Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like a few people posting here I feel there is some possibility that the subject of the PGF may not be a man in a suit, but like most, I feel a man in a suit is more likely. Many see an obvious suit and I don't, which has begun to make it more interesting to me as a barometer of perception than contentious evidence for BF. Having said that, it seems to me the whole 'midtarsal break' business is a rather recent addition to the "it clearly does not walk in a manner humanly possible" arguments. As others here have quite clearly pointed out, such assertions are obviously false. Tube, I applaud your efforts to demonstrate this but would question whether or not such efforts would sway many on either side of the debate. All those arguments amount to nothing more than sideways attempts to lend veracity to claims of Patty not being a man in a suit. I have, like many, repeatedly watched the PGF till my brains were gonna fall out and have never seen anything that would qualify as an 'inhuman gait'. Oh, but oops, I'm not an expert on primate locomotion. Apparently I need to be to offer an opinion that Patty doesn't have transformer feet. Well, it seems to me that Meldrum had a fascination as a youngster with BF that contributed to his becoming an anthroplogist specializing in primate anatomy and then returned to said fascination without impartiality. This leads me to the amazing discovery that some scientists may actually be humans in suits.
 
This is very interesting to me, as I remember the same TV program, but I have never seen a reference to this program elsewhere. Because you remember it too, I'm less inclined to believe it may have been a false memory on my part.

Among certain Bigfooters there is a strongly held belief that the gait of the film subject is "inimitable", that certain features like the "Level Lower Leg Lift" could not be duplicated by a walking man. I have personally duplicated this feature.

I'm still planning on doing some videotape studies to see how well a man can duplicate the whole "Patty Walk". My belief is that I can, but I acknowledge I could be wrong, sort of like believing you can sing well right up until the time you hear a recording of yourself.

My memory was that Krantz did an unwittingly good imitation of the "Patty Walk", but I don't trust my memory on this due to time and potential bias. Does anyone else remember this TV broadcast? Can you shed light on when it might have aired or if it is available for sale anywhere? I regret never having met Grover Krantz.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tube, the only help I can offer is that it was a special on A&E about 10 years ago and it believe it was a 1-off, not that woo, Leonard Nimoy narrated series.
 
OK, there's something I've really been wanting to ask here for a long time and I apologize if it's been asked before or seems a little elementary or overly broad. Also, this is mainly directed at the members who've been slugging it out here for for the better part of this thread , are inclined against the existence of BF, and are fairly acquainted with the arguments/counter-arguments. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Is there any element or aspect of the BF phenomenom that you have, in the course of engaging the subject, found difficult to insert into the framwork of BF as a purely social construct? The majority is in agreement that thus far the collective body of evidence is insufficient, we got that. But is there anything for you that just hasn't sat right? Anything- an eyewitness report, a photo, a consistency, an inconsistency, whatever. I'm aware that I'm touching on the nature of what it is to be a good skeptic and I expect an overwhelming wave of flat out 'no' responses but still, it seems a fair question.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In my own case, while I've previously stated that with the PGF I don't see a man in a costume, it's irrelevant to me as it's only an opinion. What's much more difficult to digest are the continuing reports of encounters by people who stand to lose a great deal in coming forward and do so only reluctantly and also the Joe Blow's who don't have much concept of what they saw. I look at any report with coke bottle skepticals on but sometimes...I'm not so sure.
 
I'll answer with another question:

Do you also find hard to digest UFO and ghost sighting reports?
 
Kitakaze, I have to say that, unlike the 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are no aspects of Bigfootism that 'make me wonder' or 'ring any bells'. Indian legends? Heck, they also have legends of talking ravens and dust-devil spirits. Eye-witness anecdotes? Thousands have seen Elvis after his death... doesn't mean he's really alive. And the 'evidence' presented so far has been routinely and briskly disproven as evidence as such. The Skookum cast is, AFAIK, the only thing that hasn't been quickly and simply explained away. Even so, it doesn't provide solid evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Quite simply, there is NO conclusive and irrefutable evidence that Bigfoot exists. That doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist; just that we have no evidence for its existence.
 
