Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm trying to prove the animal doesn't exist, but I need more time. In the meantime I might start a radio show called Let's Talk About A World Without Bigfoot. But I'm afraid it will be boring for everyone. I might not be able to attract any listeners who thought the world might really be devoid of Bigfoot in the first place. It could be a tough sell overall.
 
P&G do seem to be a bit forgetful. "Look Bob here are some tracks, oh crap, we forgot the plaster." I'm sorry but that's like taking a knife to a gunfight.

m
 
Are there tape recordings of these Patterson Gimlin slipups?
 
Last edited:
Nice edit of your post there, Crow. I saw what you said about reporters misquoting. I know where you are going. Gimlin might adore you for this.
 
"Gimlin might adore you for this."


I guess he wont adore me then.

So there are all these journalists that interview for a living and they seem to continually screw-up. All of them, big-time screw-ups. Or, we have two cowboys from Yakima Washington that can't get their stories straight until one of them is forced out of the picture and/or the other one dies.

Hmmmmm, interesting.

m
 
I got a question for you guys. When this thread reaches 10,000 reply's, or say 200,000 views, do you get a turkey or a ham? How does that work around here? Or does Randi simply suggest you sit on the other cheek for awhile? :jaw-dropp

m
 
William Parcher said:
The Pattycakes seem to be engaged in one big ongoing act of desperation. Maybe it's just a hobby.
Click to expand...

Although I'd hardly call myself a hardcore Sasquatch/PGF believer I will admit to a certain amount of desperation on my part concerning this film. I am desperately trying to make the PGF creature fit into a convincing representation of
1 homade suit
2 partially hommade suit
3 fully utilized purchased suit
4 a gaggle of cowboys pulling off a hoax with the minimal amount of onsite preperation one of the main proposed hoaxers claims
5 a convincing recreation of the event as a means to disprove the premise of the original event as a genuine Sasquatch.

I'm also desperately trying to come to grips with the need for slurring the proponents of the PGF/Sasquatch question with terms such as Pattycakes. There's an old addage that when you're right the need to degrade those that you consider wrong evaporates. I could suppose that a term such as Randibrats could be invented and applied to the members of this forum as a blanket term for every opponent of PGF or any other opposiing view to an enigmatic element or occourance.
 
mangler said:
Melissa,

IMO, it's this kind of statement, "you cant prove one bit of your theory that bigfoot does not exist" that the real world finds ridiculous. I'm sorry but bigfoot does not exist, it has not been proven to exist by physical laws, as of today. As of today, bigfoot only exists in our minds.

m
Click to expand...

That statement does not not imply that bigfoot does infact exist - it only says no one can prove this animal does or does not exist at this point. Thats all.

research
noun
  • 1. Detailed and careful investigation into some subject or area of study with the aim of discovering and applying new facts or information.
    • Thesaurus: search, study, inquiry, investigation, analysis, probe, exploration, quest, examination, fact-finding, delving, scrutiny.
verb
  • tr & intr
    1. To carry out such an investigation.
    • Thesaurus: investigate, explore, analyse, search, study, examine, scrutinize, probe.
    • Form: research into something (often)





​



 
Here is an interesting scenario to ponder-just supposing, for the sake of argument, that Heironimus does remember being filmed in a gorilla suit by Patterson, and that most of his basic story is correct, EXCEPT the location, which might have been Yakima, but not Bluff Creek? Supposing that Patterson was using Heironimus in a recreation film, and Heironimus might have mixed that memory with the film itself? Maybe this is why he does not remember exact details of the suit or the exact locations. It's not really lying, it is merely a false memory. Maybe this is the reason why he does not have exact details correct in his mind, why he says he met Patterson and Gimlin at Weitchpec and not Willow Creek, why he says the suit he possibly wore was Dynel and in three pieces, not six, why a lot of his stories do not make much sense to the average Bigfooter. This is not to say that the film was not hoaxed, because it very well could have been. If it was a hoax, Patterson could very well have made more than one suit, and also employed someone else to pose as "Patty" for him in the film not necessarily Heironimus. He also could have ordered a suit from Morris and modified it, it is always possible.
 
