Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[RayG]

Sorry, Dfoot. The only thing you proved to me with that stunt was that you can't be trusted.

Ironic isn't it, that Dfoot is now considered untrustworthy concerning everything, while it's still being argued that evidence associated with Marx is valid.

Puzzling to say the least.

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Ironic isn't it, that Dfoot is now considered untrustworthy concerning everything, while it's still being argued that evidence associated with Marx is valid.

Puzzling to say the least.....

Ray, I speak only for myself.

I do not consider Marx trustworthy.

 

[Dfoot]

What lie did he tell Long about his arrest/bail/etc?

And what does that have to do with the subject on the PG film?

And, after what you just got caught doing, it's rather sad to see you bring up numerous charges against Patterson. The only thing you can possibly have to even back those accusations up are the words of somebody else.



Sorry, Dfoot. The only thing you proved to me with that stunt was that you can't be trusted.

Sheesh... Am I talking to LAL here? You asked when Gimlin had ever lied. I just reminded you about a big one he told to a writer attempting to interview him. He never expected the writer to actually check on the facts. That's just it. None of the other writers of Bigfoot books have really checked things out. Long did check up on some things (such as Gimlin's lie regarding never having been arrested for a felony).

Gimlin was arrested for a felony. He was inside the jail cell. He testified against some of the others in the theft scheme and took care of himself. His parents did, in fact, put up their home in order to post his bail.

When Gimlin tells Long that this must be some other Bob Gimlin and not him - that's a lie. When he claims that he's never once been arrested for anything in his life, much less a felony - that's a lie.

Hey, you asked.

Somehow you've twisted the idea of a guy proving that the folks demanding he rush out and build a Patty-suit for them can't be trusted to see things objectively into a hoax worthy of the scam-for-money that DeAtley has admitted participating in.

Think about it Huntster... DeAtley literally TELLS you he was involved in a hoax with Patterson to defraud people of their hard-earned cash and perpetrate a hoax on scientists. He TELLS you how much money he made. Heironimus is sitting right there on a horse next to Gimlin (who later pretended to be a long-haired Indian guide wearing that same wig in New York AFTER the PG flick was shot WITH DeAtley and Patterson standing next to him). Yet you still believe this Patterson knucklehead is telling you the truth about his filming a Bigfoot walking horizontally across his lens and up a logging road? Even though I keep showing you how the suit was put together and why it isn't a real animal?

You seem to think I'm the bad guy for making perfectly clear how emotionally attached people have become to this genuine scheme to fake people out of their money and time. Somehow a guy holding a mirror up to the hypocrisy within a few posts on the Internet is worse than the 'Angels' who ripped off people for years with the PG film? You cannot be serious.

We often hear of PETER BYRNE speaking to a Disney fx expert who told him that it would cost tons of money to do what Patterson did. Unfortunately we don't get to hear that this "Disney fx expert" was just an exec in charge of animation. In other words, he was overseeing the guys who drew Mickey Mouse - he had no clue about what it took to build a creature suit. Why not go to the real experts? Probably because of the reason DeAtley described; "They don't want to know the truth".

That is the kind of fact-checking that goes on with this thing and the reason I try so hard and so carefully to demonstrate the truth about people's inability to see things as they are instead of just going along with what they wish to imagine.

The abnormally shrill reaction and denials are simply proving what I have said many times over. The experiment was more successful than I ever imagined it would be. Unfortunately.

Anyone watching the reaction to what went down over this can see the cult mindset at play - unless they are too deeply involved to step back and look at reality.

- Dfoot

 

[RayG]

The Marx film is an obvious hoax.

The Bossburg footprints are not.

They are two different articles of evidence.

Does that make sense?

No, because the association with Marx has tainted both the film AND the footprints. Don't you find it a little disturbing that footprints are found in a town where a known hoaxer lives, regardless of whether or not he was caught faking the footprints? Do you not find it the least bit suspicious?

I distance myself from known hoaxers and their hoaxes (thus my new-found skepticism regarding everything Dfoot writes).

I hesitate to call Dfoot a 'hoaxer', he seems to fit the description of 'prankster' better. Marx however, (to my knowledge) has NEVER admitted he hoaxed ANYTHING.

I do not consider Marx trustworthy.

