Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huntsman said:
And sorry, Melissa, but Footers have NOT earned the right to compare themselves to real scientists looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I will be sure to impart your wisdom on the actual scientists involved in the research, I am sure they will get a kick out of your comment. LMAO :)

Yes LTC that is correct. But from what I have heard and read there have been no actual sightings of a bear (of any kind) in many years. And they still dont acknowledge the one caught on film. But they are saying they may be making a comeback.. I dont understand their kind of speak.. LOL
 
Crowlogic, Patty's left hand looks big (like a baseball glove) in frames 387-9. I'm really curious why that left hand doesn't always look that way. There are lots more other frames showing the left hand. To me, in these other frames that hand looks like a stump (as if there is no hand at all) or a disproportionately small cupped hand.

What do you think when you see the left hand (or even the right hand that should match the left) in all of those other frames? For myself, the hands are one of the notably enigmatic features of Patty. I can never see anything that looks like distinct fingers. I think the fingers should be huge and noticible. Yet I am presented with a single frame showing each individual toe of one foot. Toes are much smaller than fingers, and I wonder why I never see a frame showing all five fingers of either hand.
 
I do acknowledge that there are things said here about Heironimus that do make sense. Maybe his supposed "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" are just lapses in memory and forgetting details after 40 years. Heironimus had recently, when Long's book came out and on the Jeff Rense show, said that he met Patterson and Gimlin at Willow Creek, but recently, on the XZone December 7th, 2006, and also on Tom Biscardi's Bigfoot Live Radio show he said he met them at Weitchpec. Now, this might seem like a contradiction (and I did ask him about this the other night on the XZone when I called in), but I do take into account that it has been 40 years and people cannot always remember details correctly after that amount of time, and Heironimus explained that on the air. Then, another caller, Sean Forker, called in and asked him about the materials the suit was made of and how many pieces it was in. Heironimus followed with that it was the Morris suit and that it was in 3 pieces (which, on the surface, would seem to contradict Morris' testimony that it was six pieces). But, let us examine that one too. Supposing, if indeed this film was a hoax, that Morris sent Patterson a 6-piece suit, but Patterson, when he received the suit, he molded or riveted the feet to the legs and the hands to the top part? Some claim that the Morris suit was actually a unitard and that it zippered in the front, but supposing, just for the sake of argument, that Patterson cut the suit in half at the waist as to accommodate Heironimus (or if it was not Heironimus, the person in the suit, if it was a suit)? I think my faith in the film has now been busted down to about 85% because I am starting to think a little more critically about these circumstances and starting to think more objectively. Of course, I still think the film is real, but that does not mean that if it were proved a hoax once and for all that I would get emotionally upset or stop my search for answers in this mystery. I think people (especially Bigfooters) need to separate the film from the rest of the history of the Bigfoot phenomenon and realize that whether or not that film is a real Sasquatch or just Bob Heironimus wearing a modified gorilla suit does not mean that the creatures don't exist. I have had two sightings which convince me ultimately that whatever the truth of the film, there is a Sasquatch. Moreso than a questionable body print, moreso than casting artifacts, moreso than unknown hairs or feces, moreso than strange unknown vocalizations, morseo than an admittedly questionable film, is a first-hand encounter, an eyewitness sighting, of which I have had two and pretty thoroughly convinced that they were not people in suits, or hallucinations, or wishful thinking. I also think that Bigfooters need to use more objectivity when it comes to certain pieces of evidence and not fly off the handle if someone tells them that piece of evidence is BS. It holds true for several pieces of evidence, but moreso for this film. Some of them seem to get emotionally upset if it is suggested this film is a hoax, as evidenced by that one guy who called the XZone Monday night (and another individual that Rob McConnell had as a guest a couple of weeks ago who runs a Bigfoot museum in northern California) when Rob put it in their face that the film, in his mind, is a hoax. When myself and two other individuals called in Monday night when Heironimus was on the show, we were objective and non-emotional and non-confrontational and respectful and handled ourselves very well in the face of McConnell's skepticism of the film, and I think represented ourselves very well. The individual who called in and called Heironimus a liar bragged on one of the Yahoo message lists I belong to that he got to call Heironimus a liar on-air and that the other callers (myself and the other two callers) were too politically correct. That kind of attitude frankly disturbs me coming from Bigfooters, and I do not endorse it or condone it. Anyway, just some things to consider here.
 
WP, good post.

That frame with the toes is one of the biggest problem with the PGF for me.

Different hands, different feet. Blockfoot and perfect foot. Handy dandy hand, and where'd it go hand...
 
Melissa said:
Thanks for that, I will be sure to impart your wisdom on the actual scientists involved in the research, I am sure they will get a kick out of your comment. LMAO :)
Click to expand...

Did you see where Bigfoot Pundit emeritus, Roger Knights, has a problem with Dr. Meldrum's opinion of the Patty stroll..


That would make for a nice debate.. You think ?
 
Diogenes, Mr. Knights is entitled to his opinion as much as you are, and I am. I guess things like that dont get me all worked up.

No biggie to me. But, I do enjoy reading what Mr. Knights writes.
 
bf2006,
You do realize if BH did wear the suit, he had no idea, at the time, what the genesis of the suit was?

He had no idea what a ' Morris suit ' is/was ..

