Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Well, the burden is actually entirely on those making the claim that Patty is a sasquatch, of course. A burden that has never been met, or even come close to being met.

Oh yes, that's what everybody will be saying at Honobia this year.

 

[Hellbound]

I'd certainly be the first to admit that my current perspective turned out to be wrong and after eating a whole loy of crow I'd get on with the real business of trying to learn everything I could about it. I'd certainly be sharing my crow with a lot of footers who cooked up a bunch of kooky ideas. I think Coleman and Noll and those like them should be taken to task for perpetuating the myth.Too bad you guys didn't have one bit of reliable evidence to look at instead of a lot of known hoaxes. Then you guys would really start learning. BTW, if Heironimus is wrong, how do you know he really believes it?

And you know, this would thrill me to death too. I would love for Bigfoot to be real. Not only in terms of it being an interesting creature, but something that similar to us could tell a lot about evolution...the genetic traces and lineage could be very informative. Not to mention how it managed to stay so well-hidden, and maintain a food source for so long. A lot of questions would be answered that would tell us a whole lot about ecology and biology.

Of course, there's another reason I'd like to see Bigfoot turn out to be real. That is that even if it were, 99% of the Footers woud stillbe wrong . That, to me, is the funniest part to think about. But that's neither here nor there.

Would I like for Bigfoot to be real? Heck yeah! It'd be great!
DO I think it's real? Heck no! Not nearly enough evidence. And sorry, Melissa, but Footers have NOT earned the right to compare themselves to real scientists looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. That animal, at least, we know DID exist in the area it was reported in the not-too-distant past, and the calls and pictures can be compared to known samples of what an IBW looks like and sounds like. Not to mention there aren't glaring problems like a lack of possible food supply. There's a HECK of a lot more evidence for the IBW than there is for Bigfoot, sorry.

 

[Melissa]

Well, the burden is actually entirely on those making the claim that Patty is a sasquatch, of course. A burden that has never been met, or even come close to being met.

Yep, and that comment applies to the BH's out there too. Unfortunately BH had too many years to not get his story right the first time. Had he not blown it so badly, the Sun or whatever may have paid him that 50,000.. Instead he probably ended up paying attorney fees. LOL.


Kitakazee - I was going to respond to you.. But, I forgot what I was gonna say Let me shoot an email to Knoll or Coleman, and I will get back to you..

 

[Correa Neto]

It may not prove the film is real SG, but if BH wants to put out a story like this and try to make money off it - its up to him to prove his story. Not me, not you - but him. He is failing miserably.

Yes, the burden of proof for BH's story is squarely on his shoulders.

Well, you have a point there. BH is the one who should present the evidence.
But we can check what he presents, make some cross-examinations with other pieces of evidence and reach our own conclusions. And the criteria used to evaluate BH must must be applied for patterson and Gimlim. If there are smelly things regarding BH, there are also fishy things related to Patterson.

And while we are talking about claims, it must be remembered that so far, no one managed to propperly back the claim bigfeet are real.

Somme comments:
- If BH is found not to be the star of PGF, this is not reliable evidence that Patty was a real bigfoot;
- If its proven that P&G made some footage of BH using a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof that he was the star of PGF (unless we can see this piece of footage and it shows Patty);
- If Patty is proven to be a bloke in a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof bigfeet can not be real animals;

To sum things up, I still consider this discussion regarding BH to be a (sometimes funny) diversion. But nothing more than a diversion. Unless he can provide good evidence he was the star of PGF (something I think he has not so far), I guess he will not be of much help...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thats funny, cause BH thinks his story helps skeptics. Bigfooters for the most part really don't care, which could be why there were very few callers during his show. ...........

Really don't care ?
Then why are they falling all over themselves over at BFF in the recent ' red horse ' thread ( you included ) ?

Roger Knights trots out his ' Ripping BH A New One ' treatise, and everyone is wooing all over themselves..

Skookum was laid to rest, dermal ridges are in a coma, the MDF is bagged and tagged, the mid-tarsal-break is in search of a foot..

Only the PGF is still twitching, because we don't have footage of BH putting on the suit ...


Holding on dearly to a forty year old film, but still no new, verifiable evidence ..

