Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

I don't see what your photos have to do with the PGF, Crowlogic.

You can have an early change one year, and a late change the next, can't you?

There are whole organizations all over the country devoted to tracking when the color change starts each year and notifying the tourists of same.

Your claim seems to be that the PGF cannot have been filmed in early September of 1967. So far, I have seen nothing to support that claim.

Mind you, I never claimed that the PGF was shot in September.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where are the bare trees in your example crow?

You said the PGF shows many bare trees. That is, trees that are bare of leaves as of Oct 20.

 

[Crowlogic]

The point of posting Autumn colors is to demonstrate that the colors on the PFG are more in keeping with an October 20th shooting date than they are with a Labor Day Weekend shooting date. Thats's the point of posting Autumn scenes in Northern CA. A labor Day/early Sept shooting date would had more of a lush appearance that what we see in the PGF.

That said I'm not in need of a lesson explaining photosynthiesis. I have an advanced degree in Environmental Science and among other things I did a sizable research stint in the early 1980's on the effects of acid rain on the watershed region of Upper NY State. The project had me deep in the forests of the region for weeks at a time in all of the 4 seasons.

That said based on the colors it takes more streaching to equate the foliage coloration and quality apparant on the PGF with an early September shooting date than it does to place it in its historical frame of October 20th 1967.

 

[Crowlogic]

The bare trees are in the PGF! But if there aren't a lot of bare trees in the recent 2007 October 20 shots how lush do you suppose the scenes would have been if those same pics were taken on Labor Day Weekend? I'm not saying that PGF is real here but I am maintaining that the timeline of OCT 20 1967 fits the actual scene we see in the PGF better than a supposed date of almost a month earlier.

 

[kitakaze]

I did miss a few posts....I thought you were being serious.

But I'm glad you weren't!

That would be something along the lines of "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding." if Sweaty could find some integrity but being Sweaty what you get is more "I didn't score the points I was trying for and I'm glad, see!"

 

[kitakaze]

I'm not saying that PGF is real...

No, you just let the desire to believe it is affect your judgement. There really is no shame in that.

I would really like to believe that the bigfoot enthusiast religious icon film showing the human proportioned subject with the hilarious diaper butt and ridiculous, too low, rock hard, hairy cans that was never seen before or since is a real bigfoot, too. Alas, that and the fact it was made by a guy who liked to dress up his buddy as Running Bear, wrote a book the year before with his own bigfoot lady illustration and staged a scene of being on the hunt at Ape Canyon when really at home, made fake tracks... Oh wait, and the only guy who ever claimed to be in the suit was actually shown riding in Patterson's film... Saw the creature, horse fell on me and crushed my stirrup. See, here it is. No wait... He glided off the back of the horse and grabbed the camera one handed...

Wait, why am I supposed to think this is real?

BTW, it's nice to see bigfoot enthusiasts have found a new 'it's true!' to pass around, saying Gimlin was sick. The 'all the guys who've claimed to be in the suit' was getting really tired.

 

[Crowlogic]

No, you just let the desire to believe it is affect your judgement. There really is no shame in that.

I would really like to believe that the bigfoot enthusiast religious icon film showing the human proportioned subject with the hilarious diaper butt and ridiculous, too low, rock hard, hairy cans that was never seen before or since is a real bigfoot, too. Alas, that and the fact it was made by a guy who liked to dress up his buddy as Running Bear, wrote a book the year before with his own bigfoot lady illustration and staged a scene of being on the hunt at Ape Canyon when really at home, made fake tracks... Oh wait, and the only guy who ever claimed to be in the suit was actually shown riding in Patterson's film... Saw the creature, horse fell on me and crushed my stirrup. See, here it is. No wait... He glided off the back of the horse and grabbed the camera one handed...

Wait, why am I supposed to think this is real?

BTW, it's nice to see bigfoot enthusiasts have found a new 'it's true!' to pass around, saying Gimlin was sick. The 'all the guys who've claimed to be in the suit' was getting really tired.

But real or fake why should I or anyone else believe that the film and whatever is really on it was actually filmed nearly 1 month before it appears to be? The creature may be a fake but the scenery it was filmed in was real and looks just about what a late October forest scene should look like.

 

[devnull]

<reality check>We have nearly 11000 posts about a snippet of film showing a guy in a bad gorilla suit</reality check>

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......make up their own minds as to how authenticly the PGF foliages matches the dates claimed.

