Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

Duckbilled platypus.

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

Except that it's weirder than either:

"The platypus was introduced to the Western world in the form of a preserved skin that reached England in 1799. At the time it was an unbelievable oddity. It still is. As one of only two species of mammals that lay eggs, one of only two mammals that are venomous, and the only mammal with webbed feet and a ducklike bill that can detect electrical signals, the platypus is unique. The echidna, or spiny anteater, of Australia is the other egg?laying mammal; the southeastern short?tailed shrew is the other venomous mammal; and several aquatic organisms can sense electrical currents. But no other animal has such a bizarre package of characteristics combined inside a single furry coat.

The 1800s were a wonderful time to watch the befuddlement of scientists throughout the world as they tried to find a place in the animal kingdom for the strange new creature, or as the author puts it, "the paradoxical platypus appeared to inhabit a zoological no?man's land." A British scientist of the time, upon seeing a platypus and other animals from down under, stated that the Australian continent "seemed to have been arranged according to a plan different from those that shaped the rest of the globe." And the president of the Royal Society of London noted that never had an animal "excited the curiosity of naturalists more than the platypus."

The author does an excellent job of intermingling biological facts about the platypus with details about the personalities of that era's prominent scientists. The book gives an arresting account of Charles Darwin's encounter with a platypus in the wild during his visit to Sydney. And scientific feuds concerning the platypus's reproductive habits are a dominant feature. Some scientists considered the platypus a mammal that nursed its young; others reported that it had internal structures characteristic of lizards and produced eggs that were hatched inside the body. Some scientists thought the mysterious animal laid eggs like birds. Proponents of one position or the other challenged the conclusions and scientific reputations of their opponents, although no one had ever seen a platypus nurse a baby or lay an egg.

Related to the squabbling was a phenomenon that is salutary for scientific endeavors in any era: finding out that nonscientists knew something long before it was "discovered" by scientists. The Australian Aborigines had been telling visiting scientists for years that the platypus laid eggs. Yet despite nearly a century of scientific efforts to determine how the platypus reproduced, proof was not found until 1884 when a young Scottish scientist shot a platypus and found it had laid an egg. The finding was judged so important to the international scientific community that the scientist ran to the nearest telegraph station to pass on the news."


http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview11-11-01.htm

 

[LAL]

There is no such thing as a good copy available to the public.

I hope you are not talking about LMS.. Making a digitalized copy of a blurry film doe not enhance it in any way...

Didn't you say some of the frames are pretty clear? Who besides you have even seen it?

A good copy would probably blow it out of the water to a greater extent than what we are able to do .

John Green has a first generation copy. Be nice and he might let you see it, if he doesn't run you out of Canada first.

A few more seconds at the end, where BH takes the mask off, would work wonders..

Funny, that isn't in the recreation with the Morris suit, either. Maybe they were trying to be accurate.

Do you think the guy who wore the suit and the guy who made the suit (according to them) did a better job?

 

[RayG]

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...

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.

I'm still a bit puzzled why the Patterson subject should be accepted as a REAL squatch, when witnesses have described a creature that does NOT resemble the thing in the Patterson film.

A few things to ponder:

- Is it those witnesses are mistaken, and didn't see a real squatch?
- Did they see a real squatch, but they are mistaken in their recollection?
- Is it at least possible that the film subject is NOT a real squatch?

The longer I follow this mystery the more doubts I seem to have.

RayG

 

[Hitch]

I'm still a bit puzzled why the Patterson subject should be accepted as a REAL squatch, when witnesses have described a creature that does NOT resemble the thing in the Patterson film.

A few things to ponder:

- Is it those witnesses are mistaken, and didn't see a real squatch?
- Did they see a real squatch, but they are mistaken in their recollection?
- Is it at least possible that the film subject is NOT a real squatch?

The longer I follow this mystery the more doubts I seem to have.

RayG

There's a simple explanation for all that. But Beckjord got banned.

 

[LAL]

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.



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

According to Richard Noll, they couldn't have found a more sceptical crew. He's the only investigator on it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I just posted this over at BFF in response to one of the members observations..

( Soarwing responds to to RayG )

With that said, whether you're a skeptic or a proponent of the PGF, it seems like EVERYONE should be at least somewhat surprised that nothing was done before or since that seems to capture the "feel" of the film. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I totally reject the "guy in a bad monkey suit" explanation that has been put forward by some on this board and elsewhere.

My response:

"
This has been mentioned a time or two before, but it seems like a good time
to mention it again.

I don’t think you can find very many people who look at this film and suspect
it is anything but a person in a suit..
It simply doesn’t occur to most people that it could be anything else.. Why
should anyone go to the trouble or the expense, to try to capture the “ feel “
that a few people ‘ feel ‘ is present in this film ?

I wonder how many people here at Bigfoot Forums, who otherwise believe a living
North American primate exists, withhold their opinion of this film, because they
do not want to offend their fellow forum members who are convinced it’s not a hoax.


