Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[UrsulaV]

* Some JREF participants enjoy lies, tricks, and deceit when it can be used to deride people who believe in the possibility that the PG film shows a real animal

Now, this is definitely true. I'm enjoying the heck out've this, for example.

* Dfoot's trick did not replicate the PG film in any way, shape, manner, or form, and in fact bolsters the argument that it cannot be replicated

How exact does it bolster the argument it can't be replicated? He didn't try to replicate it and fail. His hoax did not involve the building of a suit at all. Please spell out EXACTLY how you think that not trying to build a suit at all bolsters the argument that it can't be built. Logically, I do not see any bearing of Dfoot's hoax on whether or not one can build a suit.

If this were a Godzilla movie, for example, and I said "Godzilla suits are hard to build," and you said "No, they're not, here's a photo of mine," and I said "That's a screenshot from "Mothra 4: Return of the Giant Porch Light," while we may have proved that you're lying about your photo, we have proved nothing at all about how easy it is to construct a suit. Please explain how you think that the argument for the replication of the suit is bolstered by the fact that Dfoot didn't try to build one. I haven't tried to build one, but I don't think that proves anything either way. I also haven't tried to perform open heart surgery, but I'm still pretty sure it can be done, and I don't think the fact I haven't tried to do it has any bearing on an argument about how hard it is.

 

[Huntster]

...Huntster, I am not sure if I am alone to think that, but you are getting quite Hysterical in your attempt to find excuse..........

I'm not looking for an excuse. I'm frustrated that this potential suit building exercise turned into a cheap trick when the builder realized that he couldn't do it, and a bit pissed that people here are so supportive and ready to justify this joke.

I should have known better.

... Maybe you should drop it, breath calmly, go get some fresh air, and come back in 24 hours. Who knows you might even have better argument, and certainly your logic would not be fogged by your emotion...

Good advice, but I should drop it for a lot longer than 24 hours.

Debating with people here and people like that is a complete waste of time and effort.

...Maybe it did not show a 100% prejudice, but it certainly did not show a 100% impartiality....

Same on this forum. LTC and tube have indicated their disapproval with the trick, and you are indicating some wisdom, but overall, especially with the regulars, it has been just exactly what Dfoot said he was hoping to achieve with the BFF crowd, but in reverse.

...I am sure even you will argue that getting emotional is a bad thing for any study....

Thanks for the good advice.

 

[tube]

One interesting feature of Dfoot's exercise is exposing that even serious Bigfooters may not be familiar with certain frames of the film. Consider that from day one, those who controlled the film were all in it either for financial gain, or used it to bolster their belief in Bigfoot. Of course we are going to see still frames that contain "muscle bulges" and such. Only very recently could amateurs use "screen grabs" to study other frames. Indeed, the frame Dfoot chose makes the film subject look sort of prosaic, and perhaps have somewhat "skinny" legs.

 

[Huntster]

...the image was made EXACTLY as I described it to you again and again. What you are doing is that very thing I was attempting to get you to do... and you won't stop. Now that is seriously worrisome....

No, it's not. You don't give a damn.

...Meanwhile... the image on the left actually is a genuine suit I threw together over Halloween weekend in order to dress up a stunt dummy to look like Bigfoot and stand it at my front door for the kids.

It's just a simple Halloween Wookie suit with some foam pads duct-taped to a shirt the dummy is wearing beneath the fur. Not professional and very, very simple. Yet... in comparison to the enhanced version of Patty it's almost a "Patty" without much effort at all....

Yeah, right.

You couldn't make a suit in motion any better than Marx. That's why you pulled this stunt instead.

What a waste.

...A good example of why I did the experiment is found by clicking onto this site: http://archives.cbc.ca/500f.asp?id=1-69-1462-9714

HUNTSTER, that interview and the life that followed it has something to do with the kind of posts you're making now. If you'll only stop being angry for a minute and think about it...

I can't believe this.

....It tells me that it's better to admit a fake film is faked instead of "letting sleeping dogs lie" as Rene' said. It tells me that facing the truth is better....

This coming from a man who has been lying to numerous people for months, and who created a fake photo?

What do you know about "the truth"?

I'm not Rene Dahinden, and you're not a sage.

I don't live in a tin shack. I don't hunt sasquatches. I've been married once, for 30 years, and we're still married.

I get mad when people lie to me, not when they ask me valid questions.

...Sasquatch may be living or extinct. Perhaps one day we'll have some bones from under the earth floor of a cavern that get the same sort of arguments around it as the recent "Hobbit" find has. Maybe.

But we won't find it in Patterson's fake film or hoax footprints. And we won't find it by following Bigfoot guru's who lie to themselves instead of facing the truth about bad evidence....

And, obviously, we won't find one waiting for a supposed Hollywood stunt man to try to build a suit that can move like the PG film subject, either.

Face the truth?

Good advice. Try it yourself. Here's the truth:

You're a liar.

 

[Z]

As a priest of anything, I guess you'd have more experience with "gullible credulloids" than I. I only work in mental health, currently.

Ain't that the truth.

I'm most familiar with Buncome, Haywood, Macon and Swain counties. I have yet to meet anyone resembling the people you describe, but I've only been in WNC for nearly nine years.

How would you notice? You believe in Bigfoot, for cryin' out loud. B'lievers rarely see each other for what they are, because they cannot see themselves for what they are. Again, the 'priest' experience mentioned above has made that perfectly clear.

**cue REM's 'Losing My Religion'...**

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* Some JREF participants enjoy lies, tricks, and deceit when it can be used to deride people who believe in the possibility that the PG film shows a real animal

Now, this is definitely true. I'm enjoying the heck out've this....

I know. That's why I wrote it.

....How exact does it bolster the argument it can't be replicated? He didn't try to replicate it and fail.....

A man who claims to be a Hollywood insider, and claims to rub elbows with Oscar-winning suit builders, tells numerous people for months that he is building a suit, then pulls a stunt like this isn't evidence?

Ivan Marx did better than this, and in less time.

He failed to replicate it because he can't.

...His hoax did not involve the building of a suit at all....

He just got finished writing about his "Halloween suit".

Which of his lies do you prefer?

... Please spell out EXACTLY how you think that not trying to build a suit at all bolsters the argument that it can't be built....

Oh, please!

He's been writing for months about his buddy Walas this and friend Chambers that, it's a cheap throwaway suit, no problem to build with pocket change, etc, etc, ad nauseum, then pulls some $hit like this, and you're going to ask me how that means that it can't be done?

If it can be done, who can do it?

...Logically, I do not see any bearing of Dfoot's hoax on whether or not one can build a suit...

Okay then. The challenge stands. You say it can be done.

Prove it.

...If this were a Godzilla movie, for example, and I said "Godzilla suits are hard to build," and you said "No, they're not, here's a photo of mine," and I said "That's a screenshot from "Mothra 4: Return of the Giant Porch Light," while we may have proved that you're lying about your photo, we have proved nothing at all about how easy it is to construct a suit. Please explain how you think that the argument for the replication of the suit is bolstered by the fact that Dfoot didn't try to build one. I haven't tried to build one, but I don't think that proves anything either way. I also haven't tried to perform open heart surgery, but I'm still pretty sure it can be done, and I don't think the fact I haven't tried to do it has any bearing on an argument about how hard it is.

What a line of ********.

 

[LAL]

LAL -- I read that somewhere over at BFF about you wishing you had a copy of LMS or something. Maybe that was an old post. If you have it then that's even worse. It means you are looking at the things I'm describing and they don't register in your brain. You are still seeing the version of the trick the illusionist wants you to see.

- Dfoot

It must have been quite an old post; did you check the date or just assume that that was still the case? I ordered LMS before there was any mention of trouble in the BFRO. It was the first item in my growing collection. I now have stills in Murphy's book which are much clearer than anything I can see on my monitor or TV screen. What's your explanation for the "hip-waders" not going all the way around or did you abandon that argument? Why would they stick in instead of out?

I first saw the film in a theater in Portland, Oregon, in the mid seventies, and it was not the film that convinced me on the reality of these animals. My impressions have not changed since then. Nothing in the LMS has done anything to sway me one way or the other, although I wish the MD figure had outrun the track star's time.

But, as Dr. Nelson pointed out in LMS, biomechanics was in its infancy in 1967. Neither Patterson nor Gimlin had the knowlege to get it right. Krantz got a blank look from Patterson when he asked him about details he would have had to have known if he'd pulled a hoax.

You have a right to your opinions, but that's all they are - opinions. I've seen nothing to substantiate them.

You have set me straight on one thing, though. After reading Long I didn't think anyone (except Scott) could possibly take him seriously. Mea culpa. I stand corrected.

 

[UrsulaV]

He just got finished writing about his "Halloween suit".

Whoops, you're correct! Posted before I saw that bit. Mea culpa, he DID build a suit. Never let it be said I can't say I'm wrong--I thought the suit bit was a build up to the hoax, and that he had no intent of building one. I stand corrected, and apologize for t'confusion. I was wrong! I was fallible! It was entirely my fault, and I won't try to claim that I was misled in any fashion or minimize my error in any way! I was very wrong! No dithering here! I was quite legitimately incorrect!

(Sorry, just wanted to be real clear. I think admitting when you're wrong is important.)

Okay then. The challenge stands. You say it can be done.

Prove it.

*shrug* Sorry, Huntster, I'm a 2-D artist. My pottery sucks. I can't build a suit like that, any more than I can perform open-heart surgery--but the fact I can't do something myself doesn't prove it can't be done. I can't father children, either, but I'm still pretty confident that other human beings with different equipment and different skillsets are capable of it.

You can call it a line of asterisks all you want, but the fact that I can't do something still doesn't prove it can't be done, and in fact doesn't really serve to bolster the argument that it can't be done at all, either. There's a lot of stuff I can't do that other people can.

Now, if Dfoot tried to build a suit and abandoned it as too difficult, that might legitimately be called a bolster to the claim that building such a suit is hard. (It wouldn't bolster a claim that it couldn't be done, however, since one cannot prove a negative very effectively, and thus it will be very very hard to prove you CAN'T build such a suit.) However, it would appear that his claim is that he did not make a long-term effort at suit building, but did throw one together over a weekend. Whether or not we accept this statement at face value, and not as an attempt to cover a legitimate, determined, but failed suit-building attempt, rather depends on how much faith we put in Dfoot's claims about his motivations, and I suspect, O Huntster, that you and I have very different opinions there.

On the other hand, all he hoaxed were photos. So to use the standard Footer practice, we should probably still believe any anecdotes or casts he comes up with...

 

[LTC8K6]

Marx already did it. He built a bigfoot suit that fooled the best of them.

Therefore, Patterson could have built a suit that fooled them.

The idea that Patterson couldn't have fooled those bigfoot believers with a suit goes out the window once you accept that fact that Marx fooled them with a suit.

Marx actually had it tougher too, his audience had already seen Patty and analyzed her from her head to her toes.

 

[fsol]

Wow, does this mean I win the million?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1494898&postcount=3273

 

[LAL]

Marx already did it. He built a bigfoot suit that fooled the best of them.

You're saying John Green was the best? He was misled partly by his liking for Marx' wife. I think honest people tend to believe everyone is as honest as they are. It makes them easy marks. There were other attempts at hoaxing at Bossburg too. None of them got very far. I think Green emerged extra cautious after that.

Marx' film didn't undergo the intensive scrutiny the PGF got. There's no way it would have held up for long.

Check this:

http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

Therefore, Patterson could have built a suit that fooled them.

Non sequitur.

The idea that Patterson couldn't have fooled those bigfoot believers with a suit goes out the window once you accept that fact that Marx fooled them with a suit.

Temporarily and how many altogether? Note it was another investigator who exposed him.

Marx actually had it tougher too, his audience had already seen Patty and analyzed her from her head to her toes.

And Marx' hoax didn't work.

 

[LAL]

On the other hand, all he hoaxed were photos. So to use the standard Footer practice, we should probably still believe any anecdotes or casts he comes up with...

Standard footer practice? Are you aware it's "footers" who expose hoaxes as well as misidentifications and delusional ramblings?

If Dfoot were to bring in casts they should be subjected to the same scrutiny any other casts receive. If they pass scrutiny, okay, but I would want them compared with other casts to make sure they're not copies. That wouldn't be a reflection on Dfoot's character, just SOP.

 

[LAL]

I just posted parts of this on BBF. I think it bears repeating here for those who may think P&G just blundered into an area and were too lucky.

"Notice Creek

June 13, 1963. BF tracks 16 inches long are found crossing Notice Creek near Bluff Creek only 100 feet away from where 3 men were sleeping in a car.

October 20, 1967. Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson see and film motion pictures of a female BF just above Notice Creek between Onion Mountain, Bee Mountain and Fish Creek Butte. Her tracks measure 14½ inches long.

December. 1968. BF tracks 16 inches long are found for 3 miles on Bluff Creek Road going from East Fork to Notice Creek.

Bluff Creek, California
1958. Lawrence Omeg sees a Bigfoot outside his shack after work on a logging job. He quits his job and leaves the following day.