bf2006 said:
Here is an interesting scenario to ponder-just supposing, for the sake of argument, that Heironimus does remember being filmed in a gorilla suit by Patterson, and that most of his basic story is correct, EXCEPT the location, which might have been Yakima, but not Bluff Creek? Supposing that Patterson was using Heironimus in a recreation film, and Heironimus might have mixed that memory with the film itself? Maybe this is why he does not remember exact details of the suit or the exact locations. It's not really lying, it is merely a false memory. Maybe this is the reason why he does not have exact details correct in his mind, why he says he met Patterson and Gimlin at Weitchpec and not Willow Creek, why he says the suit he possibly wore was Dynel and in three pieces, not six, why a lot of his stories do not make much sense to the average Bigfooter. This is not to say that the film was not hoaxed, because it very well could have been. If it was a hoax, Patterson could very well have made more than one suit, and also employed someone else to pose as "Patty" for him in the film not necessarily Heironimus. He also could have ordered a suit from Morris and modified it, it is always possible.
Click to expand...

At some point even a supposed gold bricker like Patterson whould run out of the time needed to play around making another suit and recreation of the Bluff Creek event. Since the Bluff Creek film achieved its purpose of getting its maker into the public eye and into some cash why create what may have amounted less than a poor substitute for the real thing.

Consider that once the Bluff Creek film was released Patterson's life changed dramatically in that suddenly he was being intervied by the media, giving showings and traveling. He was doing alright with the Bluff Creek film.

But I have thought about the Bluff Creek hoax scenerio and the realities of trying to get a decent film by staging the event. Rule #1 would have been bring plenty of film! Two rolls seems sufficient if all you're going to do is shoot the Bluff Creek hoax. But Patterson it seems didn't conserve his film. We know they shot scenery and have implied simply because it looked pretty. I remember being on a flight to the Bahamas where I shot my entire cache of 35mm film out the airplane window because we were encountering some very dramatic weather/cloud patterns. I never did shoot any film once on the ground. So Patterson and Gimlin spent a few weeks in the bush and didn't find Sasquatch and why not shoot some pretty film. Then at the 11th hour the encounter the PGF creature and Patterson has to make due with the remains of that 1st roll of film.

Since they were unable to develope the film in the field they had no way of knowing what they had in the camera and seems stunningly short sighted of a very crafty Roger Patterson to fritter away film then put Bob H on the sandbar yell action and finish out a token few last feet of film for an elaborate hoax. In my estimation they would have gone to Bluff Creek and very carefully staged the film doing as many takes as the could from as many angles as they could then developed it all and chose the best of all the takes as the one to sell the hoax to the world.

There is that photo of Patterson holding some casts and his clothing is filthy. Filthy the way one gets when they've been tramping the wilderness for a few weeks. I can't reconcile dragging Gimlin with him to wander Northern California for a couple of weeks only to have Bob H meet them at the end and spend as Bob H says 10 minutes to make the hoax.
 
Crowlogic said:
There is that photo of Patterson holding some casts and his clothing is filthy. Filthy the way one gets when they've been tramping the wilderness for a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Well, now that you mention it, that brings up yet ANOTHER discrepancy about the whole event, namely whether the films of Patterson casting tracks and holding up cured casts were taken on the same day. William Parcher and I discovered this independently, though Parcher takes precedence.

The real "tell" is Patterson's beard, as he was one of those guys with dark hair and serious stubble. The films were CLEARLY not taken on the same day, though you will read the opposite in Chris Murphy's account.

I know Parcher posted this before I did, but I found it easier to search through my own posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2300957&postcount=5325

This does not prove fraud of course, but it does illustrate what the skeptics have been saying for years, namely that the "back story" of the event is woefully confused, contradictory, and incomplete.

In addition, John Green in Apes Among Us writes that Patterson took a "great deal" of film. What became of it, and what does it show?
 
Crowlogic said:
At some point even a supposed gold bricker like Patterson whould run out of the time needed to play around making another suit and recreation of the Bluff Creek event. Since the Bluff Creek film achieved its purpose of getting its maker into the public eye and into some cash why create what may have amounted less than a poor substitute for the real thing.

