Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[RayG]

Wait, wait, hold up. This guy is known to have faked photos of Bigfoot--and yet people still take his other claims seriously?

Other than Krantz and maybe a handful of others, It seems that most people didn't.

If this guy is known to have faked evidence, why is anybody taking ANY of his stuff seriously?

Silly, just because he faked SOME of the 'evidence', doesn't mean he faked ALL the 'evidence'.

I know of at least one person on the BFF who won't be taken seriously no matter what he produces because he hoaxed the group, yet some still cling to footprints associated with Marx as valid, impossible to fake, tracks.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Because there's no evidence he faked the tracks.

There's no evidence he didn't fake the tracks either.

The casts have held up to intense scrutiny, by Napier for one.

Napier, in his 1972 book Bigfoot, page 122, concluded:

"It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it"

So, he's saying it's possible, unlikely, but not impossible. One wonders if Napier factored in the amount of money Marx stood to gain from his 'evidence'. Con-men can be quite creative if large sums of money are involved.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

I took him to mean the PGF was filmed at Bluff Creek in 1967, not that there was further hoaxing at Bluff Creek.

Yes and no. I believe that Patterson filmed (at least) two different hoaxes at Bluff Creek.

1) Filming Bob Heironimus in a Bigfoot costume walking across the sandy bank of Bluff Creek, CA.

2) Weeks later, creating and filming a fake trackway in this same location with the intention of "hoaxing the world" into thinking that Patty (Heironimus) actually was the thing that produced this trackway.

So yes, I'm saying that Patterson did continue hoaxing at Bluff Creek itself, since the trackway was a subsequent continuation of the hoaxing that created the "PGF package". This package was footage of Heironimus on one day and then filming a fake trackway on a later day. Meld those two seperate hoaxing events together and you can start to call it a single encounter with evidence (what is now collectively known as the PGF and its supporting track evidence).

But I am not saying that Patterson did any further hoaxing at Bluff Creek after he left this location at about 4am on October 21, 1967. From that point onwards, it was all about manipulating and modifying the film and its print images. This could have included people other than Patterson himself.

Just because no one can identify the artist doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.

Right. But putting that aside, we know that Roger Patterson was an excellent graphic artist among other artistic and crafted endeavors. Nobody would rightfully deny this after seeing his works. Patterson might be the one who drew the hand on the Cibachrome (if it is a drawn hand). Of all the known people who had early custodialship of the physical evidence, Patterson seems to rise above the top for artistic capabilities. As for motivation, well, hardly anyone would deny that he was shifty and manipulative. Is there any functional argument that Patterson was not a shady character... even independant of the PGF itself?

 

[RayG]

Did you see Michael Dennett there, Matt? Benjamin Radford? RayG? Weren't the copies shown in Bellingham, as well?

Well, if the Skookum cast ever goes on a travelling road show and happens to pass by my small town, I'd certainly give it a look.

Would I spend considerable amounts on air fare and other expenses (and the time required) to travel to Seattle to view the cast? Nope.

Why not? Well, even Dr. Meldrum doesn't find the cast all that compelling anymore, and I don't need to be there in person to be subjected to someone else's interpretation of what it is I'm looking at.

Now, if they happen to have a butt cast with a squatch still stuck in it, I'd PAY to see THAT!

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

"Paddlefoot" makes another guest appearance at the JREF. This is an animated gif created by MK Davis using Cibachrome prints in sequence. That's one hell of a foot to go on to create the impression that shows heel tapering, "classic foot" form and a mid-tarsal break. Check out the popping "thigh hernia", if you get a chance...

 

[RayG]

More on Ivan Marx:

Some tidbits from a review of THE LEGEND OF BIGFOOT (1975) --

"This is Ivan Marx’s story... Marx has the amazing ability to stumble upon definite clues and practically bump into Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) who hold still for the celluloid record. This documentary has more footage of Bigfoot than you can shake a Bigstick at!... Then we see some footage Marx shot of a guy in a hairy suit, I mean Bigfoot. That was mean, I know, but when you see this you’ll have no doubt about the fakery... Clearly, this is a guy in a hairy suit... We’re shown footage of something in the early light of dawn that Marx says is the glowing eyes of the Bigfoot. I don’t know what it was exactly but I can tell you it ain’t that! It looks more like a Muppet. Marx later confesses that it must have been swamp gas. Muppet.

