Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

You posted photos that were evidently of casts taken prior to the filming event.

I posted the only cast picture I could find that looked similar to the Laverty midtarsal break photo that was ID'd as a Bluff Creek cast. I recalled seeing a better photo, but have yet to re-locate it.

You've said a couple of times you wouldn't buy LMS.

If you had told me that LMS did not use the original full frame PGF, I would have told you that I wouldn't bother looking at it even at the library.

I wanted to see the original PGF, not a 16mm copy that has been blown up to make Patty look better.

I presume you were not aware that LMS used a blown up copy of the film, or you'd have mentioned it.

We asked about what was on LMS many, many times, only to be told to buy or borrow it. I would have been mighty upset to learn I had spent money for a blown up copy of PGF.

Thanks to Diogenes, I won't be. I will buy one of the DVDs that has the original full frame PGF.

 

[Thurkon]

What "BFRO Bigfoot Roundups"? The BFRO has had paid expeditions for a couple of years, which apparently started the trouble (along with MM's attitude). I'm rather certain Gimlin was on none of those.

Certain, are you?

Since 2003-2004, Bob Gimlin suddenly came to the realization that there were "those out there who wanted to hear about Bigfoot". Finally, he could speak about the big guy (and get paid)!

He has since appeared at multiple Bigfoot symposiums and cryptozoology conferences. He has also joined in at least two BFRO Round-ups as the "special guest", if not more. These kind of events, more often than not, pay a speaker fee.

In other words, it is not in Gimlin's financial interest to concede a hoax, if there was one.

People seem to be still fascinated with the idea that a population of thousands of large North American primates can somehow elude the massive bulk of cameras and hunters in the wild.

Do you really believe, Lu, that there is a large population of massive humanoids roaming many of America's forested regions and that they are so good at playing hide and seek that we have nothing more than one fake film, some footprints, and the imprint of a squatch bobbing for apples? We've filmed the mating habits of blind cave fish in the depths of the earth, studied microbes at the bottom of volcanic geysers 6 miles below the deepest oceans, flown minute cameras on the backs of eagles to watch their elusive lifestyles, but we're struggling to find a race of goddamn wookiees in our own back yard?

 

[William Parcher]

Interesting discussion at the Bigfoot Forums Think Tank on the possibility that Bob Gimlin was duped (hoaxed) by Roger Patterson: "Possible Gimlin Duped Scenario?"

Posters there seem to not realize that Gimlin said (in interview) that he saw the figure cross the logging road about 300 yards away after the initial encounter that was filmed. He also said that he and Patterson tracked the figure on horseback for about 3.5 miles up the mountain before they lost the trail. If Gimlin were duped by Patterson by using a guy in a costume... presumably that same guy in a costume created a trail for 3.5 miles away from the film site. That is difficult to believe.

It's interesting that nobody is suggesting that Gimlin could have duped Patterson instead of vice-versa. If the BFF Think Tank wants to stretch out and exercise its brain cells... then why not entertain the possibility that Bob Gimlin (the guy carrying the gun) set up Patterson?

Of course, my opinion is that Patterson, Gimlin & Heironimus attempted to hoax the rest of the world.

 

[Z]

You know, I never thought of that, either...

 

[William Parcher]

Of course, I don't mention it because it is a potentially realistic scenario... no more than Patterson hoaxing Gimlin. I only brought it up because the BFF Think Tank is not entertaining the notion. They mostly think that Bob Gimlin is a saint because he seems to act like one to them.

Nobody really knows if the account of the Patty encounter and filming has a truthful story surrounding it. P&G are the only dudes who told anybody about this event after it happened. We see a film of the figure but it doesn't show everything they claim surrounding the event. Now, Bob Heironimus is claiming to be the guy in the Bigfoot costume. He says that the surrounding events and scenario that P&G told the world are basically false. BH says that the filming was done weeks before it was claimed to be, that he was wearing the costume in the filming, that P&G were both part of the hoax (that included BH), that RP and/or BG created the fake trackway and castings after the filming and that he (BH) was to be paid for his part in the hoax. If this was a hoaxing (by anyone), it would seem safe to presume that the guy in the Bigfoot costume did not walk 3.5 miles up the mountainside after the filming. That bit has no evidence and is only a repeated verbal account given by Gimlin in interviews.

