Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Dancing David]

You didn't answer my question. Why should I explain anything to you? What makes my view of interest to you? And what gives you any dispensation to demand an answer. I haven't seen you act in any fashion on any of the threads I've seen you post that implys that you're anything other than belittleing condensending smart*&%@.

Now that sure shows you level of ability to discuss, doesn't it.

Why do you come to the JREF? Be sure to stomp your feet and leave in a huff.

 

[William Parcher]

Sig material...

"I have walked right up to a bush with a laughing bigfoot in it, and found nothing at all there." Henry Franzoni

 

[Avindair]

In addition.....if Bob Gimlin decided to write a book detailing how the hoax was planned, how the suit was made, and who was in it, etc.....he risks making a lot of money.

I think your definitions of "a lot" differ greatly from mine.

A book saying "I cheated the world with Roger Patterson, and here's how!" would appeal to a tiny subset of the demographic, nothing more.

It might sell steadily, but a "lot of money"? No way.

I suspect the real reason Gimlin won't talk has nothing to do is buried in a contract held elsewhere. When all of the principles expire then we might learn the actual time line.

Avindair

 

[Maldon]

I apologize if this has been brought up earlier but did Paterson really produce a drawing of a female BF prior to his filming of "patty"?

Would seem to be a rather big red flag IMO, if this is true.

http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=2&pid=541263

 

[Avindair]

I've seen you post that implys that you're anything other than belittleing condensending smart*&%@.

Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.*

Avindair

...with thanks to "Our Mrs. Reynolds" from Firefly.

 

[Avindair]

I apologize if this has been brought up earlier but did Paterson really produce a drawing of a female BF prior to his filming of "patty"?

Would seem to be a rather big red flag IMO, if this is true.

http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=2&pid=541263

Indeed. The book was published in 1966.

The drawing looks like a freaking storyboard for the PGF.

Oh, you could argue that it could be a drawing a description of the Roe sighting (yet another "I had it in my sites, but decided it was too human to kill..." fish story) but that doesn't explain why it looks so much like the PGF.

So...I wonder what mental gymnastics we'll hear to explain this away.

Avindair

...popcorn in hand....

 

[William Parcher]

Maldon, it's not much of a red flag for devoted PGF believers. Patterson was actually a good artist for a 'simple rodeo cowboy'.

Another showing Patterson's encounter with a Bigfoot that lifted his Beetle. He was inside at the time. Given the enormity of the beast in the drawing, I'm surprised he only took a .303 British rifle on his Bigfoot hunts.

 

[William Parcher]

A book saying "I cheated the world with Roger Patterson, and here's how!" would appeal to a tiny subset of the demographic, nothing more.

Yeah. Same is true for Long's book which was marketed as an anatomy of the hoax with the guy in the suit. Even if BH is hoaxing his story the Gimlin book follows on its heels. Most folks would not be interested in either book because they never did think the PGF was authentic. The same is true even if Gimlin offered mucho details. A good TV or film production might make more cash than a book.

I suspect the real reason Gimlin won't talk has nothing to do is buried in a contract held elsewhere. When all of the principles expire then we might learn the actual time line.

Your first sentence is incomplete, but I think I know what you mean. You are talking about a legal contract to gag Bob Gimlin, right? Maybe between Gimlin and Patricia Patterson? How would that contract work in the real world? How would it be worded?

Does it say, "You will never publicly or privately confess to this hoax that you performed with Roger Patterson."? Or, does it say, "You will never give a false public or private confession, such as saying that you and RP created a hoax."? Or maybe, "You have stated that RP and yourself filmed a real Bigfoot (see attached affidavit), and you will not divert from that statement publicly or privately." Of course, when BG did publicly say that "he could have been hoaxed", he would have breached that option.

But any such legal contract would not be breached unless Gimlin actually did confess. What happens then and how would the contract be enforced? If the PGF hoax would constitute legal fraud, then it seems the contract would be another crime in itself. It's a contract to conceal evidence of a felony. Reminds me of a 'murder for hire' contract that includes a clause forcing the hitman to never confess. How do you enforce that contract in a court? I could be way wrong because I don't have excellent knowledge of how this stuff actually works.