Since then, he has been fed a lot of information, and it is possible he has felt pressured to work some of that information into his sketchy memory ..

But like I said, you seem to be a rational kind of person who understands how those things happen.

Now Gimlin, he keeps it short and sweet . No confusing details to keep straight...
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
bf2006,
You do realize if BH did wear the suit, he had no idea, at the time, what the genesis of the suit was?

He had no idea what a ' Morris suit ' is/was ..

Since then, he has been fed a lot of information, and it is possible he has felt pressured to work some of that information into his sketchy memory ..

But like I said, you seem to be a rational kind of person who understands how those things happen.

Now Gimlin, he keeps it short and sweet . No confusing details to keep straight...
Click to expand...

Thanks, Diogenes. I appreciate it much.
 
William Parcher said:
Crowlogic, Patty's left hand looks big (like a baseball glove) in frames 387-9. I'm really curious why that left hand doesn't always look that way. There are lots more other frames showing the left hand. To me, in these other frames that hand looks like a stump (as if there is no hand at all) or a disproportionately small cupped hand.

What do you think when you see the left hand (or even the right hand that should match the left) in all of those other frames? For myself, the hands are one of the notably enigmatic features of Patty. I can never see anything that looks like distinct fingers. I think the fingers should be huge and noticible. Yet I am presented with a single frame showing each individual toe of one foot. Toes are much smaller than fingers, and I wonder why I never see a frame showing all five fingers of either hand.
Click to expand...

At present the only PGF I have to view digitally is the MK Davis gif, those usless Youtube PGF,s and a couple of old VCR tapes from shows done in the 90's. So I can only comment on what I see in MK Davis. There are a few more frames where the palm of the left hand is seen and it still seems to me to retain the character seen in frames 387-9. MK Davis stills really don't capture the visual effect of the hand and had I not taken notice of the hand while in motion, and the peculiar detail only motion seems to show, I wouldn't have thought anything about it at all. And yet there it is and IMO the hand is even bigger realitive to the creature than the bigness of the feet. One can either suspect that the frames were doctored somewhere along the line or that is the hand of the film subject whatever that may actually be. One of the reasons the palm may stand out as well as it does is that it appears to be lighter in color than the fur on the body. It certainly is lighter than the black costume hands of a Morris suit and strikes me as pretty much what could be expected on a large primate that has many of the physical mechanics and motor elements of humans. This of course doesn't confirm that the PFG creature is real but it is a curious detail from a hoax standpoint because the hands needen't have been that big, perhaps too big. I've considered that the very large hand may have been a device to help give the illousion of longer arms but the film subject's arms are long without the look of an artificial lower arm extension that would have been needed to augument length of human arms.
 
Diogenes said:
You do realize if BH did wear the suit, he had no idea, at the time, what the genesis of the suit was?
Click to expand...

But there is a big problem with that Diogenes - BH said first this suit was a suit made by Roger Patterson out of Red Horse hide. Then of course he changed it to a Morris Costume. Whether he knew how these things are made is of no consequence.

Would you add in information to a story such as this if you felt pressured? You sure wouldnt accept that from any bigfooter I know. Why would you accept that from BH?
 
Diogenes said:
You just get all worked up if someone wants to keep talking about ' the lift ',
when you have told them to zip it .. :D
Click to expand...

Well, nothing in this field of research gets me "worked up".. But thats a conversation I'm not going to have.. :D ;)
 
Diogenes,

Seems your buddy filtered you over on the BFF. You gonna go to Disneyland? :jaw-dropp

m
 
BH said first this suit was a suit made by Roger Patterson out of Red Horse hide. Then of course he changed it to a Morris Costume.
Click to expand...

Knowing nothing about the suit initially, he would naturally assume Roger made it, and Roger may have told him he made it from a horse hide. Later on, he may have been told, or figured out that Roger didn't actually make it, but modified a Morris suit.

You can look at things lots of ways when you are objective.

How would BH know it was a red horse anyway if all he saw was the suit? Somebody would have to tell him it had been a red horse.

We can go on and on...
 
Well sure LTC, he can say anything he wishes.. But, thats not what he said. He also never said "Well, Im not sure, but Roger told me this" he also never said "I think it was a morris suit, but I cant be sure".. He made definitive statements.

If he had not made such statements, he may have some wiggle room to change it, but he didn't do that.

Heironimus: "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse."
Click to expand...

*Emphasis mine*

That is not speculation, that is a definitive statement and one that implies intimate knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Well sure LTC, he can say anything he wishes..
Click to expand...

Nice try, but I didn't say that.

So how'd he know the horse was red?

That is not speculation, that is a definitive statement and one that implies intimate knowledge.
Click to expand...

Like falling off your horse, getting pinned, and bending a stirrup?

Like Patty has droopy, floppy, breasts?

Like 3.5 miles?

Like Patty stunk from 90 feet away?
 
Melissa said:
That is not speculation, that is a definitive statement and one that implies intimate knowledge.
Click to expand...

" It stunk .. " is the only part that is definitive ..


The rest was hearsay ..

Do you know what ' hearsay ' is, Melissa ..

Would you add in information to a story such as this if you felt pressured? You sure wouldnt accept that from any bigfooter I know. Why would you accept that from BH?
Click to expand...
Where have I said I accept anything he said ?
 
Last edited:
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