Though you don't find Marx trustworthy, and you admit he hoaxed the film(s), you seem to accept the Bossburg prints as trustworthy, though there's the possibility Marx could have hoaxed those as well. Dahinden seemed quite suspicious of his 'evidence':

In Dahinden's Sasquatch, (page 159), it says:

And it seemed that every time he [Dahinden] called, Marx had found something; a handprint here, a footprint there, signs of an unusually heavy creature bedding down in the bush; always something to keep the trail warm.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm

He [Marx] was living there [Bossburg] when the tracks began to appear. Although he did not discover any tracks, he was closely associated with several discoveries. Dahinden maintains that the tracks are worthy of consideration. In Sasquatch (Hunter and Dahinden 1975: 156), he says he was suspicious of the circumstances. "Why," he writes, "did the tracks happen to be just there, where (I) would be sure to go every day, where (I) checked all the time." Suspicions increased when no additional legitimate evidence surfaced despite the obvious repeat presence of the creature.

John Green doesn't seem convinced the Bossburg prints are valid either.

http://www.vancourier.com/issues01/07101/news/07101N1.html

For his part, Green suspects the crippled prints are bogus. "Grover is a good friend of mine, but he was born gullible," he laughs. "The fact that Ivan Marx was present at Bossburg is enough to throw everything into doubt."

Nope, sorry, contamination by association if you ask me.

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Another thing to consider..

Throwing away a piece or two of suspicious evidence shouldn't hurt an otherwise strong case ..

Should it ?

O.K., Now refresh my memory.. Which are the strong pieces of evidence that are above suspicion ...

 

[Bronze Dog]

This thread is STILL going on?

...This, coming from a guy who posts to the Top Ten List and is currently vying to be the last person to post on that other thread.

 

[tube]

What lie did he tell Long about his arrest/bail/etc?

And what does that have to do with the subject on the PG film?

QUOTE]

I've only been surfing Bigfoot Forums for about a year now, but I've seen this argument used by the P&G advocates on a number of occasions. I'm surprised you claim not to be familiar with it. This is the classic shortcut to "proving" that the Patterson film is "real". By claiming that "Bob does not lie" and that "He said he saw a Sasquatch that day" then we conclude that the film was not hoaxed.

I've met Bob. I've met Bob on two occasions. I can vouch for the fact he is a charming guy. I spoke to him briefly about his adventures with Roger on Mt. St. Helens. Unfortunately I have no idea if he is truthful or not, as charm is not the same as truth. I can't tell you how many times I was scammed for drugs as a pharmacist by the most charming and seemingly honest people you could imagine. I remember the first time it happened to me big time, it was something of an epiphany for me. This "little old lady" who must have been nearly 80 years old had been routinely scamming me and other pharmacists for narcotics over a period of months. I didn't have the heart to call the cops and have her arrested, though I had her dead to rights.

No, Hunster, just because Bob Gimlin is a charming guy does not mean he is not lying about the film, or anything else for that matter.

 

[Huntster]

.....When Gimlin tells Long that this must be some other Bob Gimlin and not him - that's a lie. When he claims that he's never once been arrested for anything in his life, much less a felony - that's a lie....

Okay, thank you for the information. I admit there is testimony that Gimlin lied to hide his felony conviction for a theft in a lumber yard. I now remember that bandied about on the BFF.

... Somehow you've twisted the idea of a guy proving that the folks demanding he rush out and build a Patty-suit for them can't be trusted to see things objectively into a hoax worthy of the scam-for-money that DeAtley has admitted participating in.....

Whoa, whoa there! I'm not stating that Dfoot is another Marx. I'm stating that your little stunt, taking images of the PG film and putting them on your suit (that is what you did, isn't it?) without saying so beforehand, has made me question your trustworthiness, motives, and credibility in my own mind.

And, if you recall, on the BFF, I suggested to you several times to "take your time", and encouraged you to build a great suit, and how I understood that a labor like that shouldn't be rushed. Do I need to get the quotes?

After all, you're a Hollywood "insider", aren't you? You know and work with some of the best costume creators in the world, right? (I don't need to ask for evidence, do I?) Among so many on both sides of the sasquatch issue, who better to build a suit, except for perhaps your friends?

I don't know what the difference is if the motive for deceiving people is financial gain, mischief, ideological propaganda, proving the point you believe so strongly, or "a test". I fail to understand why the motive of your act should restore the higher level of trust I may have had for you. Indeed, it served the opposite. It has made me question everything else you have written in the past, as well as what you may offer in the future. The possible need for my reading glasses and an investigatory peruse is now recognized as potentially needed when interacting with you (again, for whatever noble reason you may have had to deceive people).

That's just the way that stuff works with me. I guess I'm kinda slow.

 

[Huntster]

No, because the association with Marx has tainted both the film AND the footprints. Don't you find it a little disturbing that footprints are found in a town where a known hoaxer lives, regardless of whether or not he was caught faking the footprints?...

Not with the way that entire event unfolded, the description of the miles-long trackway, and the timeline.