 

[Crowlogic]

My views concerning the Sasquatch/Bigfoot issue have been stated here in this forum, and recently too. Take a little time and look for my posts and you’ll find my position. I’ve taken the time to read the posts of certain members as a means to determine how those posters respond to the posts in these threads.

One poster in particular who took it upon themselves to “draw me out” using certain benign tactics has done the same thing with other posters only respond in a less than charitable or benign manner.

Now for those of you who are too busy or lazy to ferret out my other posts concerning my views I’ll spell it out now.

I am a skeptic. I lean more towards Sasquatach/Bigfoot no longer existing. Do I believe that such creatures did once coexist with modern man and perhaps into the 20th century? Yes. Are they still here? More likely than not no. But would I stake my life on that no. Would any of you?

Concerning the PGF

The PGF is no longer about Sasquatch/Bigfoot. It’s about the personalities surrounding it. There is of course an absolute truth attached to the PGF. None of us knows what that truth is. It is of course a real film and as such it can be bantered about by anyone wishing to banter it. But for me it stands more as a beacon as to how we may or may not approach truth and truths in general. I wasn’t kidding when I said that the truth has been found concerning the PGF. I did however find one premise of that truth dog eared and not quite laying down as comfortably as I know truth to lay. And within that little detail/elementI sensed the purveyor of that information as having to stretch a time frame and in turn causing me to stretch a little further than the truth would seem to require to comfortably confirm what had been presented as truth.

 

[Crowlogic]

Indeed. The book was published in 1966.

The drawing looks like a freaking storyboard for the PGF.

Oh, you could argue that it could be a drawing a description of the Roe sighting (yet another "I had it in my sites, but decided it was too human to kill..." fish story) but that doesn't explain why it looks so much like the PGF.

So...I wonder what mental gymnastics we'll hear to explain this away.

Avindair

...popcorn in hand....

Patterson made drawings of both male and female Bigfoot. Makes a certain amount of sense does it not since as as a primate both male and female are needed to reproduce and form populations. Had he been interested in earthworms yes be skeptical of any Emma the earthworm.

 

[GT/CS]

.....[snip]
I am a skeptic. I lean more towards Sasquatach/Bigfoot no longer existing. Do I believe that such creatures did once coexist with modern man and perhaps into the 20th century? Yes. Are they still here? More likely than not no. But would I stake my life on that no. Would any of you?

.....[snip]......

I wasn’t kidding when I said that the truth has been found concerning the PGF. I did however find one premise of that truth dog eared and not quite laying down as comfortably as I know truth to lay. And within that little detail/elementI sensed the purveyor of that information as having to stretch a time frame and in turn causing me to stretch a little further than the truth would seem to require to comfortably confirm what had been presented as truth.

Bigfoot recently became extinct? Is this a gut feeling or is there some evidence that makes you lean this way? How do you explain the recent sightings?

How about taking another stab at your last paragraph. It may mean something to you but it conveys absolutely nothing to the reader. Or is that the point?

 

[Crowlogic]

Maldon, it's not much of a red flag for devoted PGF believers. Patterson was actually a good artist for a 'simple rodeo cowboy'.

[qimg]http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/images/34931173198459_small.jpg[/qimg]

Another showing Patterson's encounter with a Bigfoot that lifted his Beetle. He was inside at the time. Given the enormity of the beast in the drawing, I'm surprised he only took a .303 British rifle on his Bigfoot hunts.

William would you like to be on the recieving end of a British .303? I mean its gotta hurt!

 

[Crowlogic]

Bigfoot recently became extinct? Is this a gut feeling or is there some evidence that makes you lean this way? How do you explain the recent sightings?

How about taking another stab at your last paragraph. It may mean something to you but it conveys absolutely nothing to the reader. Or is that the point?

No I'm not interested in rewriting my last paragraph. I wasn't that interested in writing it in the first place.

 

[kitakaze]

I am a skeptic. I lean more towards Sasquatach/Bigfoot no longer existing. Do I believe that such creatures did once coexist with modern man and perhaps into the 20th century? Yes.

Based on what? Is there reliable evidence that can support such a belief?

Are they still here? More likely than not no. But would I stake my life on that no. Would any of you?

That seems a little dramatic. Would I go into a forest without fear of bigfoot? Serenely, with bigfoot attack statistics to account for the feeling.

 

[William Parcher]

You already know that I'm into documenting (as far as possible) the various PGF riders, clothing, horses, gear, location, etc. I don't think this is wasted effort, because at the minimum it allows for a kind of narration of what was going on regardless of whether the PGF is a hoax or not. All we ever read is that "Roger did this, then that, then Gimlin did this, etc. etc." But when you can document the above-mentioned evidences you can begin to say much more.

It is quite clear that Roger Patterson was in the habit of wearing light-colored chaps any time he is shown riding in the various PGF footages. It may have been the same pair throughout the footages. It makes little difference if he was only wearing them as a prop during filmings and would not necessarily wear them while riding during certain times or days when there was no filming. When he is riding any horse, in any footage - he is wearing those chaps.

Here he is riding at what obviously seems to be Bluff Creek, and even looks like it could be close to the Patty filming site. Of course he has the chaps on...

Now he is pouring plaster into huge footprints. He is not wearing the chaps...

So what? There is nothing odd about removing your chaps if you don't want to get plaster stains on them. But because he is not wearing them in this scene, we can add some realistic narration that has not yet been offered. Assuming that Roger always wore his chaps while riding, then anyone claiming that the plaster pour scene shows the actual Patty trackway must also now know that he removed his chaps at some point before pouring that plaster. Relatedly, if he rode any horse to the location of those tracks (no matter where they were located, or when the pour scene occured - i.e. California or Washington, etc.) we can assume he took off the chaps. Same deal with the cast display scene because he is without chaps. So what?

Well, if you assume the chaps are always on during riding, and also assume the plaster is being poured into the "real" Patty tracks - then your narration expands.

The story is always told as something like, "...then Roger and Bob rode back to the sandbar with the plaster they had retrieved from the truck. Then Roger began pouring plaster into the selected tracks while Bob filmed him..."

Now you can say, "...then Roger and Bob rode back to the sandbar with the plaster they had retrieved from the truck. Then Roger removed his chaps before he began pouring plaster into the selected tracks while Bob filmed him..."

 

[kitakaze]

Excellent point, WP. Chaps for the intrepid cowboy and a lovely wig for his trusty sidekick and guide, Running Bob.

 

[Dfoot]

Yesterday I got an email from someone named mike. I'd only recently seen him posting. He said that I had broken forum rules at the Bigfoot Forum when I dared to notice that someone had changed the words I had written to make them say something else.

Apparently an avid poster named Volsquatch is, like mike and too many others for me to count, a moderator over there. I had told him that I didn't write that the thread was about DFoot's OFFICIAL "suit" investigation - which is how he labeled it. I had actually created a thread to store skeptical info about the PG film. That means all info related to the film can be placed there. I clearly said from the start it was not to be turned into something I never intended which was a thread solely about "DFoot's suits".

They changed my words and told me what I was supposed to say it was about so that it would give people the excuse to go on and on ignoring the evidence I was bringing up. I'd already been warned privately that they were panicking about what I was coming out with and were trying to figure out a strategy to ban me and make it look reasonable.

Today I find that I can log on but not post or respond to any of the comments being made about me. How about that?

mikey seemed to be upset because although I had told them I'd refrain from Scientology comparisons over there as requested, I never said I would not make such comments over here - a place that is not their website. Nor does it make any sense that they should come over here and use what I say here to justify breaking some arbitrary rule they came up with on their own site.

The funniest thing about all of this is that anyone with half a brain who is interested in the topic will read the posts over there and notice the very cult-like behavior going on. I don't have to say it. Any critical thinker can see it. This has been very revealing to me as to what has helped deliberate hoaxes thrive through the years.

Below is the post I was going to make next over at the BFF. I suppose I'll simply have to answer the various comments over there by posting answers over here and see if it gets me double-banned for being (as Dr. McCoy said once) "not of the body".

This is in answer to CrowLogic (he of the attempted fall color excuse) and another plea to Melissa to inquire of John Green about the flipped images problem with his "original footage".

HERE'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM:

1) When I first came to the forum a couple of years back I was asked to write about how Hollywood COULD NOT have made a suit like that in '66. I said I had no idea. I only knew that the dark image I saw walking in the A & E version could be real or not. I said ALL the top creature fx guys said it had the usual earmarks of a suit. I didn't know what that meant.

2) What I promised was that I would investigate from all sides honestly. I did. I looked at it from the "Patty is real and here's why" angle and then "Patty is a suit and here's why". As long as I listed reasons that Patty might be real, I was favored. The moment I began listing reasons for it to be a fraud, I became an enemy to be taunted and attacked.

3) I said I would try to demonstrate what I was learning by giving you VISUAL SUIT EXPERIMENTS and share the progress with you as I went. As I did this I noted a distinct irrational train of thought going on with some people. I noticed a strong emotional attachment to "Patty" while hating the guy who wore the suit "Heironimus" and doing anything to keep "Gimlin" as an honest to God American Legend.

4) After I'd done everything I promised I would (by showing you these demonstrations of why there was an obvious circle at the top of Patty's thigh, etc) I began to see that people ignored that and could only see the bubble in the skin that they tried to make into some sort of natural injury. I could see the mind was playing tricks on people and they would NEVER see any suit as being as good as Patty.

5) The only alternative was to prove that this mindset had taken hold by telling you images of Patty was of the next suit experiment in order to show you what was going on.

6) Since then I've seen nothing but repeated attempts to avoid the issues I've brought up regarding Gimlin's impossible statements, etc, by using the old tried and true method of attacking the messenger instead. That isn't research at all. It's something else.

7) I didn't write the words that are now supposed to have been written by me at the top of this thread anymore than I promised to build you a suit. Taking things out of context is one thing, deliberately changing a person's writing is something else. It's as immoral as it gets.

8) The idea that you cannot even say that your words have been re-written to change what you said is very, very telling.

9) This thread I began to store info about all things skeptical of the film. Suit-making, lies, bogus science claims, all of it. That's why it is NOT simply called DFoot's OFFICIAL suit analysis and if that title remains then you are seeing something less than honest research here.
I only respond to the CONTENT of the posts I see. I have never read any little fine print about who is or isn't a mod. I know Volsquatch as a long time poster. mike I'd never heard of until he recently posted to my thread and emailed me.

I can only say the same things I've always said. Stop attacking those whose info you dislike. Discuss the information like adults.
Melissa -- You keep repeating the same phrase as if no one has shown you any contrary evidence. Listen to your tape of Gimlin telling Green how he traveled to mail the film from the post office after 9 pm. That is impossible.

Have you asked Mr. Green about why the "original film copy" he has shows Patty facing the wrong direction (not to mention Roger). Is this because the evil editors at the BBC figured they'd plant some obscure frames to be discovered years later? Or is it simply that he was given a fake film that had been edited long before he viewed it? I'd like to know. That may well be evidence to any clear-minded person that something fishy was going on with DeAtley and the film before Green arrived to see it.
I was asked to find a head that matched Patty. I did.

I'm asking you to show me the head of a Bigfoot or the foot of a Bigfoot. Just one. Any one. We can compare it to the cartoon drawings and the PG film and see if they are the same. That would be helpful too.

I've been told that I should put back any pics I can find that I might have removed a long time ago. So that's what I've been doing (along with a bunch of new stuff). They show REAL things that should be addressed. Not whining about another poster or what we thing he should or shouldn't post.

My questions are valid and reasonable. The lashing out at me isn't. I've done much more than most towards a real investigation of the PG film (other than Long's look into Patterson's background story). Simply saying that you looked into Gimlin's eyeball and you trust him isn't an investigation.

No plane flew. None of the stories make it possible to have overnighted the film to DeAtley. And if that happened there was no one to process the film and edit it before the Canadians saw it. Even without the jutting thigh pad and back-of-the-neck disconnection. Even without Heironimus stepping out of the shadows to admit he wore the suit. The weight of the evidence points to fraud that continues based on the willingness of others to make it so.

I can now see why do many are out there "pulling a Pickens" and hoaxing prints or running past campers in suits. The behavior I've witnessed actually encourages hoaxing and drives real science far from the mystery. That's what is going on here.

I deliberately showed you where the lines to look for are. So at least try to do that instead of getting mad because I have not gone out and bought a bunch of latex and hair (which I told you from the start I wasn't going to spend my own money on).

If you are serious, then back it up and take up a collection. I'll come up with a suit for you. Otherwise stop misrepresenting what I say or even REWRITING what I've written. Let's do honest research, not fall into fan worship of a con man's scheme.

Now... what did Gimlin say at the recent Bigfoot fest when asked about his statements regarding mailing the film from Eureka after leaving Willow Creek at 9 pm and driving for an hour? I had requested Bigfooters in attendance to ask such things of him. Wonder what the reply will be? Or were they too dazzled by the presence of someone who got so close to Bigfoot?

What an amazing thing this is to watch. No wonder Peter Popoff has no trouble returning to his multimillionaire status after being caught red-handed by Randi.

 

[William Parcher]

KKZ, as confident as I may seem in the analysis of these evidences, there are still potential wildcards in the deck. Some riding scenes may have been filmed even before 1967. I'm nearly desperate for any scene that can be confirmed as Bob Gimlin at Bluff Creek. I was hoping that Dfoot would respond to my question about whether Green is correct in identifying Gimlin pulling a packhorse at Bluff Creek. I don't have access to the source of his still frames (X Creatures), and so I have nothing to analyze but the two stills which are not particularly clear.

Here again is the stack of selected frames. I want to know if the rider in frames 1 & 5, is Bob or Roger. Green and Dfoot said it's Bob Gimlin. Both frames show the back only, and it's hard to tell if chaps are being worn. I don't know if I'm seeing a shirt or a jacket. If that is a light blue (denim?) shirt, then I can link that to Gimlin. A wig would be a give-away (long hair down the back), and I am not seeing that on this mystery rider. I also want to know if that horse has socks.

If there was anything that Roger felt was deserving of strict continuity throughout the footages (particularly at Bluff Creek), it may have been Gimlin's "Indian tracker" wig. If you've got a scene of Bob without the wig at Bluff Creek, then you have serious problem explaining Bob's very long hair (wig) at any of the very early film showings where he makes an appearance (wearing the wig). You just don't grow that kind of hair in 10 days.

I'm really curious about how seriously this wig was used as a prop. Did Roger genuinely attempt to fool all audiences into thinking that Bob really does have hair like that? Did it truly obligate Bob to wear that thing anytime there was an audience? Would he have been forced to wear it in DeAtley's basement if he had shown up? How were P&G supposed to proceed dealing with that wig and still maintain some kind of credibility? Imagine what interested scientists and other thinking people would be faced with. Yeah, these professionals are glued to the screen, those enlarged prints, and the casts, while Gimlin watches them in the wig. Patterson may have been wearing formal Western wear that he got after scamming yet another person that he did not pay (read Greg Long). These guys walk out of the forest with a genuine film of an undocumented giant hairy bipedal primate - and you still put a wig on Gimlin as he shakes everyones hand at a showing? WTF is up with that? We can potentially understand the use of this prop to add character to your documentary, but there is a time to stop wearing it. Lose the wig and start getting serious, boys!

It truly amazes me that anyone ever believed these guys or could even take them halfway seriously. I think that most people did not. That is still true forty years later.

Oh, and here's more fun stuff. Gimlin must have had at least two wigs, or else he did a sweet styling job on the one.

 

[Avindair]

Patterson made drawings of both male and female Bigfoot.

Okay.

And this explains why the drawing -- down to the pose, with only one leg position different -- looks so similar to the PGF because...?

Avindair

 

[Avindair]

Today I find that I can log on but not post or respond to any of the comments being made about me. How about that?

Of course! It's a free and open exchange of information...just as long as you agree with the believers. If you don't, watch out!

It's really sad, honestly.

Avindair