 

[LAL]

Of course, I don't mention it because it is a potentially realistic scenario... no more than Patterson hoaxing Gimlin. I only brought it up because the BFF Think Tank is not entertaining the notion. They mostly think that Bob Gimlin is a saint because he seems to act like one to them.

So now you think Gimlin came up with a suit Disney Studios couldn't duplicate? C'mon. Roger was the artistic one.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So now you think Gimlin came up with a suit Disney Studios couldn't duplicate?

That's absurd! A feel-good story for people who can't handle the truth.. Check out the ape suits in 2001 Space Odyssey, released in 1968. They didn't get an Oscar nomination for costumes ( like the cheesey ones in Planet of The Apes ) because the Academy didn't realize they were costumes.. ( so the story goes )

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, you are essentially saying that Disney couldn't have made several movies and shows that were out around that time and before. Presumably Disney could not have made 2001:A Space Odyssey. If they could not make that movie, then how good were they?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Lu, you are essentially saying that Disney couldn't have made several movies and shows that were out around that time and before. Presumably Disney could not have made 2001:A Space Odyssey. If they could not make that movie, then how good were they?

LTC8K6,
If you go through the Chris Walas thread over at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446


one of the anecdotes involves someone at Disney saying a suit like the one Patty is wearing would have cost $100,000, and that the muscle movement that is seen would not have been possible ( or prohibitively expensive ) with the technology available at the time.

Since we know that claim is ridiculous ( Patty just doesn’t look that good ), it is just another claim from the position of credulousness.

The usual Bigfootologist retort is:

“ Then why hasn’t anyone duplicated the suit and behaviour ? “

Of course, the all too easy answer is: “ Why bother ? “

Here is a picture of a suit made by Chris Walas for $60

Of course, at this distance, it is obviously a costume. But, put it under the circumstances under which Patty was filmed, and it might withstand some analysis..

( I can't believe some of the Blobsquatches that are given the benefit of the doubt over at BFF . If this suit had been modified a little, and used in the Manitoba piece, we would probably be arguing about it, instead of PGF.. )

I can imagine, that with a lot less than $100,000 , Chris Walas ( or any number of people ) could improve on it considerably..

Something else to consider, is that it is a lot harder to duplicate a bad movie, and satisfy the people who think it’s good.. i.e. If you don’t get the mistakes ( that happened by accident, or ineptness ) just right, they will call you on it, and say:


“ See! You couldn’t do it ! So it must be real !

But we know that isn’t so.. Right ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Sure, film it from 100 feet away with an old 16mm camera and see what you get. Then do a zoom copy of that film. Then blow that image up until you can see toenails.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sure, film it from 100 feet away with an old 16mm camera and see what you get. Then do a zoom copy of that film. Then blow that image up until you can see toenails.....

Hey, with a frontal view, you could zoom right in on the testicles!

 

[LAL]

Lu, you are essentially saying that Disney couldn't have made several movies and shows that were out around that time and before. Presumably Disney could not have made 2001:A Space Odyssey. If they could not make that movie, then how good were they?

Ken Peterson, senior exec at Disney, said in 1969 they couldn't duplicate it.

 

[LAL]

Gee4orce Posted: May 11 2004, 06:42 AM
<snip>

Use Occam's razor - 'the simplest explanation is usually the true one'. Which is more likely, that a couple of cowboys pulled of the greatest hoax of all time, or that they just happened to be lucky and shot a few seconds of film of a Bigfoot ?

To use a proper scientific method you should develop the null hyphothesis, and then attempt to disprove it. In this case, the null hypothesis is that "Roger Patterson faked the filming of a bigfoot, and the subject in the film is a man in a suit".

Evidence to the contrary includes:

* the combination of physical dimensions of the subject are so far outside the human norm as to limit the subject to a single individual in the entire human population. Where is that person now ? It is certainly not Bob H.