September, 1958. Bigfoot tracks are seen 4 different times on Bluff Creek Road.

October 1, 1958. Jerry Crew finds a quarter mile of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and makes casts.

October 12, 1958. Ray Kerr and Leslie Brezeale see a BF cross a 20" road in 2 strides and find tracks several miles south of where they are usually seen on Bluff Creek Road. Hired by Ray Wallace to track BF, they redouble their hunting effort but their dogs disappear a few days later and are never seen again.

1959. A husband and wife flying a private plane over Bluff Creek see and follow BF tracks until they pass over the BF making them.

Mid October, 1958. BF tracks are seen again in Bluff Creek.

October 23, 1958. BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road once again.

October 28, 1958. 2 miles of BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road.

October 30, 1958. BF tracks are seen going down a hill from Bluff Creek Road.

November 2, 1958. Bob Titmus and Ed Patrick find BF tracks on a Bluff Creek Sandbar.

December 18. 1958. Betty Allen finds 6 miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road.

August 16, 1959. Bob Titmus finds 300 yards of BF tracks along Bluff Creek Sandbar.

August 30, 1959. Bob Titmus finds more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar.

November 1, 1959. Bob Titmus finds more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar.

November 2, 1959. Betty Allen finds BF tracks coming down a canyon and along Bluff Creek Road.

January 30, 1960. Betty Allen finds BF tracks around a shovel loader on Humboldt Fir logging road at Bluff Creek.

1969. Peter Byrne, Brian Matthes and Steve Matthes find Bigfoot tracks along Bluff Creek.

June 19, 1960. Dr. Charles Johnson and his family find BF tracks on both sides of the Klamath River a half mile west of Bluff Creek.

August 19, 1962. Skip Clark finds and casts Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek sandbar.

September 26, 1962. Bob Titmus finds miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and in the creek bottom itself.

June 22, 1963. Skip Clark finds and casts a 15 inch BF track on Bluff Creek sandbar.

1963. Thomas Sourwine says a 300 pound boulder was used to repeatedly hit road building equipment near Bluff Creek.

June 30, 1963. BF tracks 10 to 15 inches long are found and cast in the Bluff Creek area.

1963. Pat Graves follows BF tracks for 5 miles from Laird Meadow to Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek. Sticks 1¼ in thick are found broken in the tracks.

1963. Dave Blake finds BF tracks where a barrel of diesel fuel was thrown off the road.

1963. BF tracks 15 inches long are found at Bluff Creek logging operations, with boxes of spikes thrown around and sticks of dynamite bitten into.

August, 1963. BF tracks are found on Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek bridge.

October 1963. Al Hodgson finds a set of BF tracks a few hundred yards above the Notice Creek bridge at Bluff Creek sandbar. The sandbar was washed away in the 1964 flood.

Summer 1964. Dave Blake often finds BF tracks at Laid Meadow at Blake and Tregoning Logging operation west of Bluff Creek. A culvert 4 feet in diameter and 20 feet long is thrown into the canyon and 450 pound barrels of diesel fuel are moved around.

August 21, 1964. Roger Patterson finds and casts 17 inch tracks with a 52 inch stride on Laird Meadow Road.

September, 1964. Samuel Brewer Jr. finds and casts a 15½ inch BF tracks with a 47 inch stride along Bluff Creek.

Fall, 1964 . Dave Blake sees BF tracks around his logging equipment every morning for a week. A trailer load of 18 inch culverts is overturned while men are working nearby.

1965. Jay Roland finds BF tracks along Bluff Creek.

July, 1965. Steve Sanders and 2 others sleeping the a tent awake to see a large finger or stick opening their tent flap. Their yells scare it off. Investigating the next day, they find BF tracks 17 inches long and 7 inches wide around their tent at Blue Lake near Bluff Creek.

1966. Richard Sides sees a BF squatting at Bluff Creek drinking water with cupped hands.

Fall, 1966. Jay Roland sees BF tracks on a road a Scorpion Creek in the Bluff Creek area.

August, 1967. Several BF tracks are found and cast by a road crew on Onion Mountain, west of Bluff Creek. The tracks measure 13 and 15 inches long.

August 1967. Bud Ryerson sees hundreds of 13 to 15 inch BF tracks on the road he is building on Blue Creek Mountain, west of Bluff Creek. Tractor parts are scattered all over the area.