I'll answer with an answer. No.
Hmm, UFO's and ghosts. Undoubtedly, there seems to be many more people attesting to sightings of either of these. However, in both cases, across the board, they give testimony to something varying greatly in their descriptions. 'I saw such and such lights in the sky' or 'I saw Mary Antoinette in tattered gowns.' The varying details go on and on. Repeated assertions of seeing something unknown in the sky or what one interprets as a ghost does not, IMO, correlate to the consistent descriptions of 'that hairy thing that walked like a man in my headlights' scenario.
 
kitakaze said:
I'll answer with an answer. No.
Hmm, UFO's and ghosts. Undoubtedly, there seems to be many more people attesting to sightings of either of these. However, in both cases, across the board, they give testimony to something varying greatly in their descriptions. 'I saw such and such lights in the sky' or 'I saw Mary Antoinette in tattered gowns.' The varying details go on and on. Repeated assertions of seeing something unknown in the sky or what one interprets as a ghost does not, IMO, correlate to the consistent descriptions of 'that hairy thing that walked like a man in my headlights' scenario.
Click to expand...

I think you're overlooking the filtration in this case. If you see anything that could count as a ghost or a UFO, that's what you'll think you see. But if you see an unidentifiable animal that isn't hairy and walking erect, of course it doesn't go down as a bigfoot sighting, does it? Even if your vision is unclear, and your sighting unreliable, and you don't have any notion of what it is you saw, if it's on four legs or has wings, or it's eight inches long, etc. nobody will say "maybe it was a sasquatch."
 
Kitakaze, I have to say that, unlike the 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are no aspects of Bigfootism that 'make me wonder' or 'ring any bells'. Indian legends? Heck, they also have legends of talking ravens and dust-devil spirits.
Click to expand...
Thanks Zaayrdragon, interestings points. Exactly when did I mention 'Indian' legends? I think I and many others before me have previously mentioned the uselessness of trying to submit folk legends as evidence. If it assists you to address what I said by raising issues I never mentioned then... alrighty.
Eye-witness anecdotes? Thousands have seen Elvis after his death... doesn't mean he's really alive. And the 'evidence' presented so far has been routinely and briskly disproven as evidence as such.
Click to expand...
Oh, Elvis... OK. Since we're being being sincere about the matter, I'm just gonna go back and count the Elvis sightings this month by people who are not clearly in need of meds and race right back to you, kay?
Even so, it doesn't provide solid evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Quite simply, there is NO conclusive and irrefutable evidence that Bigfoot exists. That doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist; just that we have no evidence for its existence.
Click to expand...
See, now that makes me wish I was asking everyone for solid, conclusive, irrefutable evidence of BF 'cause that would make your post so much more relevant.
 
kitakaze said:
...Hmm, UFO's and ghosts. Undoubtedly, there seems to be many more people attesting to sightings of either of these. However, in both cases, across the board, they give testimony to something varying greatly in their descriptions. 'I saw such and such lights in the sky' or 'I saw Mary Antoinette in tattered gowns.' The varying details go on and on. Repeated assertions of seeing something unknown in the sky or what one interprets as a ghost does not, IMO, correlate to the consistent descriptions of 'that hairy thing that walked like a man in my headlights' scenario.
Click to expand...
Well, there are indeed several variations in the alleged eyewitnesses' descriptions of bigfeet (as well as the creature´s behavior), that BTW quite often are also different from what´s seen at PGF. To this, you should add the reports of man- or ape-like creatures used by Colemann to derive 9 or 12 types of unknown primates (aquatic apes included), since they are also part of the "bigfoot phenomena". As bruto stated, you may be overlooking the filtration...

UFO (spacecraft and alien) description change with time, and seem to be very influentiated by science fiction concepts. This has already ben discussed in these forums somewhere else, with a nice chart of alien renderings (can´t remember the source) included. Now, I think one could expect less variability in bigfeet morphology derived from reports just because bigfoot myth is much more specific (hairy bipedal on the woods) than UFO lore is (aliens visiting out planet). And yet, there are expressive variations. Not to mention the reports that link bigfeet with UFOs and paranormal phenomena. What is not surprising, since I think we are dealing with different manifestations of a basic phenomena that has social, psicological and cultural aspects.

The same line of reasoning is valid for ghosts IMHO.

kitakaze said:
...snip...See, now that makes me wish I was asking everyone for solid, conclusive, irrefutable evidence of BF 'cause that would make your post so much more relevant.
Click to expand...
But then as answer you would just hear the distant sound of crickets...:D
 
The point, Kity, is that until some solid, irrefutable, conclusive evidence for Bigfoot is presented, there is nothing about Bigfootery that makes me wonder, or doubt, etc.

Besides, this discussion is far more indepth and comprehensive than your third-grade question covers... so I extended my response to deal with 'the evidence' mentioned earlier in the thread. Does that threaten you, somehow?

