• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
For all we know, the incident with Gimlin was just staged to have Gimlin as a witness to some furry biped running past them that day, while Patty's scene had actually been filmed earlier. With Roger just pretending to film, reload the camera, cast the fresh tracks, etc.

To get Gimlin in, you would only need to make him believe the incident in the PGF happened that day. It would only need to match the PGF in very general terms. A dark furry biped taking off when they got near it, with Roger running around pretending to film it. Gimlin's own mind will fill in the details and make the match, as would anyone's.
Click to expand...

I feel that this scenario is untenable. These kinds of ideas have been batted around numerous times on BFF. It comes from trying to both accept that Patty is a hoax, and that Gimlin has told the truth from the moment of his encounter with (hoax) Patty. Roger hoaxed Bob and from that point onwards Bob has been nothing but truthful about his experience.

There are many more complex necessities than simply walking a "stand-in" guy across the sandbar in front of Gimlin.
 
I want to apologize to Drew, and everyone, for my mop rant. That should have been a PM, if even said at all. This apology is voluntary and was not prompted by any PM to me. I hope that I am not resented because of my driven enthusiasm towards analyzing the PGF and everything surrounding it. I have settled upon a permanent signature in my posts. You gotta be a bit kooky to spend much time arguing for, or against, Bigfoot. There, I said it. Cheers!
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yes, it most likely is. We have considered the idea a few times before, of course.

I still keep the idea alive as a way to explain how the film was processed so quickly. That is, it was already processed.
Click to expand...

At the minimum, it requires that the "stand-in Patty" actually created the trackway that we have come to know, and that Gimlin describes, using nothing but the feet on the costume. This stand-in guy created tracks that were deeper than any subsequent stomp test could produce. Those tracks had plaster poured into them by Roger, and were then later viewed and photographed by Laverty and Titmus (more casting). The huge stride lengths that were seen and measured came from the stand-in wearing a costume.

The list of untenables increases rapidly the more you think about it.
 
It is clearly stated in one of the interviews, which I can't find right now, by Bob Gimlin, "I never pointed my rifle at it"

Which to me is a clear indication of it being a person in a suit.

If your buddy says 'cover me' you put the gun up and aim it at the thing.

If Roger was 100' away from it, you've got to figure if 'the beast' turns and charges Roger, he's got about 3 seconds to lift his gun, aim, and fire, at a target which if it turned towards Roger would be running at 90 degrees to the axis of the gun barrel. And it would be an extremely difficult shot.
 
At the minimum, it requires that the "stand-in Patty" actually created the trackway that we have come to know, and that Gimlin describes, using nothing but the feet on the costume.
Click to expand...

Not that I believe it's the way it happened, but just to cover the issue...

Why couldn't the tracks already have been there?

Roger was at the site that morning for hours without Bob, wasn't he? Bob rode out early, came back at 10 to find Patterson gone. Patterson comes back and asks Bob where he's been. Patterson then says they should go to a spot they've been to before. They go there and voila! Patty.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher wrote:
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
Click to expand...


This guy has plenty of good reasons to spend time thinking about Bigfoot......(He must have an open mind)...

"Sasquatch expert says creature is alive and well in U.S. wilderness"


Larry Battson has seen the smirks, the winks, the rolling of the eyes.

But that doesn't bother him in the least. When you profess to believe in Bigfoot, that comes with the territory.

"When I used to talk about Bigfoot at sports shows, I'd have skeptics," said Battson, a nationally known educator on wildlife who was displaying rattlesnakes and other reptiles at the recent Kansas City, Mo., Sportshow.
"I'd have good old boys' come up and say, What are you trying to feed us?' But I'd always tell them: You believe what you want to believe. I'm convinced it exists.' "

He has been studying Bigfoot for about 30 years now, traveling the country to research alleged sightings.
He has taken molds of footprints, has audiotape of the sounds the creatures make, has read journals of families that had close encounters with them, and has mountains of testimony from people who claimed to have seen the primate. He spotted what may have been a Bigfoot, but he isn't certain.

One of those testimonies came from his wife, who spotted what she believed to be a Bigfoot in the headlights of her car as she returned to the Battsons' home in rural Indiana one night.
That sighting came as no surprise to her husband. There have been other alleged spottings in Putnam County, Ind., where the couple lives.

"These aren't just a few crackpots making up stories," said Battson, 55, who lives in Clinton Falls, Ind. "There are literally hundreds of people across the nation who have reported seeing Bigfoot. In fact, the only states where there haven't been sightings are Hawaii and Rhode Island."
Battson first became intrigued with Bigfoot when he talked with noted wildlife researcher Jim Fowler of the "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" TV show years ago.