Do we get to make up our own minds about the dates you claim ?


Crow Logic,
Your pictures might be more meaningful if they were all of the same location, and showed a progression from Sept - Oct ..

Otherwise we might suspect you chose them to make your point..

 

[kitakaze]

But real or fake why should I or anyone else believe that the film and whatever is really on it was actually filmed nearly 1 month before it appears to be? The creature may be a fake but the scenery it was filmed in was real and looks just about what a late October forest scene should look like.

Yes, yes, quite right. Very compelling. Let's just put all the red flags aside and stew on that for a bit, shall we? Honestly, I must confess that I personally don't really care. The hues of the foliage in the background (among the various versions of the film) won't drown out all that shouts hoax for the PGF.

What I was hoping for was to hear what your thoughts are on all those things I mentioned that makes a hoax so apparent but it doesn't seem like you want to think about them. That's to be expected, I guess.

 

[Crowlogic]

What I was hoping for was to hear what your thoughts are on all those things I mentioned that makes a hoax so apparent but it doesn't seem like you want to think about them. That's to be expected, I guess.

I've heard just about all the pro's and con's for the PGF that exist. I've read ,and very rectently, several compelling arguments made by a professional model/suit maker why such a suit would have been extremely difficult to produce back in 1967.

The PGF is unique while each and every other Sasquatch/Bigfoot photo or video is either of poor useless quality or such a blatant hoax as to be laughable. While the arguments made against the film creature's appearance (and not the film's creators) such as the diaper butt frame are a valid observation as I've seen myself those visual arguments myself none of the hoax/suit implying details carry through frame after frame. If one is going to attach a realness balance scale to the creature based on its overall appearance and motion then the balance is likely to tip in favor of the the creature not being a man in a creature suit.

There comes a point with things of this nature where the arguments needed to come to a negative conclusion (read hoax) become more convulouted than the film being real (which is something that I continue to sit on the fence about). The unfortunate problem is that we're now 40 years down the road from the origination of the film and anyone with the time and desire can draw just about any conclusion and present it as fact.

 

[mangler]

Logic,

You never cease to amaze me. Plumas County is in the Sierras about 200 miles to the SE of Bluff Creek. Do I really need to explain the difference's in topography and weather patterns between to two areas? I'm not sure were you bought your degree at but you may want to ask for some of your money back.

BTW, as long as we are in the Sierras here's a pic from Sept, 25 of 04', I have more if you like.



m

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The unfortunate problem is that we're now 40 years down the road from the origination of the film and anyone with the time and desire can draw just about any conclusion and present it as fact.

Anyone can present anything as fact .. It's the quality of the evidence that matters..

 

[Crowlogic]

Do we get to make up our own minds about the dates you claim ?


Crow Logic,
Your pictures might be more meaningful if they were all of the same location, and showed a progression from Sept - Oct ..

Otherwise we might suspect you chose them to make your point..

First of all anyone who makes a counter argument to anyone on this forum is going to be suspect so I'm suspect. And unless I miss my guess anyone who makes an argument pro or con around here is going to choose thier material to make their point. However Dfoot posted some silly little colorful plants and claiming they came from Northern CA and nobody is demanding he prove location or date. The photos I've posted are of Plamus County CA and were taken off of the Plamus County website. Google it and you'll get to see the same photos and dates with location. I didn't make them up. Now Plamus County is somewhat south and west of the Bluf Creek site and can be expected to be a little warmer. But once again I suggest you open your eyes and look at the full frame of PGF#352 and ask yourself not if its a real creature but whether that is a scene of that location taken in early September or mid late October.

 

[LTC8K6]

Already having trees completely bare in mid to late October seems to me to be an indicator that fall came early that year.

When was the other footage shot? The pack horses and such?

Roger was only at the Bluff Creek site for a little over a week, so any footage shot there was in mid-late October. (footage other than Patty, I mean)

 

[Crowlogic]

Logic,

You never cease to amaze me. Plumas County is in the Sierras about 200 miles to the SE of Bluff Creek. Do I really need to explain the difference's in topography and weather patterns between to two areas? I'm not sure were you bought your degree at but you may want to ask for some of your money back.

BTW, as long as we are in the Sierras here's a pic from Sept, 25 of 04', I have more if you like.



m

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826447a33f3b1d6e3.jpg[/qimg]

Ok Mangler please show us a photo of that lovely Autumn color taken on Labor Day Weekend would you. The entire exercise of the Autumn colors is a counter to Dfoots claim that he made on BBF that the PGF was filmed on Labor Day Weekend 1967.