 

[Melissa]

Well, you have a point there. BH is the one who should present the evidence.
But we can check what he presents, make some cross-examinations with other pieces of evidence and reach our own conclusions. And the criteria used to evaluate BH must must be applied for patterson and Gimlim. If there are smelly things regarding BH, there are also fishy things related to Patterson.

And while we are talking about claims, it must be remembered that so far, no one managed to propperly back the claim bigfeet are real.

Somme comments:
- If BH is found not to be the star of PGF, this is not reliable evidence that Patty was a real bigfoot;
- If its proven that P&G made some footage of BH using a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof that he was the star of PGF (unless we can see this piece of footage and it shows Patty);
- If Patty is proven to be a bloke in a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof bigfeet can not be real animals;

To sum things up, I still consider this discussion regarding BH to be a (sometimes funny) diversion. But nothing more than a diversion. Unless he can provide good evidence he was the star of PGF (something I think he has not so far), I guess he will not be of much help...

I agree with everything you posted Correa Neto. The person (regardless of position or stance) who puts forth the arguement is the one with the burden of proving their claims. I completely agree - the only people who can put forth solid evidence of patty being real are Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin, unfortunately Mr. Patterson is no longer with us, and I think Mr. Gimlin is sick of all this anymore (frankly I dont blame him).

Some of my own thoughts about the points you raised.

- If BH is found not to be the star of PGF, this is not reliable evidence that Patty was a real bigfoot;

That is very true, but then the question becomes - who was it ? Someone had to be in the suit. Then we also need to answer, where did the suit come from. I will never simply take anyone's word for anything - as I am sure you wouldnt either.

- If its proven that P&G made some footage of BH using a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof that he was the star of PGF (unless we can see this piece of footage and it shows Patty);

Another question worthy of discussion, why after 40 years hasnt anyone been able to produce convincing evidence that they either were the person in the suit - or they have intimate details of the hoax? Wow, what a coup that would be... People as a rule can not hold onto secrets like that for very long - the need for the acknowlegement becomes too great, they need that pat on the back for a job well done. So, where is this person? In my opinion its not BH - his story is just too weak.

- If Patty is proven to be a bloke in a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof bigfeet can not be real animals;

This is true. It only proves Patty was a man in a suit. I will be dissapointed, but I wont stop my research. I dont personally think Patty is the end all to the research, just a good "poster child".

 

[William Parcher]

Can I ask why not? You clearly have an interest - and skeptical researchers are necessary. I personally do not think I fall into either "camp". I think the possibility exists, but I have never seen one.. Now, if I see one, all bets are off, but I highly doubt I ever will. I get out there because if it is real, I want to help document it. Maybe that doesn't interest you, thats fine

Please do not misunderstand me, I think anyone who devotes any time at all to this, be it in the field or on the internet keeping up to date on the info are playing an active part, but I have to wonder why you don't get out there?

If you lived in Texas I would invite you out with me for the weekend (even though you are a skeptic) LOL

*That was a joke, laugh*

For me to go out on a Bigfoot hunt would be to sign up on a BFRO or Biscardi expedition. I won't rule it out in my lifetime. If I did, I wouldn't want to be there as an aknowledged strong skeptic but would rather masquerade as a curious seeker.

I don't have an interest in Bigfoot. I have an interest in Bigfootery and Bigfooters.

I do "get out there" quite a bit and have for all of my life. Much of it is in areas that would be considered Bigfoot country. Because I have not seen one, or signs of them, is not foundational for why I deny their existence. It's an entirely seperate matter.

 

[Melissa]

Really don't care ?
Then why are they falling all over themselves over at BFF in the recent ' red horse ' thread ( you included ) ?

Roger Knights trots out his ' Ripping BH A New One ' treatise, and everyone is wooing all over themselves..

Most of the time Diogenes, I find the way things are going, and how you say they are, is usually two different things. You are so dramatic. Why did you take off after challenged? Why didnt you put RogerKni in his place?

First of all, bigfooters dont care about BH - because his story doesnt hold water. How many other reports on the BFF have been dismissed because the story was one lie after another - or the evidence didnt hold up? You never mention that fact. The BFF is one of the toughest places for researchers - and should remain that way.

Skookum was laid to rest, dermal ridges are in a coma, the MDF is bagged and tagged, the mid-tarsal-break is in search of a foot.

Just because you can type these things so eloquently, that does not make it so.