Fowler was in Russia to tape footage of the brown bear, but all the guides wanted to talk about was Bigfoot.
"Jim said it was very convincing," Battson said. "These guides got a good look at this creature, and they were afraid of it."

Battson runs Battson Wildlife Educational Services, a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating people about wildlife. He has a collection that includes everything from snakes and Gila monsters to tarantulas.
When he heard about this mysterious creature supposedly roaming the woods, it piqued his interest.

Battson began looking into reports of sightings and was intrigued by what he found.

The creature was mentioned in early American Indian writings and in the journal of explorer Daniel Boone. Even President Theodore Roosevelt related in one of his books an account of Idaho trappers' encounters with a Bigfoot.

Link to the article...

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/29/big-legend-sasquatch-expert-says-creature-is-and/


Instant rebuttal by Diogenes...

"I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness...however small....that Bigfoot creatures exist...anywhere in the world."
 
SweatyYeti said:
William Parcher wrote:
Fowler was in Russia to tape footage of the brown bear, but all the guides wanted to talk about was Bigfoot.[/B]
"Jim said it was very convincing," Battson said. "These guides got a good look at this creature, and they were afraid of it."
Click to expand...

I am a guide, there are a limited number of Bear Hunts here, Once the season is over, what might bring in more people needing a guide?

Other Guide: Reindeer Hunting?

No! Bigfoot!
 
William Parcher said:
Bigfoot must exist because it's the only thing that some Russian guides wanted to talk about.
Click to expand...


It's not a question of what the evidence proves, William....it's a question of what the evidence weighs.

Skeptics like to frame everything concerning Bigfoot evidence in terms of "proof"...(as you just did)...when the evidence simply needs to be accurately "weighed", to determine what the true likelihood of Bigfoot's existence is.

That's what these Bigfoot threads should be about....not trying to "make someone believe", or "not believe". It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is about whether or not Bigfoot exists....all that matters is what the 'true weight' of the evidence is.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
It's not a question of what the evidence proves, William....it's a question of what the evidence weighs.

Skeptics like to frame everything concerning Bigfoot evidence in terms of "proof"...(as you just did)...when the evidence simply needs to be accurately "weighed", to determine what the true likelihood of Bigfoot's existence is.

That's what these Bigfoot threads should be about....not trying to "make someone believe", or "not believe". It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is about whether or not Bigfoot exists....all that matters is what the 'true weight' of the evidence is.
Click to expand...


The PG film has nothing to do with Bigfoot being real or not.

The weight of the evidence shows that:
1) Patterson could not have done all the things claimed and made it back to Hodgson's store just after 6 pm.

2) Patterson could not have grown a beard and removed plaster from his jeans within minutes of making two plaster casts, nor could the footage have been shot the next morning according to their own story.

3) Patterson had the money and connections and traveled to Hollywood just when he needed a suit to film.

4) Wherever Patterson showed up tracks would also appear. As they did when he was traveling to Hollywood in '64 and stopped off at Bluff Creek just in time to tell Pat Graves the tracks he found (while Patterson was at Bluff Creek) were real. He's like Wallace, Marx and Freeman in that respect.

5) The Heironimus story of the Labor Day weekend filming of Patty and Patterson and Gimlin making tracks before and after this fits the facts. Gimlin's tale of showing up to "check out tracks" on Labor Day weekend and not recalling any details of mailing the film doesn't.

6) Without even factoring in Wah's mask and the fact that they were doing freelance work out of Wah's studio behind his home (where the Gorn and the Taurean head were made) the weight of the evidence, testimony of individuals surrounding Patterson and Gimlin, as well as the fact that Green's "original footage copy" has been edited before being sold to him should be enough to scream HOAX to anyone with common sense.

This is about making money off what Bigfoot is supposed to be, not about finding Bigfoot.:crowded:
 
I'm not interested in your perpetual attempt to shoehorn some ambiguous and subjective qualification of "weight of the evidence" into the debate. It's a non-starter.

A person claiming a unicorn sighting may have another person declaring some arbitrary "weight" to that "evidence". If 500 people claim sightings, then the "weight" is increased. (Google the effects of combining weak cups of coffee).

A person who is skeptical of such evidence declares that it has no weight. They may even go on to say that the complete lack of any unicorn body is a kind of evidence in itself which has its own weight.

You will never get either party to agree upon what those weights are. Sweaty, you are asking for something that neither Bigfoot believers nor skeptics will agree upon. Yet you act as if it's a problem restricted to BF skeptics.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Not that I believe it's the way it happened, but just to cover the issue...

Why couldn't the tracks already have been there?
Click to expand...

Okay, here we go...

Patterson ditches Gimlin for a few hours and creates what we now know as the Patty trackway out on that sandbar. The tracks are deeper than any stomp test can produce and the stride is truly huge. The dupe in the suit is waiting behind the fallen tree, and everything is set to fool Gimlin as they ride up to the spot. Now, does the dupe in the suit run alongside the fake trackway, or does he make sure to place each foot inside the fake trackway? What will Gimlin see on that sandbar when observes the fake trackway (already in place) and at the same time sees the prints left by the dupe in the suit?

Roger was at the site that morning for hours without Bob, wasn't he? Bob rode out early, came back at 10 to find Patterson gone. Patterson comes back and asks Bob where he's been. Patterson then says they should go to a spot they've been to before. They go there and voila! Patty.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its easy to fool Gimlin with a stand-in suit. But how does Gimlin explain the big, shallow, short-strided tracks that were left by the dupe?
 
I used the wrong terminology above.

Guy in the suit meant to fool Gimlin = The Shill.
Gimlin fooled by the shill = The Dupe.
 
But how does Gimlin explain the big, shallow, short-strided tracks that were left by the dupe?
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll keep playing. :D

The shill strolls nearly wherever he wants. He just needs to avoid ruining the planted tracks, avoid running towards Roger, and travel in generally the correct direction.

Large, soft, paddlefeet type shoes spread the weight of the shill and leave little, if any, tracks in the firm clay/sand for Gimlin to be concerned with.

Or, you can just wrap your shill's feet in burlap, which works very well. :D

Gimlin will see the deep planted tracks and make the leap himself that what he just saw just made them, and lose all interest in anything else that he might ordinarily have noticed.

Perhaps the shill is simply barefoot, and his tracks are simply labeled the tracks of a juvenile sasquatch? Junior wouldn't sink in too far, naturally. There were 3 sets of tracks, right? Momma, Poppa, and Junior. That's what the story was that got ol' Rog up there...

If I were suspicious, I might think the sets of tracks were experiments done by someone making a bigfoot film. :D
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
avoid running towards Roger
Click to expand...

Because if he does, Bob will kill the shill with a rifle bullet. What kind of a promise was made by Roger to the shill in that regard? (I know, it's been suggested that the bullets were removed or substituted with blanks)

Gimlin will see the deep planted tracks and make the leap himself that what he just saw just made them, and lose all interest in anything else that he might ordinarily have noticed.

Perhaps the shill is simply barefoot, and his tracks are simply labeled the tracks of a juvenile sasquatch? Junior wouldn't sink in too far, naturally. There were 3 sets of tracks, right? Momma, Poppa, and Junior. That's what the story was that got ol' Rog up there...

If I were suspicious, I might think the sets of tracks were experiments done by someone making a bigfoot film.
Click to expand...

That shill trackway must also remain unnoticed as such by Laverty and Titmus.

I know you will return my volley. :D
 
Because if he does, Bob will kill the shill with a rifle bullet. What kind of a promise was made by Roger to the shill in that regard? (I know, it's been suggested that the bullets were removed or substituted with blanks)
Click to expand...

No, they have already agreed that Gimlin will not shoot unless bigfoot attacks. The shill looked back nervously to make sure, though. The shill is only without heavy cover for a short time. As Gimlin gets closer, the shill actually has to run to make sure Gimlin doesn't see him too well. We have no way of knowing what Roger might have said to the shill, though. Roger was a con-man, after all.

It would be useful to know if Gimlin took his rifle with him that morning when he went out alone. :D

That shill trackway must also remain unnoticed as such by Laverty and Titmus.
Click to expand...

Nope, it rained heavily that night. Flooded, in fact. Any light tracks or telltale scuffs were long gone by the time Laverty conveniently strolled right to the proper spot.

Roger didn't want Bob to go out and cover the tracks.
Roger also didn't want Bob to pursue Patty immediately.

Laverty is walking all over the joint for a long time with a good camera and never runs into our film makers. He also never takes picture one of any bigfoot tracks which the area is supposedly loaded with, until he walks right onto the set of the PGF.

Of course now we can be pretty sure that Roger and Bob hadn't been there three weeks at all, so that would clear up the reason why they might not have run into Laverty. Depending on which Gimlin/Patterson account you want to run with.

Conversely it would mean they got film of a bigfoot after being there only a short time, which looks even more suspicious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom