Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Folks, lets be impartial here...

Hieronimus sounds honest, seems to have no reasons to create and spread such a detailed tale, etc. But the same can be said about many other people, such as politicians, gossipers, stock market speculators, UFO abductees, bigfoot investigators, a father who tells his children about Santa Claus, priests, criminals, and the list goes on.

I think this is not the best path...

I also have my share of speculations on how PGF could have been shot, but again, that's not the approach I would choose (at least at this time).

The best approach, IMHO, is to check the claims about PGF subject, such as inhuman gait, IMs, etc. As an example, for a bipedal ape, Patty looks quite like an upright gorilla. And we've covered a lot of these issues along the bigfoot threads. I think its reasonably safe to say we looked upon most if not all claims about the subject of PGF and concluded a bloke in a suit can do the trick. And this is the main point. This is where I think the discussion must be focused, since even if Hieronimus is somehow proven not to be the bloke-in-the-suit, it will mean nothing but that he was not the bloke-in-the-suit... To sum things up, I feel its about time to let the whole PGF issue RIP unless something new (and good) shows up.

The way I see it, Hieronimus interview was only usefull for one thing, Gimlim's role in the hoax was brought in to light. Why only focus on Patterson? If PGF was a hoax, then both men were involved. And I have little if any doubts. Gimlim will never say it was a hoax.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, let's keep the cart behind the horse.

The default position is that this is a guy in a suit, and that it might be a sasquatch. There is no need to prove or support the default position.

We don't start by assuming it is a sasquatch and then try to show why it's a guy in a suit.

We start at the default position, and we let the believers show the world that it's a sasquatch, since that is their claim. It's something they must do, something they have not even begun to do. They have shown no evidence whatsoever to make even a dent in the default position, imo.

Now, we will have screamers saying that their default position is that Patty is a sasquatch. Well, that's just not the way the world works.

 

[William Parcher]

I think my post was taken way too seriously...

Understood.

I will say that I do think it's unlikely that there would only be one take and no rehearsals or practicing, and that it's unlikely that Patterson would have gotten the look and basic fit of the suit right without any trial and error.

BH makes claims that this stuff did happen. He says that RP summoned him to his house after BH agreed to be Patty (this was an agreement through Gimlin). At the house and in the yard he was helped into the suit and did practice walking for Roger. RP gave him some instructions on how he wanted the walk to appear. BH satisfied RP with his Patty Walk. Roger also made adjustments to the suit itself, presumably to make direct changes to adapt it to Bob's actual physique. Bob also tells us that Patricia Patterson was watching this through the window of their house.

I don't believe they all showed up at the creek for the first time and bingo they had the PGF as we see it today in one try.

If BH is telling the truth, then he only was at Bluff Creek for one day and the Patty scene itself was a single take. He says he never stumbled while doing the walk. It is possible that Roger removed (cut) portions of the walk scene and only let us see the bits he wanted us to see. As it is, we can already see continuity incongruences with the film footage we have. MK Davis says that when he examined the film, he noticed three occasions in the Patty Walk where he says that RP stopped filming. That is in spite of Roger saying he never did stop filming (lift his finger off the shutter). What I can't understand is how Davis can determine that these are instances of shutter halts instead of editing (cutting). I think the end result is going to look the same for either cause.

The counter to that might well be that they had to do it in a short time because logging crews were all over the joint and they might have been spotted...except that there is no record of a crew running into them at all while they were there as far as I know.

Does it seem odd that Laverty and crew are supposedly all over the area, to the point of visiting the exact spot the next day, yet Laverty's crew never runs into the two at their camps? Maybe not. I dunno...

Yeah it's odd. P&G were supposidly camped at Louse Camp(site). Their truck and horse provisions should have been there even if they were out on the horses. I wonder if Louse Camp is visible from the logging road. Laverty passed through there at a time when the truck should have been parked. He makes no mention of seeing the truck, and I'm curious if he would have seen Louse Camp itself.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, there were 2 camps, weren't there? They moved their camp closer to Bluff Creek on Thursday. Or am I misunderstanding? That's from Murphy's PGF history, I think.

So they were in the area a while riding around on horses and they moved their camp at least once, and the whole time, save for the weekends, Laverty's crew is in the area also.