With winter just around the corner, Marx takes to the air and finds a young Bigfoot by a river who stands nice and still so we can see it’s more fakery. After film of some hunters shooting caribou (and plenty of carcass scenes) Marx beds down in Beaver Swamp where he finds more of them there Bigfoots! This guy has the luck of gods. This time there’s two of them splashing around in the water making good and sure that Marx gets plenty of photogenic evidence of his claims.

What’s amazing to me about this film is that Marx seems so genuine in his demeanor yet the hoax is so blatantly apparent."

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm asking if you're writing the paper.

Come on... That's not what you are doing. And we both know it.

It was TBFF, the Temporary Bigfoot Forums Board. ...snip...
Anyone can claim to be anything they want on a forum. I have no proof you do have a degree in geology, but you claim you do and I accept that. If I said you do and it turns out you don't, I'd have egg on my face, but by making a cautious statement I'm left with some wiggle room. Don't scientists do that all the time?

I could not care less where you posted. The fact is that you've made the implicit claim that I am lying, that I am a poseur. You posted things about me in an open forum that I consider to be offensive. You also misquoted me there.

Your "some wiggle room" is just another form of evasion.

I noted the posting style seemed similar to Pat Kelly's. (Or was that "Pat Kelley"? I'll have to look it up.) I'd actually never heard the term "sock puppet" before, but it's not unusual for people to post under different SNs sometimes, as recently happened on TBFF. E.g., Voldemort, voldemort2, Erik Beckjord, all the same highly disturbed individual. Even I posted anonymously a couple of times. That was fun. ...snip...

LAL, what you have to do is either provide evidence that I used a sockpuppet or remove the claim. Its simple: PM a mod on the subject. Ask him/her to check my register, my IPs (tell him/her I use some 4 or 5 different PCs), and where I post from (here they are - Niterói, Lavras do Sul and Belo Horizonte). And do the same with the person you claim to be my sockpuppet. Once its made, it would be a honest move of yours to remove the claim.

I am beginning to wonder if you're writing the paper. If you're not, just say so.

Nope. You are making a completely different thing. Now, please dig my original sentences to place things on the propper context.
Remember you initial post regarding the issue, at this thread?

Or were you just blowing smoke?

This is one of the things you are actually suggesting.
And you complain about the way people treat you here at JREF...

I pretended not to see the insinuations of yours at the TBFF and carry on, forgetting about the issue. But you just made another one. My patience with you has just run out. I also don't care if you were angry this or that poster and lost your temper. That's not my problem. It's are between YOU and THEM.

Appeals to authority and this sort of insinuations are being not of any help for you. On the contrary. They can be read as a sign of despair. If you are lacking arguments to back your claims on bigfoot, if you can not manage to find reasonings to counter the critics raised to the conclusions reached by Krantz, Meldrum and others, you got to learn to live with that or try harder to find a way to counter.

And, just to let you know, I have no fear of facing Meldrum or anyone else who wishes to discuss with me -another veiled insinuation. Let them come if they want. Part of my work involves discuss and argue with world-class consultants. People whose list of papers and credentials are impressive. And I handle myself quite well on this. If you think I am just "blowing smoke" I can PM my manager's email and you can confirm what I just wrote -and my qualifications. And after that, it would be very nice if you backed your hollow claims and insinuations.

Bigfoot is not the axis around which my life turns. I have a real life, a lot of work to do, and most important of all, a family to care. Whenever I find spare time to write a paper, it will be on geology, since I have serious doubts that a paper on bigfoot will have any positive impact in my carreer. Specially the behavior of some footers.

Again: Back your claims and insinuations or remove them. You said I was misquoting you regarding regarding a certain issue. I dug up the posts, found you were right and promptly made a mea culpa. Its your time to do the same now.