....I hesitate to call Dfoot a 'hoaxer', he seems to fit the description of 'prankster' better....

I think a "prank" is conducted to satisfy a sense of humor. I don't know if that fits Dfoot's motive.

...Marx however, (to my knowledge) has NEVER admitted he hoaxed ANYTHING....

I don't know if he did, either. But the photos that I believe have been accreditted to him look nothing like a real animal to me, and I believe I've read that Byrne used some statements his kids made establish that it was hoaxed.

...Though you don't find Marx trustworthy, and you admit he hoaxed the film(s), you seem to accept the Bossburg prints as trustworthy, though there's the possibility Marx could have hoaxed those as well. Dahinden seemed quite suspicious of his 'evidence'....

....John Green doesn't seem convinced the Bossburg prints are valid either.....

....Nope, sorry, contamination by association if you ask me.....

You, Green, and Dahinden are quite likely correct. It is possible that Marx hoaxed the prints too. I certainly understand your unwillingness to allow the Bossburg prints any glimmer of possibility, especially around a crowd like this.

However, I remain unconvinced that Marx hoaxed the first set of tracks at the dump, then (especially) the other, long trackway later, then perpetrated the film hoax a year later.

 

[Huntster]

....I've only been surfing Bigfoot Forums for about a year now, but I've seen this argument used by the P&G advocates on a number of occasions. I'm surprised you claim not to be familiar with it......

Dfoot reminded me of the bruhaha over Gimlin's felony theft. I think I remember reading that Long had exposed that story?

...This is the classic shortcut to "proving" that the Patterson film is "real". By claiming that "Bob does not lie" and that "He said he saw a Sasquatch that day" then we conclude that the film was not hoaxed....

That is a ridiculous line of thought, and I don't subscribe to it.

My statement to Dfoot regarding proof of Gimlin's lies was intended to apply to the PG film, not to him lying about a theft conviction from a lumber yard.

But, I hereby publically admit that Gimlin has been reported to have been caught in a lie.

...This "little old lady" who must have been nearly 80 years old had been routinely scamming me and other pharmacists for narcotics over a period of months. I didn't have the heart to call the cops and have her arrested, though I had her dead to rights....

You should have. She probably needed help getting off the drugs, or was providing them to others who needed the help.

I've known people like that. I'm dealing with a tenant like that now. The town druggies knows he's getting this crap by prescription, and simply go to the apartment building and rob him; 6 times in the past year; guns and knives; the whole shebang. The last attempt was thwarted when other tenants and my brother-in-law wrassled the thief down and held her for police. We've got several other good tenants in that building. Had to evict him. He fought the eviction. We won. The whole time the local police are as worthless as tits on a hog.

Friday, after he's been gone for over a week, somebody kicked the door in looking for him and his damned drugs. Good thing my brother-in-law is in Vegas. He said he wouldn't be wrassling them again............

 

[LTC8K6]

So, when did Marx make the suit? How did he make the suit? When did he shoot the film? The film looked genuine to lots of people, apparently.

Ivan Marx was able to make a film and a sasquatch suit that John Green declared genuine. He was able to do this well before October of 1970 obviously, since it was ready for sale by then.

If you believe he only made the suit and the film after the Bossburg cripple tracks showed up, then you accept the amount of time Marx had to do it.

Most of the hunters were saying for publication that Marx had the genuine article. René conceded reluctantly that such might be the case, more from a desire to believe Marx's wife, whom he respected and liked and who was confirming her husband's story, than from conviction. John Green arrived and wasted no time in declaring the film authentic. He offered Marx eight hundred dollars for a copy, of which action Rene reflects dryly, "I guess he wanted two Sasquatch films." (The other one being the Patterson film.) Green was moved to write a tribute to Marx for the pages of the Bigfoot Bulletin, a mimeographed publication sent out intermittently from a base in Oakland, California. Part of it read: "I am satisfied...that he could not have faked all he has to show, and that the film is genuine."

So, how come Marx could make a fairly convincing suit & movie a few months after Patterson supposedly couldn't?

 

[LTC8K6]

Diogenes, I look at the style of the wooden feet more than trying to make an exact match with a cast or print. The big toe, square toes, and the groove in the ball, for example.

 

[Dfoot]

HUNTSTER: Here's what happened... As you said you and others had asked me to build a Patty suit. I told you all that I'd never built anything in my life and that I only directed stunt people wearing creature suits. I then messed around and learned a few things about what these creature fx guys had been talking about all these years and found out they were right.

But I came to the conclusion (after witnessing plenty of strange hoop jumping) that even if someone did build a suit very similar to the one used in the PG film it would do no good.