 

[William Parcher]

Well, there were 2 camps, weren't there? They moved their camp closer to Bluff Creek on Thursday. Or am I misunderstanding? That's from Murphy's PGF history, I think.

Here is what we get from the Murphy essay...

Patterson and Gimlin traveled to the Bluff Creek area in a truck, taking with them three horses. By the time the men arrived at their destination, rain had all but destroyed the tracks. After setting up camp near Bluff Creek itself, the men set out on horseback to explore the area. Patterson was intrigued with the scenery and autumn colors. He used 76-feet of the first film roll for general filming and shots of both himself and Gimlin.

On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself. Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.

The wording is strange because it does sound like they moved camps, but both camps are described almost identically (near Bluff Creek itself & close to Bluff creek itself). When Green interviewed Gimlin in 1992, he talks about their camp, but not of moving it. That doesn't automatically mean they didn't. If it had been Heironimus talking about the camp(s), the Pattycakes would immediately seize upon him not mentioning moving the camp and call it "changing his story again". Patterson & Gimlin are always allowed inconsistencies and omissions, and these are never to be declared as possible indications of a hoax.

 

[LTC8K6]

I read it as if they initially set up near the tracks they heard about that caused them to make the trip. The tracks that were washed out "gobs of mud" or whatever description they gave for them. Then they moved later to the site closer to Bluff Creek, from which they went out on horseback to film, etc.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why does a creature need to stink from 80 feet away anyway? If it stinks from 80 feet away in the woods, then the odor must kill things from 10 feet away.

 

[Correa Neto]

Yes, let's keep the cart behind the horse.

The default position is that this is a guy in a suit, and that it might be a sasquatch. There is no need to prove or support the default position.

We don't start by assuming it is a sasquatch and then try to show why it's a guy in a suit.

We start at the default position, and we let the believers show the world that it's a sasquatch, since that is their claim. It's something they must do, something they have not even begun to do. They have shown no evidence whatsoever to make even a dent in the default position, imo.

Now, we will have screamers saying that their default position is that Patty is a sasquatch. Well, that's just not the way the world works.

That's not the way it works, but for us. Unfortunately, for most people, belief is all it takes. Evidence pieces required to back a belief do not need to be reliable. A gossip or a tale will be more than enough in such cases where the default position is the reality of a fringe subject (or religious doctrine/dogma).

Many footers more than once said they believe, and that's all they need; some are aware oft the many weaknesses of such position. Most are not. They believe their evidence quality standards are good enough for most if not all purposes; if its good for them, then it must be good for us. Usually the fight starts as soon as the flaws are shown, for they can't (or don't want to) understand why its not.

You can change "footer" by any other fringe subject/religion of your choice (croppie, UFOlogist, creationist, etc.).

 

[kitakaze]

Six days without a posting about Bigfoot is too long...

I was at the beach, busy not thinking about mid-tarsal breaks...

http://home.att.net/~ltc8k9/beach1.jpg

Ahhh... I too have taken a well deserved break. Off to the mountains and hot springs.

http://www.nasuinfo.or.jp/freespace/jago/img_kuroiso/photo_04.jpg

While away I had a wonderfully in-depth conversation on the bigfoot phenomenom with a a very intelligent person for whom bigfoot is outside their schema. The kind of conversation that allows you to get some perspective and work out some un-ironed ideas/thoughts that I'd like to share.

Bigfoot the phenomenom is fascinating and a subject that is a pure goldmine for a wealth of insights into all manner of aspects of humanity. It's like Shaolin training ground for critical thinking and observation. Bigfoot the concept, the sales pitch, the Scientology wannabe... it just gets more ridiculous with every passing day and it's not just because of another day without reliable evidence.

William is right, bigfoot is role play for adults. It's cult-lite without the uniforms (unless you count the hat thing). People who profess strong belief and portray themselves as open-minded critical thinkers simply have no excuse for their self-delusion.

Correa and LTC are right, the PGF is dead. It's been so thoroughly deflated of Pattycakes 'it's no suit' arguments that it's counter-productive to repeat the demonstrations everytime someone who is woefully out to lunch shows up.

RayG is right, Heironimus' claim of being in the suit is insufficient. However, it is very worthy of consideration as WP has illustrated. I for long was quite satisfied that he was the latest pretender. Now I'm not sure at all if for only the fact that we know he was connected with P & G and now has no problem continually representing his story while Gimlin stays silent. It's not like he's cooking up some mad story about some guy he doesn't know. They're practically neighbours.