I admire Dfoots efforts, and I suspect he will get some personal satisfaction out of
the end results, regardless of who he makes happy on these forums…

I think it is unlikely that anyone who believes the subject in this film is a real live
Bigfoot, will change their mind based on anything Dfoot or anyone else manages
to create.

The most the true believers will ever admit, is that Dfoot has made a good copy of
the creature they see in the film…

So, no, I am not surprised no one has tried to capture the feel of this film; but I am
surprised no one has tried to do a little better.
I suspect they might be worried about getting shot. "


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is so much outcry from the handfull of ' Not a hoax ' people ( even among Bigfoot believers ), for there to be a recreation of this incredible piece of film..

They just don't get it, that the people who could do it, just don't care..
Not to mention there is this problem of getting paid for their work...


Thread here, if anyone wants more context..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887

 

[LAL]

I'm still a bit puzzled why the Patterson subject should be accepted as a REAL squatch, when witnesses have described a creature that does NOT resemble the thing in the Patterson film.

A few things to ponder:

- Is it those witnesses are mistaken, and didn't see a real squatch?
- Did they see a real squatch, but they are mistaken in their recollection?
- Is it at least possible that the film subject is NOT a real squatch?

The longer I follow this mystery the more doubts I seem to have.

RayG

Other than being tall and skinny, especially father north, what is so different? Males and females don't have differences? Haven't you pointed out the similarity between Roe's description as drawn by his daughter and the subject in the PGF?

Albert Ostman identified one of Patterson's drawings as being the closest to the big male of all the drawings he had seen (this drawing should convince anyone Patterson wasn't a great artist).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

According to Richard Noll, they couldn't have found a more sceptical crew. He's the only investigator on it.

I guess everyone can judge for themself by watching it, huh ?


I have a feeling that what passes for ' Skeptical ' for Noll, wouldn't fly very well around here..


You are not confused about which forum you are posting on, are you ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

John Green has a first generation copy. Be nice and he might let you see it, if he doesn't run you out of Canada first.

I wonder why we don't get to see John Green's copy in LMS ?

Even then, how would we know we are looking at all of it ?

I wonder if Green knows he could get a real, high resolution, digitized copy of the film made for less than $300 ?

http://www.slidescanning.com/film-2-dvd.htm


Here is an example.. this is their ‘ Gold ‘ process.. Less than $200 for 23 feet of film..

—

Below: Platinum process, for less than $300..

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, there is really no excuse for not allowing the public to see the film. None at all.

The actual film I mean, not what we have been shown already.

The fact is, it could be a man in a suit.

The believers have yet to eliminate the possibility of a man in a suit. It is the believers who must eliminate that possibility, not the skeptics.

Nothing that has been done regarding analyzing the figure in the film, has eliminated the possibility of a man in a suit.

To be sure, there have been some bogus claims about the IM index, and some bad analysis of the film that reached some bad conclusions, but nothing has been done that eliminates the most likely explanation....it's a bloke in a suit.

Deny it all you want to, but it could be a man in a suit.

The more flaps I see flapping, the easier and easier it gets to believe it's a suit, and a poor one at that....

 

[Huntster]

.....Bigfoot woos are so convinced that the P/G film is real that they'll never admit it could possibly be a costume.....

Well, I certainly can't write for all Bigfoot "woos", but since I have been repeatedly labeled a Bigfoot "woo" on this forum, I should be qualified to write for myself.

I hereby readily admit that the subject on the PG film might possibly be a man in a costume.

However, after reviewing all the available evidence (and propaganda) on all sides of the issue, I have arrived at the judgement that the subject on the film was a living sasquatch.

... So they insist that "Hollywood" could never produce a costume as good as would have to be to fake that film....

While guilty of writing such words as "never" and "impossible", I hereby admit that that is untrue.

I now state that it simply hasn't been done yet, despite many people (even within the motion picture industry) clearly stating that it would be "easy", and that it has indeed already been done.

... Despite the fact that you can see better costumes than "Patty" in episodes of Gilligan's Island and the Beverly Hillbillies.....

Your words there, Hitch.

Now comes the obvious:

Evidence, please?

Also, are you prepared to admit that the subject in the PG film might be an uncataloged animal, or are you so sure (or have proof to go along with your opinion) that it is indeed a man in a suit, a bear, an extraterrestrial, a robot, or some other thing?

Let's see who's balanced and who's the "woo"...............

 

[Huntster]

I'm still a bit puzzled why the Patterson subject should be accepted as a REAL squatch, when witnesses have described a creature that does NOT resemble the thing in the Patterson film....

What reports describe a creature that does not resemble the thing in the Patterson film, and what percentage of total reports do such descriptions represent?

 

[Huntster]

....They just don't get it, that the people who could do it, just don't care..
Not to mention there is this problem of getting paid for their work...

Are you indicating that a reproduction that would surpass the PG film in clarity and realism would be unprofitable?

Would such a recreation be more unprofitable than filming an episode of "Laverne and Shirley"?

We have just been alerted that a sasquatch documentary will be broadcast soon. This type of documentary (deep-voiced narrator, question and answer, showing researchers walking around in the woods, interviewing Mary Green, etc, ad nauseum) has been repeated several times by several different producers. Is the motion picture industry repeating a financially losing tactic?

