Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

But interesting observations about the position of the sun.

The position of the sun matters in at least two filmed scenes. First is the shot of Patterson pouring plaster into a Patty footprint. The angle of the sun can help determine the approximate time of day if the day is given. The other instance is the shot of Patterson holding the two big Patty casts. The angle of the sun in that scene has been claimed by Diogenes to indicate a date not around October.

I think that Patterson had already perfected the footprint of Patty before he filmed the guy in the suit at Bluff Creek. It would make no difference if the actual foot of the costume could create the needed footprint... because a footprint hoaxing device could be used to create a false trackway or to alter each footprint that was laid down by the guy in the suit.

I believe Bob Heironimous's story.

I thought I was the only one here. It's not a popular position.

Welcome to JREF.

 

[tube]

Here is an interesting clip that directly addresses the advocate claim that "in 40 years no one has come up with a suit that is as remotely as good as Patty":

http://www.aglassandahalffullproductions.com/

 

[superbu]

I thought I was the only one here. It's not a popular position.

I believe him for several reasons:

1. His acquaintances confirm he's been making this claim since at least the late '60s. He didn't just pop out of the woodwork.

2. He lived (and apparently still lives) very close to Bob Gimlin and Patricia Patterson, and knows both of them personally, as photographs from the period show.

3. His report of Bob Gimlin's reaction on the telephone when he told him he was going public: "Well, just keep my name out of it." That just... rings true.

4. Gimlin's public reaction to Heironimous's allegations: "Well, I'd have to say I disagreed with him." What?! Not, "No, he wasn't even present when the film was taken"? Only when pressed by the interviewer to use the word "lie" did Gimlin say, "Yes, he was lying."

5. Heironimous's claim that Patricia Patterson must know the film is a hoax, because she was watching out the window when he was trying on the costume. That is an EXTREMELY BOLD CLAIM for someone who is lying, and such an unnecessary one if not true... to drag her into it when it would have been so easy to leave her out. I can't believe he would make that detail up.

6. Despite all his allegations, Heironimous has NEVER, to my knowledge, been sued for slander or libel by either Bob Gimlin or Patricia Patterson. Why?

 

[superbu]

Here is an interesting clip that directly addresses the advocate claim that "in 40 years no one has come up with a suit that is as remotely as good as Patty":

That's a cute clip.

Yes, I've often heard the statement, "In 40 years, no one has come up with a suit that is as remotely as good as Patty."

I have a response to that:

"In 40 years, no one has come up with a FRICKIN' BIGFOOT."

In my opinion, statement two trumps statement one every time.

 

[kitakaze]

[edit] post snipped, rules 9 & 11 [/edit]

Please remember to keep it on topic and not gratuitous in the public areas.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

It was the Gilligan's Island reference, wasn't it? Heh heh, just kidding. Sorry, my bad.

 

[William Parcher]

Superbu, I do think BH was the guy in the suit. I also think that he has no physical evidence to prove that he was. It's a damn shame that he didn't take any pictures of the suit (or himself wearing it) when he took it back to Yakima after the filming. Yes, I think it's very realistic to imagine a guy in that suit that never documented the incident, never had any original motivation to know the details of the actual suit, and now has nothing to offer other then his recollective testimony. I can imagine a person in that situation. He knows he really was the guy in the Patty costume and he is faced with the assumed task of explaining it in a convincing way. In his interviews, you can sense a point of frustration for BH when he abruptly blurts out a direct assertive reminder like "Because I was there in the suit!"