At this point I'm more interested in The Perpetuators, The Boonswogglers, The Gameboard Holders, The Choreographers... if that makes any sense. We've walked this old dog up and down the street so many times that IMO it would be more productive to put a light on the mechanics of how this phenomenom perpetuates itself. I'm more interested in the Coleman's, the Noll's, and the Moneymakers'. Also the various boards and their gameplayers; the Multiple Encounters', squatchcommando's, etc. At this point as for as I'm concerned bigfoot is a myth and anyone actively trying to convince people otherwise are pretty much Sylvia Browne supporters or Loose Changers.

 

[William Parcher]

Knights is now harping on the question of "how many horses?", and how many times did P&G borrow Chico (BH's horse). He thinks they must have borrowed the horse twice and that BH blows his liar cover by not mentioning both occasions. He bases this on Chico showing up in the "riding horses with scenery" shots and the need for Chico to be ridden by BH to/from the camp to the film site.

Not necessarily.

Let's assume BH is telling the truth that P&G picked up Chico on a Sunday (then left for Bluff Creek) and BH arrived at Bluff Creek on Wednesday to wear the suit. This means that P&G had Chico at Bluff Creek (and environs) for one or two days before BH shows up. They also have Chico at Bluff Creek after BH leaves. In this period of time they can film the scenes riding the horses.

Knights is assuming that P&G told the truth about staying continuously at BC for three weeks, and presumably with Chico. I think he therefore also assumes that the riding with scenery shots were taken well before the time that BH claims he arrived on the scene.

 

[kitakaze]

Usually the fight starts as soon as the flaws are shown, for they can't (or don't want to) understand why its not.

You can change "footer" by any other fringe subject/religion of your choice (croppie, UFOlogist, creationist, etc.).

Yes. Yes. Yes. This needs to be emphasized. This is fringe belief, this is big hair, woo bait pure and simple. This was a central part of the discussion I was having with my friend while on vacation. The last time I asked for a BF proponent to try and demonstrate that being a UFO proponent is not based on the same quality of evidence I got a demonstration of the apparent evidence for Martian civilizations.

For people who profess to be more interested in the truth, many proponents have a pretty sorry track record of their behaviour when they get it.

 

[kitakaze]

Anyone seen this DTK/Luminous thread on the MABRC?:

Unseen Patty Footage Cropped Out of the Original.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...
Knights is assuming that P&G told the truth about staying continuously at BC for three weeks, and presumably with Chico. I think he therefore also assumes that the riding with scenery shots were taken well before the time that BH claims he arrived on the scene.

Knights is also assuming we are talking about one roll of film; when all we have seen is about a minute of one roll out of many ...

 

[William Parcher]

Yep. Here is a better shot of what he and Davis are calling a Patty footprint. To me it sure looks like some debris wood with shadows. That roundish dark spot in the lower right is a footprint? Or is it the thing next to it that looks like a wah-wah pedal?

 

[kitakaze]

BFF:

Xzone lackluster overall.

Crow Logic:

(snip) So did in fact Bob Hermonious last night put an end to the validity of the Patterson/Gimlin film? There are those elsewhere saying that yes he did. Was the silence from the Bigfoot community the silence of knowing that the game was up?

bipto:

Really? Who? Seriously, I have no idea.

Crow Logic:

I don't know if this link will directly take anyone there but the very long Patterson/Gimlin thread there was pretty certain that Hermonious had put an end to the whole thing from the point of a man in a suit as well as Gimlin's credability.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523&page=167

bipto:

Oh good, the blind leading the blind. I was afraid someone who actually knew something about the film was taking good ol' Bob seriously.

We need a good old fashioned debate on the PGF. Two teams of 4-5 each. We'd dismantle the other side.

If bipto does not himself see this, could one of you lurkers pass on the message?:

Which five of us would you like?

ETA: Crow Logic, I think you raised some very valid issues in that thread. Two things:

1) I wasn't aware this thread had attained sentience.

2) Heironimus.