A theory is not proof of anything - REGARDLESS of the position you take. And none of the above items you list have been proven scientifically to be a conversation that is over. If I demand science play a role in the proof - I am also demanding that science play a role in the debunking.

Only the PGF is still twitching, because we don't have footage of BH putting on the suit ...

I think the only thing "twitching" is you. If you want to hold fast to BH being in that suit - that is your right, I have no problem with that. If thats the position you want to take, thats fine by me, I could really careless. It wont change my sleeping habits

 

[Melissa]

For me to go out on a Bigfoot hunt would be to sign up on a BFRO or Biscardi expedition. I won't rule it out in my lifetime.

oh my gosh. I would never do that. LOL.. I stay as far away as I can from the biscardi's and MM's of this world. I have enough problems.

Thank you for answering my questions. When I first became involved, I truly did not want to spend any time at all in the field (and I said as much).. But, then I spent my first night out there - and I love it now, but thats seperate from the Bigfooting.

If your ever in Texas - drop me a PM !!!

 

[William Parcher]

...only people who can put forth solid evidence of patty being real are Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin, unfortunately Mr. Patterson is no longer with us, and I think Mr. Gimlin is sick of all this anymore (frankly I dont blame him).

In his lifetime, Patterson tried to convince people that Patty was real. In a broad sense, he failed. Try to imagine that Roger is still alive. What evidence would he have presented by now that would confirm Patty was real? Even while he was alive he could have scoured the Bluff Creek area but he chose not to. Interesting.

Gimlin has never done anything to confirm that Patty was real other than to tell the story and say he is convinced it was a Bigfoot. He was never interviewed by a PGF skeptic before he declared he would not do any interviews. All he ever offered was a story and a sort of "believe me or not" position. He too could have scoured Bluff Creek but chose not to.

But Gimlin is fundamentally different and treated differently by Bigfooters, as compared to BH. Unlike BH, Gimlin was never publicly questioned by skeptics and it seems he never will be. There always were changes to his story and certain holes but he cannot be asked about those things. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the P&G story are forever frozen in time. All we have is Roger Knights (and some others) explaining how those things could still make sense after all. If it was a hoax, then Knights is a kind of unpaid agent for the advocacy that it wasn't a hoax. Gimlin should adore Knights whether it was a hoax or not. From my perspective, all Pattycakes are agents of the continual advocation of the PGF hoax. Some of them earn money from doing it. It's even possible that the sum total of all monies earned by Pattycakes after Roger's death exceeds that which he earned from the film. It's the hoax that keeps on paying.

What about Laverty and Titmus? Lyle doesn't seem to have been a Bigfooter, but if you witness and photograph genuine Bigfoot tracks it might just be the impetus to convert to full believer with a desire to seek... don't you think? If the tracks weren't enough, you've got a film to confirm it, right? Titmus already was a Bigfooter, but did he focus on searching Bluff Creek after seeing and casting tracks there? I guess it doesn't matter much for him because Bigfoots were pretty much everywhere in the PNW in the 1950's-70's.

That is very true, but then the question becomes - who was it ? Someone had to be in the suit.

It could have been BH in spite of his inability to convince people. It could have been Gimlin. We can't know that Gimlin wasn't Patty.

Then we also need to answer, where did the suit come from.

We may not ever be able to answer that and only speculate. If it was a hoax, Gimlin (and possibly Mrs. Patterson) could probably provide the best answer.

Another question worthy of discussion, why after 40 years hasnt anyone been able to produce convincing evidence that they either were the person in the suit - or they have intimate details of the hoax?

Again it's possible that BH was Patty but simply cannot convince everyone of that. It's possible that P&G filmed a real Bigfoot but simply cannot convince everyone of that. In a way, the two Bobs are in the same boat. They have their stories, but nothing else to show. Gimlin has a film and Heironimus has a Patty walk. Both of those are still debated as being unsupportive enough.

People as a rule can not hold onto secrets like that for very long - the need for the acknowlegement becomes too great, they need that pat on the back for a job well done.

You're joking, right? People can and do keep secrets. You say they eventually reveal their hoax for the back pats. But what if they continually get pats on the back for not revealing their hoax? Think about Gimlin.

 

[William Parcher]

oh my gosh. I would never do that. LOL.. I stay as far away as I can from the biscardi's and MM's of this world. I have enough problems.

I can understand why you would say that. It's because I believe that you are a Bigfoot believer and that you also seperate "good" searchers from "bad" searchers. I don't believe Bigfoot exists, and so therefore I cannot make such distinctions of good/bad because neither of them have any chance of confirming Bigfoot. If it's just a matter of getting out and poking around in the woods, then I might want some high drama Bigfootery entertainment to go with it. I'll get that from BFRO or Biscardi, but probably not from you. If Patterson was alive and running searches now (like he said he would in '68, but didn't), there is no question that I would go with him instead of anyone else. Why? Because I would want to experience a Bigfoot outing with King Hoaxer.

That might sound weird, but it shouldn't coming from this strong skeptic's position. If I'm going to chase a myth I want to be with the baddest mofo lying, hoaxer, self-promoter I can find. The animal ain't there to begin with, so give me entertainment please! I'd rather have had PT Barnum show me and blabber about his Feegee Mermaid than go on a trip to the South Pacific with someone who says PT is a hoaxer with a phony gaff and instead we will go search for a real Feegee Mermaid.

If your ever in Texas - drop me a PM !!!

Thanks. But if I really want to see a Texas Bigfoot I should instead try to hook up with those MABRC boys. They see them all the time. "Look, there's one now. He's in 4X4 mode!"

 

[Melissa]

I really dont want to get into a debate over the entire P/G saga. I think its pointless. It happened 40 years ago, its an interesting video - Gimlin is still sticking to his story, and RP took it to his grave. The P/G film tells me as a researcher nothing - other than what the animal I am looking for might look like - thats it. It does not give me information on how to track or find one. So, while I think its an interesting piece of footage - I prefer to keep moving forward.

I do however find humor in what some will and will not believe, and defend very strongly at times. BH's story is by far weaker and full of more holes than P/G, yet - there are those who will defend BH as if he contains a message from the next messiah. I find that fascinating.

There is no doubt in my mind, the people who research this potential animal are about as interesting as the animal itself. Maybe when all this is over (one way or another) we should study the researchers - skeptical and not.

You think I am a believer? Interesting - your the first person who ever said that to be honest. Many people think I am too hard on witnesses, some thing Im not hard enough - guess it all depends on how each individual person portrays things.

No, I am not a believer - I think the possibility exists, but I have not seen one, I have not heard a vocalization in the woods (without a call blaster) I have never smelled one, I have never found a track or any DNA - Nothing. So, there is nothing for me to believe. Now, do I think witnesses are seeing something they cant explain? Yes. Why do I say that? Well, here in Texas, there are no "official" black bears - so unless we are growing hairy cows, I have no clue what they are seeing. I cant dismiss all these people. So, I am interested in finding out what they are seeing - regardless of what it really is. Does that make me a bigfoot believer - well, I really dont think so.

Oh, the MABRC - are in Oklahoma. Texas Bigfoot is too tough for them, they stay north of the border - LMAO.. JK JK JK... Ahhhh, the full time 4X4 Mode - Chevy would be proud. Yeah, I dont buy into that. I think its kinda funny to be honest.

You gotta laugh at some of this stuff, or it will make you crazy As for Biscardi and MM - If thats your plan, I say go for it. But, I am more interested in researchers who dont think every twig snapping is a bigfoot - because not every snap in the woods is a bigfoot, Im guessing the majority are not. I take my research seriously, and frankly Biscardi is a black eye to anyone who is serious about finding and documenting this animal. I wouldnt be caught dead in the same county with him.. I just dont have time for people who go out of their way to make others look bad. Sorry, thats just me.

 

[Correa Neto]

I agree with everything you posted Correa Neto. The person (regardless of position or stance) who puts forth the arguement is the one with the burden of proving their claims. I completely agree - the only people who can put forth solid evidence of patty being real are Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin, unfortunately Mr. Patterson is no longer with us, and I think Mr. Gimlin is sick of all this anymore (frankly I dont blame him).

In part; here enters the cross-examination with other pieces of evidence. If there were other pieces of footage similar to PGF but with a better pedigree, chances are this conversation would quite different. This conversation would also be different if there weren't some dubious issues regarding Patterson's character, and some other "ifs" that were already discussed.

Some of my own thoughts about the points you raised.

- If BH is found not to be the star of PGF, this is not reliable evidence that Patty was a real bigfoot;

That is very true, but then the question becomes - who was it ? Someone had to be in the suit. Then we also need to answer, where did the suit come from. I will never simply take anyone's word for anything - as I am sure you wouldnt either.

I don't know. All I can offer are nothing but speculations regarding this issue. And speculations are just speculations, they will never substitute evidence. Even if I manage to create a storyline that can respond for a great number of issues, it would still be speculation, not reality. The same is valid for any "pro-Patty-was-the-real-deal" speculation.

Not to mention that some issues regarding certain themes are never answered. Assuming PGF was a hoax, questions such as who build and who wore it may never be answered. Not unlike many investigations. Kinda like Jack the Ripper... We know when and how, but not who and why.

- If its proven that P&G made some footage of BH using a gorilla bigfoot suit, this is not proof that he was the star of PGF (unless we can see this piece of footage and it shows Patty);

Another question worthy of discussion, why after 40 years hasnt anyone been able to produce convincing evidence that they either were the person in the suit - or they have intimate details of the hoax? Wow, what a coup that would be... People as a rule can not hold onto secrets like that for very long - the need for the acknowlegement becomes too great, they need that pat on the back for a job well done. So, where is this person? In my opinion its not BH - his story is just too weak.

Same as above...

This is true. It only proves Patty was a man in a suit. I will be dissapointed, but I wont stop my research. I dont personally think Patty is the end all to the research, just a good "poster child".

If I believed (as I did lots of years ago) that bigfeet are real, I would still think PGF is quite likely a hoax. And I would expect the real deal, when found at last, would not look like Patty. I actually would be surprised if it did...

 

[William Parcher]

Well, here in Texas, there are no "official" black bears - so unless we are growing hairy cows, I have no clue what they are seeing. I cant dismiss all these people. So, I am interested in finding out what they are seeing - regardless of what it really is.

Can you clarify what you mean in the bolded statement?

 

[Melissa]

Can you clarify what you mean in the bolded statement?

I should have said in East Texas the TDW says there are no bears. But, recently a woman captured one on video. So, officially there are no bears - unofficially they are making a treck this way. I say East Texas because that is where the majority of reports that interest me come from. Once more are captured on video or still images - then Im sure the TDW will change their opinion. It will probably happen after I am a victim.

Thank you for allowing me to clairfy.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, and that comment applies to the BH's out there too.

I agree with that. If BH is going to make such a claim, then he needs to prove it.

I would also add that you, Melissa, do not need to try to prove the negative, that BH was not in a suit for the PGF. It is BH's claim, he has to prove it.

Until he does, if I were you, I would simply maintain that I had no duty to prove the negative, and that BH was not in any suit until he proves it, or at least provides some evidence of the suit to go on.

I really would not argue much about BH until there is some evidence to argue about.

 

[LTC8K6]

We're not going to move on from the film at all, I wouldn't think.

Nor are we going to move on from Ray Wallace and the fact that John Green was and still is fooled by his tracks.

Nor are we going to move on from the fact that Ivan Marx fooled bigfoot experts with a ridiculous suit and movie.

Or that Krantz and Meldrum created a foot skeleton out of whole cloth.

Or that Bigfootery has been gloating over an elk print and casting artifacts.

Or any of the many other absurdities put forth by footers and their supporters and their "experts".

Or what passes for science and who passes as experts in bigfootery.

I think I'll stop now...

 

[LTC8K6]

The TDW probably means for TDW purposes, there are no bears, not that there are literally no bears. A statistical zero, if you will.

 

[Melissa]

Then why are they trying to capture photos of them? The habitat exists yes - but there has been no sightings for a long time, until recently when that video was taken.

I agree - often times unless the "agencies" see it, it isnt happening. But that doesn mean its not there. LOL.

I apologize LTC8K6 I did not mean to imply everyone else should stop evaluating these things. I am only speaking from my perspective and what is and is not important to me. At times new things are said about these videos etc, that do peek my curosity - but I prefer to move forward instead of always looking back.

This animal wont be found or documented by looking backwards all the time. Thats just my thinking - and as always I could be wrong.

 

[LTC8K6]

Then why are they trying to capture photos of them?

TDW apparently lists Black bears and Louisiana Black Bears as threatened Texas species.

What sort of bear have they said is not in Texas?