Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

The "Mythbusters" commercial sasquatch reminds me of "Harry" on the movie "Harry and the Hendersons". They're both really good "Hollywood" sasquatches.

Unfortunately, they don't look like animals at all. The PG subject does.

 

[bruto]

The "Mythbusters" commercial sasquatch reminds me of "Harry" on the movie "Harry and the Hendersons". They're both really good "Hollywood" sasquatches.

Unfortunately, they don't look like animals at all. The PG subject does.

That, of course, is debatable. I still say the PG subject looks like a bloke in a suit. That doesn't mean it is. You see a sasquatch. I see a bloke in a suit.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

 

[Pope130]

Unfortunately, they don't look like animals at all.

So tell us, if they don't look like animals, do they look like vegetables, or minerals?

 

[tube]

Before this thread burns itself out I thought I would post some interesting photos. At the Bellingham Bigfoot conference last May, I got to talking to a man with whom I was not familiar named Don Monroe. I don't have a good photo of Don's face. He is seen here wearing a black vest beside Jeff Meldrum in the white shirt. I don't know who the man in back is. When I told Don I was giving a presentation on dermal ridges he told me he had a bunch of casts that had dermal ridges. I was immediately interested. Don eventually retrieved his casts from his car and brought them in. Jeff Meldrum and I took a good look at them.

 

[tube]

In addition to foot casts, Don displayed several hand casts. He said he cast these in caves in Idaho, where he is from. Apparently some of the caves contain "wind blown loess" a substrate which is fine enough to hold track detail as fine as human dermal ridges. This photo was taken at a time that I did not routinely carry measuring tapes with me, so it is hard to judge scale.

Being that this is happening at a Sasquatch convention the context suggested to me that Don is bringing this forth as evidence of Sasquatch.

 

[tube]

Here is the same cast alongside my own left hand. I'm 6'2" tall. Note the strangely short thumb on this left hand cast.

 

[TjW]

And how do you know what a werewolf looks like?

Got a corpse?

Of course not. They're UNDEAD, for cry-yi.

 

[tube]

Here is a different left hand cast. The oblique lighting of my flashlight helps show the flexion creases in the cast. Indeed, Don's initial claim to me that his casts had dermal ridges was panning out, as I could clearly see them, though I'm not sure I have clear photographs of them.

Again, this cast's left thumb is strangely short.

 

[tube]

My own left hand beside Don't cast for scale. By now it should be apparent to everyone that what we are looking at are HUMAN hand casts, albeit with a strangely short left thumb.

Jeff Meldrum, ever the polite and genteel man, told Don as much by saying "these casts fall within human range" or words to that effect, and further suggested that perhaps a spelunker had made the impressions while caving.

 

[tube]

While listening to an Internet audio broadcast with Don Monroe and MK Davis, I learned that Monroe had at some point submitted his casts to Jimmy Chilcutt for dermal ridge analysis. Monroe did not reveal on that broadcast what Chilcutt's verdict was at that time, to the best of my recollection.

Later, I e-mailed Chilcutt and asked what his determination was; Indeed Chilcutt confirmed the obvious that the casts Monroe submitted to Chilcutt were human.

To me the great question is what human is exploring these particular caves in Idaho that has this uniquely short left thumb? While I have no direct evidence that Monroe is casting his own left handprint, it is a fact that Monroe himself has a short left thumb.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will let you come to your own conclusions...

 

[tube]

Several other photographs of Don Monroe's casts are found here: http://artistfirst.com/mklinks.htm along with various MK Davis images.

One of Don's foot casts in these photographs shows what appears to be a coat hanger embedded in the cast.

As far as I know Davis considers the evidence brought forth by Monroe as valid Sasquatch research despite my private suggestions to the contrary...

 

[LTC8K6]

Unfortunately, they don't look like animals at all. The PG subject does.

To you, perhaps. I agree with several experts who say Patty looks human.

What if these mythbuster bigfeet were to go to Bluff Creek and take a walk in front of an old 16mm movie camera?

 

[Correa Neto]

In addition to foot casts, Don displayed several hand casts. He said he cast these in caves in Idaho, where he is from. Apparently some of the caves contain "wind blown loess" a substrate which is fine enough to hold track detail as fine as human dermal ridges. This photo was taken at a time that I did not routinely carry measuring tapes with me, so it is hard to judge scale.

Being that this is happening at a Sasquatch convention the context suggested to me that Don is bringing this forth as evidence of Sasquatch.

Here's where I started to think there was something fishy:
"Wind blown loess" at a cave?
Fine-grained clay with excellent capacity of registering imprints details is common, but "wind blown loess"?
Weird...

 

[Correa Neto]

You call this footprint evidence supporting werewolf sightings?:

Is it so diferent in terms of quality from many alleged bigfoot footprints?

And you call the evidence brought forward by sasquatch researchers weak?

Yes. I will go even further- what some bigfoot creduloids do weakens even more their positions. A few people are starting to use a better approach. The first step is to recognize how weak is the data, what are the pitfalls of the reasonings used to defend bigfoot as a real animal, the weaknesses in the hypothesis, etc. Something bigfoot creduloids don´t do. They just create castles of cards of explanations -most of wich are actually just lame excuses- trying to validate weak evidence.

BTW, your attempt to diverse the focus of of the "werewolf reasoning" was noted. Originally it was part of a discussion regarding the pitfalls of using myths to back cryptos. It is related to the dangers related to interpretation of a myth outside its original context. And I posted some examples, including a possible alternate interpretation for a hipothetical material backgorund for the sasquatch myth you described (BTW, this particular mythical beast is really called sasquatch?).
According to your cultural background, it may be an unknwon giant bipedal primate.
According to my cultural background, it may be a fellow with hipertrichosis.
Accoding to Native American cultural background, none of the above.
Now, who´s right and why?

And again, myths of hairy wildmen are common. They are a very weak support for bigfoot as a real animal. Whoever thinks the opposite should learn more abouth myths. Read Campbell. Its a good start.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Unfortunately, they don't look like animals at all. The PG subject does.

I agree.

Patty does look like an animal, more specifically an unknown bipedal primate. Because we really don't know who was wearing the suit.

 

[Dfoot]

Oops: I just checked back on BFF and found that Dfoot hadn't previously made the claim he made here a few days ago: that Mondor had said he knew RP had hoaxed the film. The statements that I and others had requested him to cite sources for were similar sorts of Yakima-insider anecdotes though, such as that Pat Patterson had been raking in large royalties from the PGF, etc.

ROGER - What appears to be happening with all this is that the names of people and who said what gets mixed about on the Internet during these kinds of discussions.

Now, instead of Bruce, they say it was Heironimus' brother who lives between Gimlin and Bob H. and made that statement. This is very similar to the constantly repeated story that Bob Heironimus claimed Roger told him he'd made the suit from horsehide...

The truth is that Heironimus never made such a claim. Bob Heironimus actually said Roger had told his brother, Howard Heiroinimus, that he'd made the suit himself from horsehide. Bob H. was simply repeating what Howard had told him and trying his best to describe what he could recall about the suit Gimlin and Patterson had slid onto him.

The thread that runs throughout this is that Roger Patterson repeatedly lied to his friends, neighbors, etc... It was simply his normal way of living. Al DeAtley said it best when he told Peter Byrne that he couldn't say anything more about Roger because it was "in the family". That's certainly a bit of truth. DeAtley and Patterson cut out everyone else from the profits of the film and kept it "in the family". That is, until Gimlin sued and got his share.

If you are flipping about with your remote and you happen to notice that an episode of BUFFY is on, you can be sure that I and others are probably getting a little check in the mail. The same holds for Patty Patterson. When you see Patterson's "Bigfoot" on the X-FILES, or in a commercial, or another show and you find the names of Patty and/or the Dahinden brothers in the credits, a royalty check is very likely heading their way.

For a time Patty Patterson maintained a web page with contact info on who to contact in order to pay for the rights to use this footage. About the time the Heironimus story came to the public's attention the web site vanished.

Patty was there when Bob H. tried on the suit for the first time. You can try to get comments from Patty Patterson about this, but so far all she does is slam the phone down or make some comment about her opinion that Bob H. did a bunch of sneaky things in his past. It's almost as difficult to get a straight answer from her as it is from Mrs. Gimlin.

Regardless, a suit is a suit and the PG film has one in it. To continue to argue over it now is as useful as the two "gorillas" arguing below. Neither can convince the other they are simply men in suits if they choose to believe otherwise - no matter what the evidence shows.

- Dfoot

 

[Huntster]

So tell us, if they don't look like animals, do they look like vegetables, or minerals?

They look like great Hollywood type charactors. Both have faces that are made up to look much like a human's face (complete with human expressions), and both have long, shaggy fur.

 

[Huntster]

....While I have no direct evidence that Monroe is casting his own left handprint, it is a fact that Monroe himself has a short left thumb....

Short left thumb?

Looks to me like it was chopped down.

 

[Huntster]

....What if these mythbuster bigfeet were to go to Bluff Creek and take a walk in front of an old 16mm movie camera?

What if?

Let's see it.

Let's see professional costumers do it and tell us it's the real thing.

Show me.

 

[Huntster]

....According to your cultural background, it may be an unknwon giant bipedal primate.
According to my cultural background, it may be a fellow with hipertrichosis.
Accoding to Native American cultural background, none of the above.
Now, who´s right and why?....

At this point, it doesn't matter who's cultural explanation is "right":

White Feather says it's a sasquatch, Igor says it's a werewolf, you say it's a fellow with hyperthrichosis, Krantz says it's a Gigantopithecus, many others on this forum say it was "Ray Wallace", etc.

What's sure is that something or someone made the footprint.

Considering the fact that many of these type of footprints are found in places where "Ray Wallace" wouldn't expect another person to find them, I tend to discount that explanation in some cases.

Considering the fact that many of these type of footprints are much larger than human, I tend to discount that explanation in some cases.

Considering the fact that I don't believe wolves can morph into human and back again (or vice versa), I tend to discount that explanation in all cases.

That leaves me with aboriginal or Krantz's explanation.

I call that reasoned judgement, and I really don't care if "science" likes it or not.