If you manage to restrain yourself from personal attacks and either back or remove your insinuations, then whenever you have some on-topic argument, I may eventually discuss it with you.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What is very unique with this conference will be that it is held at the Pacific Science Center where Jane Goodall, Sylvia Earle and Jacque Cousteau have all presented in the past.

Whoa !! Need they say more !! Bigfoot must be real !!

 

[tube]

Did you see Michael Dennett there, Matt? Benjamin Radford? RayG? Weren't the copies shown in Bellingham, as well?

Dana & I had Michael Dennett over for dinner last week, he has not seen the original Skookum cast or the copies. I have not seen Radford at any of the conferences I've been to, though judging by his haircut he must be pretty cool. and I don't know what Ray G looks like. Neither Rick Noll nor the Skookum cast copies showed up in Bellingham.

 

[William Parcher]

Stills in a book tend to be clearer than anything on a computer screen. In Murphy's book, pg. 54, it appears in frame 352, but not in 350. Could a finger uncurl that fast or something in the background disappear that quickly? No one in their right mind would draw something in in one frame and not in the adjacent frames and expect to get away with it. It may just be an artifact. The little finger on the right hand is clear on frames 61, 72, 307 and 310, pg. 52.

I don't think it looks drawn in or like a finger. In fact, it kind of looks like a bananna. It doesn't seem to show on the lower picture at all.

It should be clear to you from my postings that I am not suggesting that anyone has ever "drawn anything" on any of the 16mm film frames. That is just ridiculous. Patty is just way too small on that film frame and her hand really would be microscopic. I'm saying that modification occurred on the Cibachrome print(s). The hand area would not be microscopic at all in this case. As I said, Cibachrome prints would typically be 8x10 or 11x14. Both of those sizes are already bigger than a whole page of a large book. If these prints were exactly reproduced (size scale) in a book, it would be a "coffee table size" folio-type book.

I will now say for the first time, that I might be incorrect about the hand being drawn onto the original Dahinden Cibachrome (DC). It is possible (and reasonable) that this hand was drawn onto a copy of the DC.

We are presented with (at least) two different images of the DC. One looks like the full frame 352 from the 16mm film. This is copyrighted to Rene Dahinden. But, I cannot discern the copyright year, nor if the "hand" appears on this image...

Here we have the first printed image (1980) of a DC of frame 352. Obviously, this is a cropped and enlarged image of Patty (when compared to the full frame from 16mm)...

What is not yet clear to me, is if this image (from Manlike Monsters on Trial) is a cropped and enlarged copy of the "full frame DC", or if it is a seperate original DC in itself. We already know that the dominant image shown to the public of frame 352 (which is derived from a DC) is cropped, enlarged and shows the "hand". The new question is if there is more than one original Dahinden Cibachrome (as opposed to modified copies of a singular DC) taken from frame 352 and if the hand appears in all or only some of them.

This may now sound complicated and boring. It's an attempt to locate (in space and time) the true origin and appearance of the "hand". This is unlikely to reveal the creator of the hand (if it is created). But it is stab at trying to figure out when and where the hand is publicly presented. At this point, we know that it was shown no later than 1980.

 

[William Parcher]

Yet another animated gif using three images. Two are "frame grabs" from copies of the 16mm film. The third (which shows the hand) is from a Dahinden Cibachrome...

 

[bruto]

Looking at the "hand," I keep thinking that if it weren't so conveniently at the hand position, I'd see it as just a printing flaw. I wonder if this isn't a red herring, indicating neither a hand nor a fraudulent retouch, but just cheap reproduction.

 

[Hitch]

Looking at the "hand," I keep thinking that if it weren't so conveniently at the hand position, I'd see it as just a printing flaw. I wonder if this isn't a red herring, indicating neither a hand nor a fraudulent retouch, but just cheap reproduction.

I can't tell either. It may be a lost cause, looking for the culprit behind "the smoking hand." But, it's not so trivial that bigfooters have used the hand to support their claims about "Patty" when a bit of investigation shows that it's not part of "Patty."

 

[William Parcher]

Looking at the "hand," I keep thinking that if it weren't so conveniently at the hand position, I'd see it as just a printing flaw. I wonder if this isn't a red herring, indicating neither a hand nor a fraudulent retouch, but just cheap reproduction.