 

[Crowlogic]

Logic,

You never cease to amaze me. Plumas County is in the Sierras about 200 miles to the SE of Bluff Creek. Do I really need to explain the difference's in topography and weather patterns between to two areas? I'm not sure were you bought your degree at but you may want to ask for some of your money back.

BTW, as long as we are in the Sierras here's a pic from Sept, 25 of 04', I have more if you like.



m

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826447a33f3b1d6e3.jpg[/qimg]

Ok Mangler please show us a photo of that lovely Autumn color taken on Labor Day Weekend would you. The entire exercise of the Autumn colors is a counter to Dfoots claim that he made on BBF that the PGF was filmed on Labor Day Weekend 1967. But is you photo supposed to demonstrate that Bluff Creek would have been more or less colorful than Plamus CO.

 

[William Parcher]

Twice on this page you have created sequential posts with the only difference being an additional sentence. Do you know about editing posts to add more - or making a new post with only the new sentence?

There is something really strange going on with you.

 

[kitakaze]

I've heard just about all the pro's and con's for the PGF that exist.

Hey, that's great. How come so often it is the observations of people conducting critical inquiry into the PGF that reveal major details concerning it?

I've read ,and very rectently, several compelling arguments made by a professional model/suit maker why such a suit would have been extremely difficult to produce back in 1967.

That's great that you're a Bill Munns fan. He must be enjoying all the fluffing at the mutual back-patter's society. He also must have some seriously major experience to deserve the kind of authority and credibility accorded him by so many bigfoot enthusiasts. If you have some time, why not chuck his name in the search feature here and get some perspective on his 'I can't imagine' house of cards logic? And spare me a response mentioning DFoot.

The PGF is unique while each and every other Sasquatch/Bigfoot photo or video is either of poor useless quality or such a blatant hoax as to be laughable.

You mean unique in that it's ambiguous enough to merit cult-like fanaticism from footers and disinterest by the people to whom a film of an unidentified bipedal primate would really matter?

Let me see if I have this straight, you have a bunch of crap images and one 'I don't know'. Yes, things are looking up for believers of an 8ft giant bipedal primate roaming all over North America.

While the arguments made against the film creature's appearance (and not the film's creators) such as the diaper butt frame are a valid observation as I've seen myself those visual arguments myself none of the hoax/suit implying details carry through frame after frame.

You mean the ridiculous, too low, rock hard, hairy cans at some point look like natural primate mammary glands? The human range proportions and gait do what?

If one is going to attach a realness balance scale to the creature based on its overall appearance and motion then the balance is likely to tip in favor of the the creature not being a man in a creature suit.

Thunderdome. Spare us a SweatyYeti subjective reality bit. Qualify that statement or don't waste our time making it. Nothing about the PGF leans more towards a real bigfoot than it does a man in a suit whether you can come to terms with it or not.

There comes a point with things of this nature where the arguments needed to come to a negative conclusion (read hoax) become more convulouted than the film being real (which is something that I continue to sit on the fence about). The unfortunate problem is that we're now 40 years down the road from the origination of the film and anyone with the time and desire can draw just about any conclusion and present it as fact.

I wish I may, I wish might. Wrong. That knowable facts can't be discerned about the PGF is a footer cop-out when things don't go their way. Who found the fact that Heironimus was in Patterson's film? It sure wasn't a wishful thinking bigfoot enthusiast.

 

[Drewbot]

I guess they won't believe one of us about the colors in September. So here is a tourist website. http://www.totalescape.com/tripez/seasons/autumn.html

California in Autumn Colors:
SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER - NOVEMBER
Highways winding along a river gorge, laced with trees who's leaves are changing to brilliant golden colors. Take the time to enjoy what little bit of the fall season that California has to offer. Plenty of places for picnics & hiking. Take a weekend away from everyday routine. Relax, enjoy & see the seasonal beauty.

This quote is quite relevant.

Most mountain towns have creeks that are lined with fall colors in early season. Aspens are more likely is Northern California & the Eastern Sierra, while Cottonwoods tend to appear more in SoCal. Some of the oak foothills region of the countryside have a mixed variety of trees that do change colors. A hike through such an area is a beautiful sight. Pack up a picnic lunch & head to the nearest town. Then relax in a local cabin for the evening.