October 25, 1967. Dan Mullens finds BF tracks and an unopened case of oil cans crushed on Notice Creek.

June 1968. Steve Marlin and Bruce Cornwall find BF tracks between Bluff Creek and Fish Lake.

January 1969. Pat Graves sees BF tracks from a plane between Blue Creek Divide and Nikowitz Road.

Late May, 1969. Dr. Bernard Northrup and a party of San Francisco Theological Seminary Students find over 1000 16" BF tracks in the Bluff Creek area. They also find loose bark stripped from the trees near the tracks.

August, 1969. The owner of the Bluff Creek Resort finds 16 inch BF tracks in the sandbar at the mouth of Bull Creek in the Bluff Creek area."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm

Bluff and Notice Creeks were hot areas.

 

[LTC8K6]

But still they couldn't find one except Patty.....
Still Patterson didn't go back.....
Patterson doesn't pursue either, even though he has horses, guns, cameras, etc.....

Bigfoot all over the place like a cheap suit, and yet.......

 

[LTC8K6]

You're saying John Green was the best? He was misled partly by his liking for Marx' wife.

I think you mean Dahinden, not Green.

 

[Correa Neto]

Here's an interpretation of the sediments (yep, these are sediments, not soil; some people should do some googling to check the differences) from Hoax, I mean, Bluff creek, "flood plain" based on the textures seen in the pic. Some caution notes: (1) Braided river beds are mutable. The longer the time lapse between PGF and this pic, the more likely it is that changes happened to the bedforms. (2) Its an interpretation over textures from a low-res pic. Thus, ic carries a lot of uncertainities and speculation.

First lets check how likely its is that a well-defined footprint would be formed.
Gravel, of course, would not be a prime site for it. The best site would be the bottom of the dry channel that seems to be composed by sand. Most of the area is a bar whose top seems to be locally composed by gravel lenses. well-defines tracks would be formed only at the places where the top of the bar is composed by sand. Note that the whole river bed is composed by loose sediment, and at the sandy areas, tracks are expected to be quite deep, more than one would expect at soil. Specially if the sand is wet.

Now, lets check the preservation of the tracks AFTER an increase in river level.
The pinkish area around the active channel would be the first to be flooded when water volume increases. Next would be the dry channel (bluish zone) and at last, the whole river bed.

 

[UrsulaV]

Standard footer practice? Are you aware it's "footers" who expose hoaxes as well as misidentifications and delusional ramblings?

Mmm-hmm. Some of 'em undoubtedly do. However, what always sticks in my mind is how somebody'll perpetrate a hoax, and get caught, and then so many Footers will say "Well, that doesn't mean their other stuff is fake!"

If I may quote you, LAL, from post #3030 of this very thread (I know this discussion's come up at other points, but this is the first example that I found, and I'm not willing to go rummaging back 84 pages before coffee)

"Even if he faked the trackway Dahinden saw, which is not the one Hardin examined, it doesn't mean he faked nescessarily everything, does it?"

I fear the damage to the Footer reputation has long since been done in this regard, LAL. "Exposing" delusional ramblings like Beckjord* doesn't turn back the tide when so many Footers are willing to accept "evidence" perpetrated by known hoaxers, because gee, that doesn't mean they hoaxed EVERYTHING.

As long as that continues, I'm going to make fun of that tendency in threads like this. Resign yourself to it.


*One sort of wonders what there is to expose in a case like that. "Look, a nutjob!" "Well, duh."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I just posted parts of this on BBF. I think it bears repeating here for those who may think P&G just blundered into an area and were too lucky.

Wow, all that activity; even a tractor torn apart... No fingerprints, no skin, no hair( to analyse ).. And, gee, no Bigfoot !


Who here ever said he just ' blundered ' into the area ?

It is our contention he picked the area very carefully ... And never returned after he got his film...



Your list is lame Lu.. It means nothing here, except to demonstrate your persistant obtuseness..

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11729373/

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Apparently nobody wants to meet Bigfoot.

The Malaysian Forestry Department says there are no takers for permits on offers to explore a protected forest for the mythical creature, despite initial excitement over reported sightings of the beast, The Star newspaper reported Wednesday.

Authorities printed 500 application forms anticipating a rush, but none has been filled, Che Hashim Hassan, the department's director in the southern state of Johor, was quoted as saying.

 

[LTC8K6]

Tourism officials said they planned to use the interest in Bigfoot to draw tourists to Malaysia.