfoot woos are so convinced that the P/G film is real that they'll never admit it could possibly be a costume. So they insist that "Hollywood" could never produce a costume as good as would have to be to fake that film. Despite the fact that you can see better costumes than "Patty" in episodes of Gilligan's Island and the Beverly Hillbillies. As a matter of fact those were considerably more complicated because they made some effort to get the wearer to walk like an ape rather than just strolling along in oversize shoes.

 

[LAL]

Admittedly I have not read this entire thread, and am just in the process of doing so, since the idea of Bigfoot has always intrigued me. I do think the P&G film is more than likely a hoax, but I do wonder what it is that Heironimous would admit to being the guy in the suit? Did he have something against Patterson and Gimlin?

And why did it take him over thirty years to do this? According to Green, he was trying to sell this story for years, and, according to Gimlin, he (Gimlin) has been putting up with this stuff for thirty years (they're neighbors). Heironimus finally got a taker in Greg Long. He variously claimed the suit was made by "the guy from Planet of the Apes" and by Patterson, who skinned out a dead "red horse" and that Patterson never paid him the promised $1000 for "doing the walk" in the suit. Phillip Morris, a costume maker, claimed he sold Patterson one of his standard gorilla suits for about $416.00 + S&H and Long included this in the book.

Morris built a suit and Heironimus wore it for this recreation:

 

[LAL]

It's not that bad, I've certainly learned more about bigfoot myth in what I have read thus far than anything I have seen on tv over the years. LAL and Huntsters posts are entertaining to say the least. I saw the P&G film on my comp and I forgot how far Gimlin was from Herionimous. Yeah I said it. Anyway I cannot really believe that anyone could believe Bigfoots existence from such an incredibly absurd piece of cinema. I feel emberassed for the experts like Krantz and Meldrum who have utterly wasted their time with this nonsense. And really the suit doesn't look that impressive so I am pretty sure that it could be made in the mid sixties or any other time for that matter.

Thanks for the compliment.

The PGF isn't what convinced me, but I have to ask if you've read what Krantz and Meldrum have to say or did you reach your conclusion without actually doing that?