I think that BH's casual and straightforward demeanor is both an asset and a defeative chink-in-the-armor for his skeptics. He always maintains the character of an essentially honest guy that wants to finally set the story straight in a public capacity. But I think he also wants to improve his "story" by adding or subtracting bits as he contemporarily "learns" various things. BH does now describe the suit as if it may very well be a modified Morris gorilla costume. At times he seems to be convinced of this. No doubt this is because BH now believes that Morris did sell a gorilla costume to RP and that he customized it to look like a Bigfoot. To me, that is actually a working hypothesis of what really happened. I think Patterson did modify a Morris suit and turned it into Patty. BH wore that suit and now has gone public with a kind of formalized confession. Pattycakes will sometimes say that he is just one of many that have claimed to wear the suit. This is not true. There have been instances where somebody said that a named somebody was the guy in the suit. This is not the same as a confession to waering the suit. Nobody other than Bob Heironimus has ever done this publicly. If it was somebody other than BH, that person has not come forward at any point after BH's confession, nor at any other point prior to this date. Of course, if Patty is a guy in a suit then that guy is a real flesh-and-blood person. If that guy isn't BH, then we can wonder who he might be after all. If he is still alive and is watching all of this... then he is also making a conscious decision not to set the story straight by trumping BH's testimony with his own and truly accurate story. That other guy, if he exists, is simply missing right now.

As a rhetorical question I would now ask this: Assuming Patty was a guy in a suit... What would prevent this guy from coming out and publicly confessing the role after 35+ years and additionally with the early death of Patterson?

 

[Geno]

If there had been "64 other guys who said they were in the suit" then where are the newspaper articles, where are the papers from the bigfoot researchers who would have claimed another victory at having shot down another bogus claim? I ask anyone in the field to produce the names of only two guys who said they were in the suit before Heironimus (forget Romney he denied being in the suit) and support it with newspaper articles or a proper internet source. Isnt it funny that only Heironimus made bigfooters nervous and none of the other dozens and dozens in the suit did?

 

[Geno]

I believe him for several reasons:

1. His acquaintances confirm he's been making this claim since at least the late '60s. He didn't just pop out of the woodwork.

2. He lived (and apparently still lives) very close to Bob Gimlin and Patricia Patterson, and knows both of them personally, as photographs from the period show.

3. His report of Bob Gimlin's reaction on the telephone when he told him he was going public: "Well, just keep my name out of it." That just... rings true.

4. Gimlin's public reaction to Heironimous's allegations: "Well, I'd have to say I disagreed with him." What?! Not, "No, he wasn't even present when the film was taken"? Only when pressed by the interviewer to use the word "lie" did Gimlin say, "Yes, he was lying."

5. Heironimous's claim that Patricia Patterson must know the film is a hoax, because she was watching out the window when he was trying on the costume. That is an EXTREMELY BOLD CLAIM for someone who is lying, and such an unnecessary one if not true... to drag her into it when it would have been so easy to leave her out. I can't believe he would make that detail up.

6. Despite all his allegations, Heironimous has NEVER, to my knowledge, been sued for slander or libel by either Bob Gimlin or Patricia Patterson. Why?

Couple of my reasons I think it is highly likely BobH is the guy:

1. Bob said the suit was dark brown, not black as in the film. Someone not real close to the story would have said it was black from seeing the film but Bob G and Patterson also said it was dark brown, not black.

2. Multiple witnesses saw the suit in the car at the time the film was shot.

3. He walks like the film subject and the comparison of him with the Morris suit on is quite similar.

 

[Mad Hom]

5. Heironimous's claim that Patricia Patterson must know the film is a hoax, because she was watching out the window when he was trying on the costume. That is an EXTREMELY BOLD CLAIM for someone who is lying, and such an unnecessary one if not true... to drag her into it when it would have been so easy to leave her out. I can't believe he would make that detail up.

6. Despite all his allegations, Heironimous has NEVER, to my knowledge, been sued for slander or libel by either Bob Gimlin or Patricia Patterson. Why?

Even though I read Long's book I can't for the life of me remember what if anything Patricia Patterson has said about Bob H's claims.Here's this guy running around besmirching her husband's good name and basically taking a leak on his biggest accomplishment and she says.......what exactly??

Bob H claiming that she knows the film is a hoax implicates her as well...and still she says nothing much. No libel/slander suit, no campaign to set the record straight and clear her and her noble hubby's good name....nothing of the sort,this has always made me go...Hmmmmmmmm.

The only people hooting and hollering over Bob H are the rank-n-file Bigfoot Nation roll players...and they don't really even stand to lose much over it...well other than their imaginary pet.

 

[Geno]

Pat Patterson refuses to give interviews, she even declined to appear at the 40th anniversary conference at Arcadia. She seems to have little interest in the whole thing except protecting her copyright on the film, thats when you hear from her lawyer. I think she told Greg Long something about BobH having a sneaky past but Long did not find anything to that effect.

 

[bruto]

Even though I read Long's book I can't for the life of me remember what if anything Patricia Patterson has said about Bob H's claims.Here's this guy running around besmirching her husband's good name and basically taking a leak on his biggest accomplishment and she says.......what exactly??

Bob H claiming that she knows the film is a hoax implicates her as well...and still she says nothing much. No libel/slander suit, no campaign to set the record straight and clear her and her noble hubby's good name....nothing of the sort,this has always made me go...Hmmmmmmmm.

The only people hooting and hollering over Bob H are the rank-n-file Bigfoot Nation roll players...and they don't really even stand to lose much over it...well other than their imaginary pet.

While I agree that Patty is almost certainly a bloke in a suit, and strongly suspect that Bob H. was the bloke, I would not put too much weight in Patricia Patterson's reluctance to sue. The whole PGF arena is very muddy, and nobody seems to have any concrete evidence, so it's also possible that Mrs.P is just being prudent, preferring not to get down in the mud. Maybe she has simply decided that nothing she really cares about is to be gained by suing. Maybe, never having been enriched by the film, she's broke and can't afford the lawyers, or (never having been enriched by the film) she's permanently ticked off at it and its creators, and says "to hell with it." It could be any number of factors, including the possibility that she doesn't care what happens to her late husband's reputation, or that she is so sure of the film's authenticity that she considers the Bob H. issue a silly digression that will blow over without her intervention.

 

[Luminous]

Luminous, you are just plain dishonest, imo.

You know what you post is not true, imo.

You know there was no debris in Patty's way. You know Patty does not walk like a biped avoiding debris. You know that Patty isn't even looking where she's going some of the time. You know that a casual glance at the footage does not reveal debris in Patty's path.

You know that Bluff Creek is where the sightings and tracks were. You know this is why Roger went there. You know this is why he shot the film there. You know it was no additional trouble to go there because they were going there anyway to investigate tracks and to film Roger's documentary. You know it makes no sense for Roger to film his documentary anywhere else.

The sand bar was made up of a greyish colored sand that held footprints well, but in other places was more like gravel. Aside from the sand bar, the ground was littered with debris. Here's some pictures from around that time that show the ground clearly.

 

[RayG]

Here's some pictures from around that time that show the ground clearly.

The only way to clearly show the pathway Patty took is to produce pictures that were taken from an overhead perspective.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Yes, I think it's very realistic to imagine a guy in that suit that never documented the incident, never had any original motivation to know the details of the actual suit, and now has nothing to offer other then his recollective testimony. I can imagine a person in that situation.

Yes, Imagination is a wonderful thing...for a blind skeptic.

Even when faced with the fact that Bob's arm, proportionally, is waaaaaaaay too short.....

........to be directly responsible for Patty's fingers bending, as they can clearly be seen doing.....

....the avid blind skeptic can still imagine that Bob was "in the suit".

Imagination is a beautiful thing.

"Well, they had remote-controlled hand devices back then".

The problem with that proposal, though, is that Patty's fingers DO NOT bend in the steady section of the film where Patty turns and looks at Roger.

If this was a hoax, then that steady part of the film would have been the time for Bob to use the remote-control gadget in the suit.......but he didn't.

WHY didn't he??

Who knows?! Why don't we ask a blind skeptic with a fertile imagination....

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

O.K .

The fingers bend.

Where is the evidence that the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ?

Directly above this post is strong evidence that Bob was not the "guy-in-the-suit".

That leaves NO-ONE in 40 years with a credible claim to be the "guy-in-the-suit".

You want evidence (not proof) of a real creature....you got it!

 

[Aepervius]

Who knows?! Why don't we ask a blind skeptic with a fertile imagination....

I cut the quote short due to the picture.

Sweatyeti , you must be either blind or intentionally misleading. The shoulder in the case of patty are not parallel to the walk and it is turning the head. Try yourself, you can gain many centimeter extension if your shoulder turn right. So your comparison don't even hold water to begin with, as BH has got shoulder facing the direction of march, patty does not.

As for the arm length and bending, you see what you wish to see. I only see a curved hand and no individual finger bending. If it is an arm extension, alone the movement forth and back of the arm could explain any additional bending, if the material is not stiff. Now if you had a frame where instead of having a curved hand you had, for example patty showing only a single finger, or a hand which is moving finger singularly you could even have a point. But this is indistinguishable at this resolution.

Finally, this point has been rehashed many time over the last 200 page, so why do you bring it again forth without any additional evidence in your favor ? You had nothing before, you have nothing more now. You could as well "pour(*) water in a violin" and get the same results.

(*) usually in France we use an excretion function starting by "p" to show how an action is pointless, but I don't want to offend anybody.

 

[Mad Hom]

Yes, Imagination is a wonderful thing...for a blind skeptic.

Even when faced with the fact that Bob's arm, proportionally, is waaaaaaaay too short.....



........to be directly responsible for Patty's fingers bending, as they can clearly be seen doing.....


....the avid blind skeptic can still imagine that Bob was "in the suit".

Imagination is a beautiful thing.

"Well, they had remote-controlled hand devices back then".

The problem with that proposal, though, is that Patty's fingers DO NOT bend in the steady section of the film where Patty turns and looks at Roger.

If this was a hoax, then that steady part of the film would have been the time for Bob to use the remote-control gadget in the suit.......but he didn't.

WHY didn't he??

Who knows?! Why don't we ask a blind skeptic with a fertile imagination....

Sweat Man feel free to refrain from ASSUMING when a good time to do anything would be....using a gadget or otherwise

Easily my biggest gripe about Bigfoot Nation...they ASSUME things at every turn.

A hoaxer wouldn't go to all the trouble of doing this or the other.

This would be the best time to do this or that or whatever...but he didn't why?

Assumption......nothing but assumption Sweat....you weren't there...only Roger,Bob G and Bob H ...errrr...I mean a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size. Just because you would have done something at a particular time doesn't mean another person would.

Also...Bob H in the suit and Bob H not in the suit aren't even at the same angle...so to me the comparison is moot. I would echo Aepevirus in saying that just general movement alone could cause a rubber hand (if that's what it is) to move like that.

In conclusion I'd point this out....40 years has passed and all you have is what you assume to be finger movement on a zoomed in animation?? ...Huh...and Bigfoot Nation wonders why no one takes there pet seriously....wow go figger.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Aepervius wrote:

I only see a curved hand and no individual finger bending.
.... But this is indistinguishable at this resolution.

A sweet example of why I used the term "blind skeptic".

Now if you had a frame where instead of having a curved hand, ....patty showing only a single finger,

HUH??? We can't analyse the bending of the fingers in the animation because the hand is curved???


Now if this forum only had skeptical members who wanted to discuss the evidence intelligently....I'd be willing to continue a lengthy discussion here.
But, as this finger-bending animation shows.....the skeptics here are not interested in the truth......only "alternate possible explanations" which are the product of imaginary thinking....rather than logical thinking.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Easily my biggest gripe about Bigfoot Nation...they ASSUME things at every turn.

Yes. I would (very proudly) assume that if Roger built into his suit a mechanically-operated hand extension....that it would have been used in a section of the film where Roger was holding the camera steady....SO THE FINGERS COULD BE SEEN BENDING.

Excuse me for thinking logically.

Why don't you respond by saying "where's the proof...got a body?"

You're good at that.

 

[Luminous]

The only way to clearly show the pathway Patty took is to produce pictures that were taken from an overhead perspective.

RayG

It would be nice to have an aerial view of the location from that time but I doubt such a photo exists. But these two pictures show debris on the ground in an area where we know Patty crossed. For some reason people imagine that Patty was on smooth sand for her entire walk. These two pictures show the ground litter that Patty had to transverse. Again, a man in a mask and suit with foot-shaped “slippers” would have a difficult time walking in some of these areas. The fact that Patty walked through the debris-ridden sections without even looking down speaks volumes. I don’t believe a man in a suit could have done this, especially in one take.