Use your brain. Not only is the "hand" in the exact position of what would be a hand... but it is also the shape of a hand. A film or print "flaw" could have just as easily been shaped like Bugs Bunny. What would anyone think about Bugs if we saw him in the position of Patty's hand? Everyone would demand to see copies of the film frame that were not Dahinden Cibachromes. We are already doing that when questioning the "hand". What do we see? Nothing like a hand at all.

 

[William Parcher]

Bruto, why on earth (given probabilty theory) would a "cheap reproduction" cause a flaw that is a near-perfect image of a hand to also appear exactly where (and with proper orientation) a hand is supposed to be?

The "red herring" is LAL's suggestion that this is like seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast. It is not. It's more like taking a painting of the Virgin Mary, toasting it, and then seeing a perfectly formed image of Jesus cradled in her arms. So convincingly like Jesus, that believers and skeptics would agree that it might very well be Jesus. Holy cow!

 

[Dfoot]

Been looking over the posts here and I noticed I’d been mentioned so I figured I’d better join in….

It’s true that I am hopeful one day we’ll find some evidence along the lines of what was discovered on FLORES ISLAND. The Natives there always claimed knowledge of some type of little ape-people who lived in the mountains and only now are we finding out that this was based on something real. Those Natives claimed that the EBU GOGO (their name for what we are now calling “Flores Man”) lived underground high in the mountains and sometimes stole children to eat. Natives of the Pacific Northwest make similar claims for their over-sized Sasquatch.

The possibility is there for this to have existed and should be looked at more closely.

However…

Having said all that I have to look at what’s happened since 1958 when ANDREW GENZOLI first reported on the tracks found at the RAY WALLACE construction site and coined the term, “Bigfoot”. Since then there has been a lot of hoaxing. Some of it takes a bit of effort to uncover and some of it is just too obvious from the start.

I could easily write a long article about everything I’ve done to examine the film from pro and con viewpoints. At the end there is only one conclusion I can come to. Heironimus did wear a suit and the film was shot earlier than claimed.

First – I’m not speculating when I say that money was made from the film. DeAtley explains this very well in Long’s book - though he tries his best to stay away from the subject of the suit and making of the film. $84,000 from a week-end show in Utah is over $400,000 in today’s money. This is an example of the kind of dough Patterson and DeAtley were pulling in from a film that cost very little to make.

Second – The court records tell the tale of Gimlin’s previous arrest (which he denies ever happened) and exactly when Patterson’s widow and DeAtley were ordered to share profits with him.

Third – I can show you step-by-step how you too can make your own “Patty” that’s very similar to what is shown in the film. Heironimus tried his best to describe what he saw and felt. I’ll show you how it was done. 1967? This was 1940’s technology being used. Nothing unusual at all.

Recently I went back to the BFF and made copies of the track photos that JOHN GREEN gave RICHARD NOLL from those early days around Bluff Creek. They do match Wallace’s various wooden feet. The thing that bothers me about the various investigations done so far is the willingness to often take something we like and bend over backwards to try and make it real. I was guilty of this too at the beginning. That does nothing to help the case.

Fraud is fraud. Patterson faked prints and the film. Freeman did the same. Many others have too. Wallace kept it up till the day he died without ever admitting to anything. None of these people ever saw a Sasquatch. They only want you to believe they did for their own varied reasons. Sometimes it’s for money and sometimes for fame; sometimes just for fun.

I do hope one day that some “Hobbit” type evidence is stumbled upon in some crevice high in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, but clinging to hoaxes only prevents scientists from allowing themselves to dare get involved in looking at the subject – especially when those that do involve themselves in it use items such as obvious bear tracks as evidence of a Sasquatch walking on the balls of its feet.

I’ll be happy to post photos of anything related to how I came to these conclusions once the “15 post” requirement is fulfilled and I am allowed to do so.