Consider that once the Bluff Creek film was released Patterson's life changed dramatically in that suddenly he was being intervied by the media, giving showings and traveling. He was doing alright with the Bluff Creek film.

But I have thought about the Bluff Creek hoax scenerio and the realities of trying to get a decent film by staging the event. Rule #1 would have been bring plenty of film! Two rolls seems sufficient if all you're going to do is shoot the Bluff Creek hoax. But Patterson it seems didn't conserve his film. We know they shot scenery and have implied simply because it looked pretty. I remember being on a flight to the Bahamas where I shot my entire cache of 35mm film out the airplane window because we were encountering some very dramatic weather/cloud patterns. I never did shoot any film once on the ground. So Patterson and Gimlin spent a few weeks in the bush and didn't find Sasquatch and why not shoot some pretty film. Then at the 11th hour the encounter the PGF creature and Patterson has to make due with the remains of that 1st roll of film.

Since they were unable to develope the film in the field they had no way of knowing what they had in the camera and seems stunningly short sighted of a very crafty Roger Patterson to fritter away film then put Bob H on the sandbar yell action and finish out a token few last feet of film for an elaborate hoax. In my estimation they would have gone to Bluff Creek and very carefully staged the film doing as many takes as the could from as many angles as they could then developed it all and chose the best of all the takes as the one to sell the hoax to the world.

There is that photo of Patterson holding some casts and his clothing is filthy. Filthy the way one gets when they've been tramping the wilderness for a few weeks. I can't reconcile dragging Gimlin with him to wander Northern California for a couple of weeks only to have Bob H meet them at the end and spend as Bob H says 10 minutes to make the hoax.
Click to expand...

The above would be more convincing if we could see what was really on the rest of the film. There's always the nagging possibility that the reason there's only that little bit of footage is that the rest would not stand up to scrutiny.

We might also have to allow for the possibility that a hoax could have involved the entire story of the trip, not just the filming of Patty. After all, if they came back with two nice fat rolls of nothing but Patty, wouldn't you be a little suspicious? And it's not all that hard to stage dirty clothes. If you were a good hoaxer, you might well wish to create the appearance of disorder, carelessness and chance. It would be especially necessary to do so if a clear and careful job of shooting might have revealed obvious faults in the suit. Better to have a short, jittery film, not quite optimally focused.

If it wasn't a hoax, the problems with the film are certainly unfortunate, but if it was, they're quite convenient. Unfortunately we'll probably never really be sure unless Patty's eastern nephew comes down out of the Adirondacks and drops into the Red Rose in Whitehall for a beer. There's at least a chance then that someone would notice.
 
Obviously Patterson holding up cured casts means the set of casts in the sandbar photos were hard enough to remove and handle. As for Patterson's beard I can definately see that there is a 5oclock shadow on his face as he's making the cast on the sanbar. Now the "dirty clothes" photo shows him wearing a jacket and a darker beard shadow. Remember the weather changed after the shoot and it rained which means it got colder and less pleasant than the film shoot weather. Hence Patterson has on a jacket, he still hasn't shaved and he's holding up the newly cured casts. My guess is this photo was taken the day after the shoot.

But once again there has yet to be an explaination for killing that much time in the woods if only to shoot a pre arranged hoax. As for the great deal of film Green says Patterson took unless it shows more of the hoax or more Sasquatch material it is unimportant. We do know that on some of that film there is scenery and no doubt some shots of Gimlin and camp. Really if there is say 500 ft of hoax film I can't believe that what we see as PGF is the absoloute best. Once again if those guys scripted everything, length, camera location and motion made the props rolled the film and created something as spontainlous as PGF then they were pros. So maybe there is a conspirecy of pros behind PGF and Roger and the 2 Bobs are just the front.

One other reason why the rest of the film hasn't been shown might be because at the time the important part of the film was the creature. I've been in the process of converting my old VCR tapes to DVD and 70% of I have recorded is being disgarded because it's not of interest to me anymore and not worth the effort of converting it. If you captured a rare creature on film and it has been the object of your obsession the rest of the film is trival. Really if Patterson was alive today and went on Letterman would they want to see Louse Camp?
 
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