 

[Hitch]

Well, I certainly can't write for all Bigfoot "woos", but since I have been repeatedly labeled a Bigfoot "woo" on this forum, I should be qualified to write for myself.

I hereby readily admit that the subject on the PG film might possibly be a man in a costume.

However, after reviewing all the available evidence (and propaganda) on all sides of the issue, I have arrived at the judgement that the subject on the film was a living sasquatch.



While guilty of writing such words as "never" and "impossible", I hereby admit that that is untrue.

I now state that it simply hasn't been done yet, despite many people (even within the motion picture industry) clearly stating that it would be "easy", and that it has indeed already been done.



Your words there, Hitch.

Now comes the obvious:

Evidence, please?

Also, are you prepared to admit that the subject in the PG film might be an uncataloged animal, or are you so sure (or have proof to go along with your opinion) that it is indeed a man in a suit, a bear, an extraterrestrial, a robot, or some other thing?

Let's see who's balanced and who's the "woo"...............

It is remotely possible that the P/G film is what you seem to believe it to be. But I find it very unlikely. If there is a creature such as you describe wandering around in the woods, why is there so little evidence for it?

(And this is where we start around again. Playing straw man [I admit] -- Woo: But there is. Skeptic: Where? Woo: Lots of it, tons of evidence. Skeptic: Okay, what's the best piece of evidence? Woo: The P/G film...)

 

[Hitch]

Now comes the obvious:

Evidence, please?

Oh yes. The evidence for this claim runs on various channels available on your local cable televison or satellite provider. tv.yahoo.com should help you find them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Are you indicating that a reproduction that would surpass the PG film in clarity and realism would be unprofitable?


Yes. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise ?

Would such a recreation be more unprofitable than filming an episode of "Laverne and Shirley"?

The people engaged in such things apparently think so .. Perhaps you could convince them otherwise.

We have just been alerted that a sasquatch documentary will be broadcast soon. This type of documentary (deep-voiced narrator, question and answer, showing researchers walking around in the woods, interviewing Mary Green, etc, ad nauseum) has been repeated several times by several different producers. Is the motion picture industry repeating a financially losing tactic?

The definition of Documentary is not " scientifically prepared presentation "..
' The Blair Witch Incident ' is a Documentary ...

In case you haven't noticed, The Discovery Channel airs all kinds of woo stuff.. There seems to be a large TV audience for this kind of credulo-comfort..
You see it on History, TLC, SciFi ( they should change to PsyFi ( I use to be able to claim to be a SciFi fan )) and FX to name a few..

If I were you, I would complain to The Discovery Channel for making fun of your beliefs, by airing a piece of crap like LMS ..

What does this have to do with going to any trouble to try to replicate a 1967 amateur video, of what looks like a person in a poorly made gorrilla suit ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, if it could be a man in a suit, then that's what science should stick with until good evidence shows otherwise.

The footprints could still be hoaxes or mistakes. No one has eliminated these possibilities from any footprint. Chilcutt's info is tenuous at best, and he invented his own expertise.

I have already said that it is still possible that the PGF is the real deal. I don't think it is very likely, but I would not say it's impossible.

The info on the original RP films is essential to both believers and skeptics.

The disappearance or with holding of the original RP films is something that the bigfoot community needs to address, imo. A strong effort needs to be made to get the original evidence out in the public, imo.

Skookum cast included.

A lot of money is already being wasted on bigfoot, so don't say there isn't any money.....

 

[LTC8K6]

I agree with Diogenes. LMS does the footers no favors at all.

BFRO, LMS, failure to distance self from Marx/Freeman, etc., are setting bigfoot back imo.

 

[LTC8K6]

I guess taking groups of people out in the woods is very profitable.....
Pursuing your quarry apparently isn't.....

 

[RayG]

Other than being tall and skinny, especially father north, what is so different?

Oy vey, READ COLEMAN!!!

Seriously, the man has identified 12 variations of bigfoot in North America alone.

If you haven't read his The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, I suggest you grab a copy at the local library and have a peek.

Three-toes, four-toes, five-toes, different builds, colors, facial appearances, and even one variation with a waist-length beard that wears ankle-high boots, a piece of moose-skin around his waist, and lugs around a stone club.

LAL, how many variations of bigfoot do YOU think are roaming North America?

Males and females don't have differences?

Male/female differences don't account for all the discrepancies between witness sightings.

Haven't you pointed out the similarity between Roe's description as drawn by his daughter and the subject in the PGF?

Yes, I think Patterson was heavily influenced by the Roe account. It's apparent not only in his book, but the squatch he supposedly filmed is remarkably close to the description given by Roe. A description that differs from a great many other sightings.

Albert Ostman identified one of Patterson's drawings as being the closest to the big male of all the drawings he had seen.

Problem is, Ostman had his 'encounter' many years prior to Patterson's drawing. What was preventing Patterson from drawing an image that Ostman had described? If these animals look alike, why didn't ALL the drawings match?

RayG