 

[LTC8K6]

That's old, actually. MK Davis has been trying to say those are sasquatch tracks for a long time. If it's a print, it's a cowboy boot print, imo.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/davis_animation.htm

 

[Crowlogic]

So when is a true reproduction of PGF going to emerge? As a moderate skeptic I'm willing to listen to Bob Hieronomous on the Xzone and at least acknowledge that perhaps PGF should be renamed PGHF. Yet there are several elements in the film that beg for an answer if the film is indeed a hoax. The moment for me comes in a few frames where the palm creatures left hand is visable. The hand is huge and one can sense the mass of it as well as the mass in the arm to which it is attached. Darn fine detail Roger keeping the scale of the hand as well as the proper look of the bare flesh on the bare palm!

But the question must be asked, was Roger Patterson astute enough to contrive a film hoax that incorporates the seemingly cahotic elements of the wild camera wielding as he launched himself after the creature in an attempt to film it? Odd that Bob H has said little about the script outside of Patterson requesting that he face a camera a couple of times. The dynamics of what transpired on that sandbar was complex from the cameraman/subject standpoint. That is to say Patterson would have needed to explain to BoB H that as he's walking in the suite Patterson will be flingling the camera around and running after Bob H climbing over debris and at one point falling to his knees. Bob H can complain that the supposed suite was hot and heavy but it was Roger Patterson who expened the most energy at Bluff Creek and most of that energy didn't need to be spent if shooting a hoax in the middle of the wilderness. Wittness the Freeman Footage which required next to nothing from suite wearer or Freeman.

If one is to take at face value that Roger Patterson was a con artist, as Bob H says he was then a good explaniation of why Roger the con artist spent several weeks in the bush with Bob Gimlin doing what? If Roger Patterson was intent on committing a hoax then all he needed was a camera, a suite, a location (and there are thousands close to Yakima) and somone (Bob H?) to wear the suite. Why bring Bob Gimlin in on a hoax at all? Are two hoaxers more believable on interview than one hoaxer with an exciting film?

Consider that Patterson, Gimlin and Heirmonious created the Bluff Creek hoax and Roger Patterson sitiffed not only Bob Heirmonious but also Bob Gimlin. Consider that two members of this "unholy hoax" trio were bilked out of thier rightfull share from the getgo and nieither came forward within the first 12 months of the film? Consider that only one has blown the whistle on Roger the con man and only after 30+ years? Before we raise Bob Heironmious to sainthood its time to follow the money trail. Can it be said with a straight face that Bob Heironmious hasn't made any money from his story? I willing to bet that if you contacted the man with the promise of a print interview you'll be first talking with his attorney or accountant.

 

[mangler]

Kitakaze,

I checked this thread, "Anyone seen this DTK/Luminous thread on the MABRC?:"
Big mystery! Too funny! Took maybe five minutes to find four frames from two separate clips.

Typical bigfoot tracks. Where'd they go??????










Logic,

Are these the frames you are making reference to in your statement? ( "The moment for me comes in a few frames where the palm creatures left hand is visable. The hand is huge and one can sense the mass of it as well as the mass in the arm to which it is attached.") IMO there is no way that I could say with any conviction that these hands are of flesh and bone. You may believe you see hands, and that's fine, but what I see could just as easily be frickin mittens, or most anything for that matter.









m

 

[Crowlogic]

Mangler

Yes those are the frames. If you got them from the MK Davis gif then watch it a few times. For whatever reason a considerable amount of detail can be seen in the hand when in motion. As for what material the filmscape and creature are comprised of for all we know the trees are paper mache, the soil is flower and the rocks are green cheese. While I sit on the fence concerning much of the entire Sasquatch/PGF question I did encounter a certain gut reaction to the sight of that huge hand swinging down into view. It does surprise me that not much has been said about the sheer size of that hand.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So when is a true reproduction of PGF going to emerge? .....

Why is that necessary ?

So when is a true reproduction of Patty going to emerge ?

You really should read Long's book. Not that it proves anything, but for what it reveals..

Roger Patterson was a cheat a liar and a thief , and knowing more about that makes it easier to imagine he could plan and execute a hoax ..

He didn't work for a living, so he had a lot of time on his hands to do a lot of experimenting..

Of course, even a lying thief could have got lucky, and made the only film of a real Bigfoot, deep in the heart of Bigfoot country forty years ago; but what really seems more likely ?

P.S.

The left hand ?

We really can't tell if that's the hand or if the subject is carrying a tambourine...