A real mystery to me is just what Patty Patterson said to Rene Dahinden after he approached her in an attempt to track down this Heironimus fellow who was claiming to be “the man-in-the-suit”. After years and years of court battles to gain control of the film and sue any company or person in his way, Dahinden emerged from that meeting simply saying that we should, “…let sleeping dogs lie.” He never pursued Heironimus after that.

Wonder what his old enemy said to him that day?

- Dfoot

 

[Correa Neto]

That was a ballanced post. Specially this part:

I do hope one day that some “Hobbit” type evidence is stumbled upon in some crevice high in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, but clinging to hoaxes only prevents scientists from allowing themselves to dare get involved in looking at the subject – especially when those that do involve themselves in it use items such as obvious bear tracks as evidence of a Sasquatch walking on the balls of its feet.

The emphasis was mine.

Complaining about not being taken seriously by mainstream science are useless. Dumping unreliable evidence can do a lot for the cause of those who defend bigfeet are real.

Later, if the opportinity arises, we can discuss the pros and cons of using myths as evidence for the existence of cryptos.

For now,
Wellcome to JREF.

 

[William Parcher]

Dfoot, great to see you here on JREF. I was wondering when you'd show up here. This is a forum that allows free speech skepticism of Bigfoot, the PGF and Bigfootery in general. I have read many (most?) of your postings on BFF. You are a flower that has bloomed over there. You once argued strenuously against the PGF being a hoax and that Bob Heironimus was the bloke in the suit. That all changed fairly rapidly for you (like a bud becoming a flower). It is not a strong criticism to tell you that the evidence pointing to the PGF hoax and of it being Bob H... was always right in front of your eyes or easily reached. You built a Patty suit much like the original. But it is still possible to create your strongest arguments without ever building a retro suit yourself. Smoking guns are everywhere concerning the PGF and connected dots point to a grand (and ongoing) hoax.

This here thread is a biggie. But there are at least 3 other JREF threads threads from last summer that are quite similar. Unique skeptical points may be contained in those that are not here. If you have 4 hours to kill, you could hunt down and read those other threads.

More to say to you in time. Welcome.

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay, I’ll go back a little bit to the casting of the tracks. I rode the big horse. The horse that I was riding was around 1200-1300 pounds. I rode him along side the tracks with this new film in the camera, Roger took pictures of how deep the horse’s prints were in the soil compared to the creature’s tracks. Then I got up on a stump which was approximately 3 to 4 feet, you know? We didn’t measure it, probably should have. Anyway I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my foot print went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene. It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back, ..’course we were pretty excited about just seeing it and we sat there and talked about it until about 12:30 or one o’clock in the morning.

I would really like to know what Bob Gimlin was about to refer to about "It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back".... I am pretty sure he was going to say it was raining, which would validate the other report of when it started raining. I think it was already raining on the tracks when they got back. Gimlin of course, does not cover the tracks with bark until well after 5:30 the next morning, meaning it was indeed raining on them all night.

From the 1992 interview.

 

[William Parcher]

It’s true that I am hopeful one day we’ll find some evidence along the lines of what was discovered on FLORES ISLAND. The Natives there always claimed knowledge of some type of little ape-people who lived in the mountains and only now are we finding out that this was based on something real. Those Natives claimed that the EBU GOGO (their name for what we are now calling “Flores Man”) lived underground high in the mountains and sometimes stole children to eat. Natives of the Pacific Northwest make similar claims for their over-sized Sasquatch...

I do hope one day that some “Hobbit” type evidence is stumbled upon in some crevice high in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, but clinging to hoaxes only prevents scientists from allowing themselves to dare get involved in looking at the subject – especially when those that do involve themselves in it use items such as obvious bear tracks as evidence of a Sasquatch walking on the balls of its feet.

Why, Dfoot? Would North America be a sad and bleak place if Bigfoot never did live here? Is it sad to think that myths might really be myths? Or, are you possibly holding out hopes that modern hicks and dead Indians weren't really flat-out wrong after all?

Couldn't a myth still be a myth even on Flores?

But even putting that aside, if my great-grandfather really did shoot Passenger Pigeons in Missouri... must it also be true that a great-grandfather who claims shooting these these same pigeons in South Africa is therefore likely to be another truth teller?