* If the subject were an average proportioned person, then the suit requires sophisiticated limb extensions in order to maintain the shown proportions and finger flexion, and some as yet undetermined mechanism to allow the arms to swing naturally. Why go to all this trouble ?

* The subject manages to maintain an unusual gait without looking clumsy or unnatural.

* The suit shown no obvious sectioning or joins, and hair growth and density appears very natural. Compare with contemporary state of the art costume design

* The suit has large, natural looking breasts. Why ?

* Facial features appear to move (eyebrows, mouth). How was this achieved, and again, why bother when the subject could have just kept his face turned away.

* Bob Gimlin had a loaded rifle - who would dress as a rare and valuable species and walk infront of a man with a loaded gun ? The same someone as the person with the fantastic proportions, the strange gait, or the amazing suit manipulation skills ?


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5096&st=60

 

[LTC8K6]

the combination of physical dimensions of the subject are so far outside the human norm as to limit the subject to a single individual in the entire human population. Where is that person now ? It is certainly not Bob H.

No they aren't, and who cares if it isn't BH?

If the subject were an average proportioned person, then the suit requires sophisiticated limb extensions in order to maintain the shown proportions and finger flexion, and some as yet undetermined mechanism to allow the arms to swing naturally. Why go to all this trouble ?

See above answer.

The subject manages to maintain an unusual gait without looking clumsy or unnatural.

This is subjective.

The suit shown no obvious sectioning or joins, and hair growth and density appears very natural. Compare with contemporary state of the art costume design

There is not enough detail visible to see possible suit joins, or the actual hairs or hair patterns.

The suit has large, natural looking breasts. Why ?

Because it's supposed to be a girl. Patterson would certainly have made bigfoot a girl, given his previous writing.

Facial features appear to move (eyebrows, mouth). How was this achieved, and again, why bother when the subject could have just kept his face turned away.

Moving facial features are not unusual in a suit of the era, assuming you can actually see such in the film. The creature had to at least look back at it's pursuers, or it would be even less believeable than it already is to the sceptics.

Bob Gimlin had a loaded rifle - who would dress as a rare and valuable species and walk infront of a man with a loaded gun ? The same someone as the person with the fantastic proportions, the strange gait, or the amazing suit manipulation skills ?

Roger and Bob had already agreed not to shoot unless the creature attacked them, and since it was a guy in a suit following a script, there was no chance of an attack. Alternatively, Bob could have been part of the hoax, also nullifying any threat from the rifle. There is also the fact that Roger had run well out in front, placing him between Bob and Patty.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Ken Peterson, senior exec at Disney, said in 1969 they couldn't duplicate it.

I didn't suspect Disney was in on this anyway, but now we know for sure..

 

[LTC8K6]

Ken Peterson, senior exec at Disney, said in 1969 they couldn't duplicate it.

How much would he know about the capabilities of the SFX people?

 

[William Parcher]

Gee4orce Posted: May 11 2004, 06:42 AM
<snip>

Use Occam's razor - 'the simplest explanation is usually the true one'. Which is more likely, that a couple of cowboys pulled of the greatest hoax of all time, or that they just happened to be lucky and shot a few seconds of film of a Bigfoot ?

To use a proper scientific method you should develop the null hyphothesis, and then attempt to disprove it. In this case, the null hypothesis is that "Roger Patterson faked the filming of a bigfoot, and the subject in the film is a man in a suit".

That is a common but incorrect interpretation of Occam's Razor. The razor only suggests that when forming hypotheses, one should make no more assumptions than would be necessary to uphold the hypothesis. It does not, and cannot make predictions about which of two competing hypotheses is true or even more likely to be true. The razor makes a suggestion on forming a hypothesis, not on the likelihood of accuracy.

It is common for people to misuse the razor as an argumentative tool. "According to Occam's Razor, my theory is more likely to be true because it is simpler." No good. A secondary argument will often ensue about which theory is simpler, as if it were a battle for favor based upon who can make their idea simplest. One has to examine the real world itself to gain insights into which (if either) of two theories is correct or closest to correct.

In my eyes, the null hypothesis in the case of Bigfoot is not that P&G hoaxed the PGF. The primary null hypothesis is that Bigfoot does not exist at all as a real animal.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Man Monster and Mysteries" - Directed by Ken Peterson
Hidden in the restored DVD version of the Walt Disney classic "Pete's Dragon" is a little gem! Apart from the main title, there is a section called "Bonus Material" which includes a "Featurette" called "Man Monster and Mysteries". This is the now classic documentary footage by Ken Peterson in 1969 / 70, and includes interview sequences with Hugh Ayton, Lady Maud Baillie, Alex Campbell, Isobel Cameron, Freddy Cary, Tim Dinsdale, David James, Ted Holiday, Roy Mackal, Ivor Newby, Dan Taylor and non-speaking glimpses of Holly Arnold, Peter Davies, Rip Hepple, Clem Skelton, Ken Wallis, a whole crew of LNI volunteers, and lots of Drumnadrochit school-children. It even includes part of Tim Dinsdales film! "Man Monster & Mysteries" runs for 24 minutes, and you'll want to watch it over and over again.

If you buy it now through this web site we'll get commission too!

I wonder if this is the same Ken Peterson?

 

[Z]

* the combination of physical dimensions of the subject are so far outside the human norm as to limit the subject to a single individual in the entire human population. Where is that person now ? It is certainly not Bob H.

Disputed and probably incorrect. I-M index has alternately shown to be far outside of human norm, and perfectly within human norm, depending on who you ask. As each side of the debate has been fuel by those already holding an opinion, discussion of the proportions becomes moot.

* If the subject were an average proportioned person, then the suit requires sophisiticated limb extensions in order to maintain the shown proportions and finger flexion, and some as yet undetermined mechanism to allow the arms to swing naturally. Why go to all this trouble ?

You know those grabby hand wands you can get in the toy store? They've been around a mighty long time. But the opinion that the proportions were outside of acceptable, costumed human limits is just that - an opinion.

* The subject manages to maintain an unusual gait without looking clumsy or unnatural.

The gait has been demonstrated to not be unusual at all - but does, in fact, look a bit strained at times - like someone trying to fake an unusual gait. It certainly does not fit in with what anatomical details some footers have attributed to Patty, though.

* The suit shown no obvious sectioning or joins, and hair growth and density appears very natural. Compare with contemporary state of the art costume design

We can say the same thing about many other furry film creatures. I was just thinking about Bluto from Labyrinth - very natural looking fur, and most joints are remarkably transparent, in spite of a low budget.

Oh, and unusual proportions, too.

* The suit has large, natural looking breasts. Why ?

Incorrect - the suit has large, fur-covered breasts... which is unheard of among any large primate. Just like the oversized fur diaper.

It seems almost (IMO) as if they thought by making Patty female, they could get away with Patty being smaller and thinner.

* Facial features appear to move (eyebrows, mouth). How was this achieved, and again, why bother when the subject could have just kept his face turned away.

OK, I specifically reviewed the footage twice after reading this... and I don't see any signs of eyebrow or mouth movement at all. None. There is a moment where the face seems to slightly elongate, but this isn't hard to achieve, either.

* Bob Gimlin had a loaded rifle - who would dress as a rare and valuable species and walk infront of a man with a loaded gun ? The same someone as the person with the fantastic proportions, the strange gait, or the amazing suit manipulation skills ?

Most common-sense answer - the hoaxer specifically made sure that Bob was not to fire unless threatened (you notice, Patty never does anything threatening), OR, Bob could have been in on it.

 

[fsol]

You know those grabby hand wands you can get in the toy store? They've been around a mighty long time. But the opinion that the proportions were outside of acceptable, costumed human limits is just that - an opinion.

Well, Lu has been shown evidence already that gorilla suit wearers were in fact using arm extensions with flexible fingers operated easily by the suit wearer at the time of the PGF. Why she continues to parrot the line about such things not being possible, I don't know. The evidence has been posted here and at BFF so it is hardly likely that she would have missed it.