Hey, ask a question - and deal with the answer, bub.
 
After reflecting on Correa, bruto, and Zaay's posts it occurs to me that I've benefitted from a little schooling, which I have to say is most welcome and is one of the reasons I joined this thread.
I think you're overlooking the filtration in this case. If you see anything that could count as a ghost or a UFO, that's what you'll think you see. But if you see an unidentifiable animal that isn't hairy and walking erect, of course it doesn't go down as a bigfoot sighting, does it? Even if your vision is unclear, and your sighting unreliable, and you don't have any notion of what it is you saw, if it's on four legs or has wings, or it's eight inches long, etc. nobody will say "maybe it was a sasquatch."
Click to expand...
Well, there are indeed several variations in the alleged eyewitnesses' descriptions of bigfeet (as well as the creature´s behavior), that BTW quite often are also different from what´s seen at PGF. To this, you should add the reports of man- or ape-like creatures used by Colemann to derive 9 or 12 types of unknown primates (aquatic apes included), since they are also part of the "bigfoot phenomena". As bruto stated, you may be overlooking the filtration...
Click to expand...
Bruto and Correa, you are both quite right and I find my self particularily mistaken on the issue of filtration. In addition to Colemen's list we can add dogfoot, lizard men, Mothman, and Jersey Devil reports.
The point, Kity, is that until some solid, irrefutable, conclusive evidence for Bigfoot is presented, there is nothing about Bigfootery that makes me wonder, or doubt, etc.

Besides, this discussion is far more indepth and comprehensive than your third-grade question covers... so I extended my response to deal with 'the evidence' mentioned earlier in the thread. Does that threaten you, somehow?

Hey, ask a question - and deal with the answer, bub.
Click to expand...
Zaay, while I acknowledged my question as being a little elementary in my post, in hindsight it seems more so given what the intention of my post was. BTW, I also regret my tone when I responded to you directly. I did not join this forum to butt heads but rather to learn and communicate and I find no disagreement with anything I say to be threatening. I apologize.
But then as answer you would just hear the distant sound of crickets...
Click to expand...
When I initially posed the question I had in mind for myself something specific. I've mentioned it briefly before but a few years back there was the case of a psychologist/psychiatrist from Alaska reporting having a BF encounter while vacationing in Oregon with his wife and children after which he made many headlines trying incite serious pursuit of the subject. I won't bore you with details of those events but I will say that they have always been compelling to me and did cause me to wonder. I then wondered if any of the members here had any similar examples. After reflecting on it it then occurred to that in addressing skeptics here in this form and specifically in this thread I was making a very elementary mistake.:blush:
The point, Kity, is that until some solid, irrefutable, conclusive evidence for Bigfoot is presented, there is nothing about Bigfootery that makes me wonder, or doubt, etc.
Click to expand...
Having said all that, I just wanna say that I believe the greatest benefit of all this that I now get to be called Kity.:D
 
Apology accepted... Nice, by the way. Most never apologize for anything.

Kity seemed a good nick. I never had a nickname per se growing up, so I'm fond of them - even for internet handles.

With some minor exceptions - I still tend to refer to Paul as 'Paul Agnolopolopolopolopolis....'
 
Correa Neto said:
Well, there are indeed several variations in the alleged eyewitnesses' descriptions of bigfeet (as well as the creature´s behavior), that BTW quite often are also different from what´s seen at PGF. To this, you should add the reports of man- or ape-like creatures used by Colemann to derive 9 or 12 types of unknown primates (aquatic apes included), since they are also part of the "bigfoot phenomena".
Click to expand...

Now, now, don't shortchange Coleman. He lists 9 classifications of bigfoot, though Merbeings is a bit of a stretch:

1. Neo-Giant
2. True Giant
3. Marked Hominid
4. Neandertaloid
5. Erectus Hominid
6. Proto-Pygmy
7. Unknown Pongid
8. Giant Monkey
9. Merbeing

Within those 9 classifications, Coleman lists FIFTY-ONE types: (fully illustrated)

North America
1. Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-mah
2. Pitt Lake Giant
3. Pennsylvania Creature
4. Old Yellow Top, Yellow Top, PreCambrian Shield Man
5. Momo, Sister Lakes Monster, Monroe Monster
6. Nuk-luk, nakani, bushman
7. Minnesota Iceman, Bozo, Homo pongoides
8. Nape, Skunk Ape, booger
9. Lake Worth Monster, Goatman
10. Devil Monkey, nalusa falaya
11. Thetis Lake Monster, Lizardman, Tchimose
12. Sea Ape