I can see that you still haven't understood what I did even though I've explained it... You just said that you thought I'd mixed an image of Patty with an image of "my suit" to make a fake image. But I've said over and over now EXACTLY what I did in order to demonstrate the point that people over there would not be able to see any suit as being as good as "Patty".

Let me say it one more time ---

I didn't make a suit. The images had no new suit anywhere in them. That was simply Patty taken directly from the PG film.

Your response was to tell me that the limb ratios were not correct and that the legs were too thin. But those are the legs of Patty. Those are Patty's limb proportions.

So the motive should be very clear. The motive was to use an image of Patty without telling anyone in order to get to the truth of the matter. And clearly that is just what happened.

I predicted bad behavior would result. Denials that anyone fooled was actually fooled would follow. Private messages would flow and then there would be an attempt to paint the heretic as a hoaxer who was uncovered by their own ingenuity. This has come to pass much faster than I even thought it would and more blatantly too. The point I was making isn't lost on some, believe me.

It had to be done in order to motivate a few people to think about this hoax that is the Patterson-Gimlin film. It may help a few to reassess what has been going on. Most will never dare consider the facts, but for those few it is well worth the small effort put forth to do it.

Huntster, I'm sure that you may now since his death, have come to realize that Wallace was lying all these years about what transpired on his work sites. In previous years this was not the story coming from Green and others. It's hard to believe that people could know about Wallace, Heironimus and Gimlin and not say a word - but that's just what happened. No financial motive at all. It's just easier that way.

Today Gimlin lies to Bigfooters. It's easier to be a hero than a heel. He'll continue to lie all the way to his grave just as Wallace and Patterson did.

One night on the BUFFY set I overheard several people talking about magician DAVID BLAINE'S first special. There was a big build-up to his attempt to levitate at the end of his show. Most of the crew knew it was a trick but didn't understand how it was done. A few were deeply into that special brand of "Hollywood Spiritualism" that still appears now and then. They wondered if he had trained in some mystic arts and used the power of his mind to defy gravity.

So I told them in my own studies I'd once attempted this stunt and got a few inches off the ground, but I refused to try again as it made me violently ill (as demonstrated by David Blaine). They, of course, wanted me to try again and I told them I needed time to prepare. By the end of the night (after a sufficient build-up) I did, in fact, levitate right there in the middle of the graveyard set. I then leaned against a tomb while a concerned pal brought me water.

To my audience I was floating in the air. But to the rest of the crew who could see the gag from a different angle it didn't appear to be anything special - just a simple trick. For a few minutes there I was Gimlin and Patterson rolled into one. A legendary legend. But, alas, that's not me. I only did it to show them how it was done. Once I explained the stunt I'm sure they never believed that any "guru" really levitated - or at least they won't be as easy to dupe by such people.

Now the question is: Will PG flick worshippers realize the point of all this? Or will they continue to see a magic gorilla, draw lines on pictures and attack messengers bringing news they don't like to hear.

What did Rene' Dahinden do when he finally found out the PG film was a hoax? Did he have the strength to stand up and say he'd been wrong? No. He decided to give to Bigfooters the "clean version" of Patterson and spend the rest of his remaining days attacking other Bigfooters.

You see the pics of Green examining prints at Bluff Creek that he says came from a real Bigfoot. Those prints are the double-balled prints made by Wallace at his work site. Yes... they match his wooden feet. No... there were no double-balled footprints before Wallace made his. The answer should be obvious that Green was duped. Does he admit this? No. Of course not.

This is the same behavior we are seeing with regards to the test I did to gauge the honest ability to judge Patty-suits. First deny it ever happened then attack the one pointing out these uncomfortable facts. Rally the troops and continue the group mindset. That's how it keeps going.

Wallace and Patterson pulled successful hoaxes for their own reasons. They usurped the Indian stories about hairy mountain giants. Now we should have enough sense to dismiss those modern day hoaxers and go forward to discover what is at the base of these Indian beliefs. Were they real? If so were they apes? Either way... the Sasquatch story has nothing to do with these pranksters.

- Dfoot

 

[Dcdrac]

Have you seen the latest edition of Skeptical Enquirer it has an article about the Ivory Billed Woodpecker which was pesumed extinct, it has been found by research teams using the latest equipment in an area of Arkansas associated with the Big Foot myth. The thrust of the article is, with so many researchers there using hte latest detection equipoment desinged to find a bird surely they would have picked up at least one sign of a large hominid wandering around as well. They did not, but they did find the woodpeckers.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Wallace and Patterson pulled successful hoaxes for their own reasons. They usurped the Indian stories about hairy mountain giants. Now we should have enough sense to dismiss those modern day hoaxers and go forward to discover what is at the base of these Indian beliefs. Were they real? If so were they apes? Either way... the Sasquatch story has nothing to do with these pranksters.

- Dfoot

Exactly what most of the "scofficts", "denialists", "close-minded skeptics" [add namecalling of choice here] here are saying since the start. But some people have a problem when it comes to abbandom dogmas. I guess this might -at least in part- be related to an intrinsic fear of loosing support for their claim ("If PGF is shown to be a hoax, and the footprints are misinterpretations and hoaxes, what are we left with?").

In this case, after dumping all the data stained by hoaxers, footers will be left at least (and also at last) with honesty, impartiality and a clean reputation.

But quite often some footers show little if any motivation for independent and critical thinking when it challenges dogmas and interpretations made by some "infailible popes".

Want a non-PGF and non-footprint related example?
Why some stick with -and try to defend- the supposition that bigfeet are Gigantopithecus? Not only its anatomy and habits indicates a creature that is very different from the most common renderings of bigfoot, but also there is a candidate that may offer a better fit. Google for Meganthropus if you want to meet this fellow. But if the popes say its Gigantopithecus, so its gotta be Gigantopithecus...

 

[Correa Neto]

Stop the press!!!!

Hairy previously unknown-to-the-science creature found at inaccessible and wild non-populated area!!!! Receives its name from a mythological being!!!!!!

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4785482.stm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nope, its not bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

Dr Segonzac said he and his colleagues saw the animal fighting with two crabs over a piece of shrimp.

That sounds like some primates I saw at a restaurant the other day....

 

[UrsulaV]

Nope, its not bigfoot.

Evidence?

*grin* Sorry, couldn't resist. God, he's cool. Lookit those little fuzzy pinchy arms!

 

[Correa Neto]

Nope, its not bigfoot.

Evidence?

*grin* Sorry, couldn't resist. God, he's cool. Lookit those little fuzzy pinchy arms!

The picture!!!! It is the evidence!!!! Contrary to the pictures from bigfeet, its quite sharp and there's no shadow of hoax involved!!!

Since the thing has no feet at all, it can't be a bigfoot.

And thus, materialism is refuted.

Now its about time for some people change the claim that sharp pictures would not be accepted by the denialist close-minded scoffics as reliable evidence.

 

[RayG]

Whoa, whoa there! I'm not stating that Dfoot is another Marx. I'm stating that your little stunt, taking images of the PG film and putting them on your suit (that is what you did, isn't it?) without saying so beforehand, has made me question your trustworthiness, motives, and credibility in my own mind.

There seem to be many others on the BFF who share your thoughts, though I'm not one of them. As I've pointed out over there, we should consider the intent and not just the actions.

A hoaxster is someone like Ivan Marx, who deliberately and intentionally created false evidence for the purpose of making money or gaining notoriety. A hoaxster never admits any wrong-doing, and clings to the original story, even years later. Some well-known hoaxes include the Alien Autopsy video, the Cardiff Giant, Piltdown Man, and Cottingley Fairies.

A prankster is someone like Ashton Kutcher, who dreams up elaborate schemes for putting a celebrity in a position of being 'Punk'd'. The prank is eventually revealed to the unwitting target, usually to their great embarassment (or sometimes anger). Candid Camera pulled many a humorous prank in their heyday.

Anyone who holds the PGF up as the Holy Grail of bigfoot evidence is going to feel uncomfortable if that evidence is denigrated in any way (or embarassed or angry). How dare Dfoot try to disparage the holyness of the PGF!! The feedback concerning his prank has been swift and certain, with many climbing on the bandwagon of mistrust. Us humans don't like our belief systems torn apart, and when the belief in the PGF is that strong, woe to anyone who disturbs that belief. I think it goes hand in hand with the thin skins that bigfooters seem to develop.

I don't know what the difference is if the motive for deceiving people is financial gain, mischief, ideological propaganda, proving the point you believe so strongly, or "a test".

If that's the case you must not see any difference between --a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain-- and --a mischievous trick or practical joke.-- One's fraud, the other a prank. Huge difference, and I'm surprised you can say you don't see any.

I fail to understand why the motive of your act should restore the higher level of trust I may have had for you. Indeed, it served the opposite. It has made me question everything else you have written in the past, as well as what you may offer in the future.

Seems like you're holding Dfoot to a higher standard than Marx.

The possible need for my reading glasses and an investigatory peruse is now recognized as potentially needed when interacting with you (again, for whatever noble reason you may have had to deceive people).

But don't you don your 'skepticals' when dealing with any evidence, regardless of the source?

RayG