Latin America
13. Ucumar, ucu, ukumar-zupai, sisemite
14. Alux
15. Didi
16. Mapinguary
17. Isnashi, camuenare, makisapa maman
18. Salvaje
19. Chupacabras, Goat Sucker
20. Negroes-of-the-Water, Hairy Dwarf

Europe
21. Grendel
22. Big Grey Man, ferla mohr, brenin llwyd
23. Wudewasa, se'ir
24. Kaptar, biabin-guli
25. Mermen

Africa
26. Tano Giant
27. Kakundakàri, agogwe, séhité
28. Ngoloko, muhalu, kikomba
29. Nandi Bear, chemosit, kodoelo
30. Kalanoro

Asia
31. Gin-sung, Big Yeti
32. Nyalmo, orang dalam
33. Mecheny, mirygdy
34. Chuchunaa, mulen
35. Chinese Wildman
36. Almas
37. Nguoi rung, Vietnamese Forest People
38. Sakai, Devil Sakai, Stinking Ones
39. Teh-lma, pyar-them, Little Yeti
40. Nittaewo
41. Yeren, sangui
42. Hibagon
43. Yeti, classic Abominable Snowman
44. Great Monkey, kra-dhan, bekk-bok
45. Kappa, mu jimi

Oceania
46. Jimbra, turramulli, lo-an
47. Tjangara, koyoreowen, yay-ho
48. Orang-pendek, sedapa
49. Menehune, Hawaiian pixie
50. Yowie, yahoo
51. Fishwoman, Mermaid

Even if we discard the Merbeings, we still end up with at least FORTY-SEVEN types of bigfoot/primate roaming the world. :jaw-dropp

These 51 types are listed in his older book Field Guide To Bigfoot, Yeti, & Other Mystery Primates Worldwide (1999), and was revised somewhat in his newer book The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates (2006).

The newer one apparently lists only eight possible mystery primates not nine (maybe even Coleman found the merbeings a bit of a stretch), but the contents, apart from a new preface in the beginning and a new index in the back, are virtually the same.

As Mr. Spock would say, fascinating.

RayG
 
Last edited:
Apology accepted... Nice, by the way. Most never apologize for anything.
Click to expand...
No they don't, which is a shame.
Kity seemed a good nick.
Click to expand...
Not too mention rather apt given the circumstances at the time.
I never had a nickname per se growing up, so I'm fond of them - even for internet handles.

With some minor exceptions - I still tend to refer to Paul as 'Paul Agnolopolopolopolopolis....'
Click to expand...
LMAO:D
 
kitakaze said:
In addition to Colemen's list we can add dogfoot, lizard men, Mothman, and Jersey Devil reports.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why, but Mothman scares the bejeezus out of me. Always has.

I don't know if that actually qualifies as something in reports that makes me wonder, per se--it's quite a stretch, since I also firmly don't believe there's a monster under my bed, but I still don't dangle my ankles over the edge at night. Overall, this thread and related ones have taken me from thinking that Bigfoot was maaaaybe remotely possible to thinking it's pretty absurd, and Bigfoot's waaaay more plausible than Mothman, midtarsal breaks and all. So it's not that I believe in Mothman, or wonder if he exists, he just gives me the willies.

I don't believe in either one, but if I'm driving down a dark road alone at night, it's Mothman I'm afraid of, not Bigfoot.

Although I know that I'm a lot more likely to be taken out by Bambi than either one.
 
I confess as well.

Mothman gives me the creeps.

Bigfoot, chupacabra, jersey devil, etc., blah blah blah..... ho hum....

Say "Mothman" though, and for whatever reason, you've got my attention.

I don't like to read about it, see movies about it, etc. Chills up the spine.

No, I don't believe it exists, but that does not change a thing as far as what I'd rather not meet at night.

On foot, I would run right over bigfoot to get away from Mothman. :D

Can't really explain why.
 
Yes! Exactly!

I mean, if I ran into the Jersey Devil as it's usually described, I'd arguably be pretty weirded out, but, like being eaten by a giant squid, it's not something I'm worried about happening. (While the giant squid actually exist, it's unlikely one will be lurking in the surburbs.)

Mothman, though...hell, even typing about it gives me the willies, and it's broad daylight and I'm nearly four hundred miles from Point Pleasant.

...crap, I'm only four hundred miles from Point Pleasant? I gotta move back to the West Coast!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom