patterson gimlin film

[kensei]

I should clarify something- Yes I identify as a Bigfoot witness myself, though the one I saw was not actually very up close. But I mentioned the class of witness who have had those up close encounters because I've talked to some of them and been impressed. And no I don't believe everyone, and when I do, yes it is faith. There are various kinds of witnesses that inspire it, especially the kind that are reluctant to talk, want nothing in return for their stories, refuse to have their names made public, and get emotional when telling of what they've seen even if it was years ago. When I meet one of those, I'm not going to put my hand on their shoulder and look them in the eyes and say, "I'm sorry, but you just can't possibly be remembering that right because what you describe can't have evolved here." Of course it's only faith that makes me believe the person, but it's inspired faith, and that is supposed to be a virtue. We use it in so many areas of life all the time.

By the way, hi pinkmoon, nice to see you pop in again. It is your thread, after all. Didn't mean to try and take over.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Kensei,I'm just pleased people show an interest in this forgotten about film I think modern technology has shown it ain't a guy in a suit but no matter what some people will never accept it.Why can't someone recreate this film people have tried and failed I think that fact speaks volumes.

[Batman]

If that film was faked once then surely it can be faked again we are still waiting.

Nobody is waiting. Bob Heironimus's walk is exactly the same as the sasquatch. His dimensions, gate, everything matches it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzRBzBmUjE

why make patty female?

There are only 2 genders to choose from with primates. Male or female. 50/50.

Why go to the trouble of filming 400 miles from home? Why film in perfect light? Why film patty from the back monkey suits always fall down when the neck joins the body at the back? Why not get a perfect back story together?

Patterson-Gimlin's story changed from the time of day (1:30 or 3:30?), their reaction story changed and they went to the 'area' because of stories about bigfoot there. There is nothing perfect about any of their story.

The detail that can be seen in patty now thanks to computer technology is just to advanced for a monkey suit in 1967 let alone today.

This is the mantra we hear time and time again. There is nothing difficult about the suit at all. You can see see the plastic nose and large holes for the eyes.



The majority of scientific calls on this footage are that its a guy in a suit.

[Batman]

When I meet one of those, I'm not going to put my hand on their shoulder and look them in the eyes and say, "I'm sorry, but you just can't possibly be remembering that right because what you describe can't have evolved here."

That is exactly what I would say and then discuss primate evolution and migration patterns around the planet because its much more interesting and much more real with heaps of evidence to support it from transitional fossils to mtDNA analysis.

In biology sasquatch is like someone claiming they saw a native kangeroo in the mid-Americas. It is that impossible.

[Batman]

Correction.

There is primate evolution in America. New World Monkeys. So these are technically primates. So instead I wish to change that from no primate evolution in America to there is no ape evolution in America.

There are no ape fossils from North America. There are some primate monkey fossils like lemurs.

Secondly even if somehow apes got to North America there was an ice age there which caused mass extinctions. Monkeys went south. Hence New World Monkeys.

The current climate and environments in places where sasquatch has been sighted are simply not suitable for apes.

In order for any sasquatch claim to be logically valid it has to answer the question that can be answered by every single other species on the planet. It's evolutionary history. It's biogeography. We have no major problems with other species. So why is this one odd? I think the answer is that it doesn't exist, because it can't.

[Jonathan H]

BigFake

Even when we were kids, thoroughly enjoying a Rod Serling-narrated documentary called "Mysterious Monsters", whilst we were prepared to believe some of the picture of Nessie were real (they're not) and that some of the Yeti reports were definitely kosher (nope, wrong again) the Bigfoot film was rejected by us as an obvious fake.

A laughable fake.

There is something about human movement that is so different and distinctive from animals that the first time you see the Bigfoot hoax it is quite jarring, e.g. it's ... a guy in a suit, right?! This is even true of the superb French mimes playing simians in Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" re: the "Dawn of Man" sequence. They are wonderful -- and also obviosuly people in costumes.

The best book on this is by Greg Long: an unforgettable portrait of a desperate [and harmless] American hustler. By the end you wish Patterson had pulled off the Big Score!:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Bigfoot-Inside-Story/dp/1591021391

From one debunker to another, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

[TomTomKent]

I really can't see the argument that the Bigfoot Costume would be impossible to fake holding water. I mean there is existing footage of somebody in an almost identical costume, for a film The danged camera was rented to make.

At best it is a subjective opinion that relies on an argument from assumed authority. But given they were making a faux documentary about native americans seeing bigfoot, and an apparently impossible costume to hand....

[Batman]

This is even true of the superb French mimes playing simians in Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" re: the "Dawn of Man" sequence. They are wonderful -- and also obviosuly people in costumes.

That's a great reply. For eons one of the big Patterson bigfoot claims is that even the film Planet of the Apes wasn't as good as this bigfoot, but the apes in Planet of the Apes are supposed to be .... [[SPOILER]]... evolved futuristic apes, so they are going to look pretty different from a creative point of view. Sasquatch is supposed to be a modern ape, not futuristic anything. The apes in 2001 are not only well acted, but darn close to the reality of it given the transitional fossils we have turned up since the late 60s when these films where made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wstIBq2H0z8

The fact is we know these are actors in suits for this movie and yet it was done so well (Kubrick probably trained them for a year or something nuts like that) that the 'real' sasquatch in Patterson's movie pales in comparison. The only reason its failing is because it isn't real and isn't as good as what Hollywood can conjure up with the right talent.

[kensei]

The best book on this is by Greg Long: an unforgettable portrait of a desperate [and harmless] American hustler. By the end you wish Patterson had pulled off the Big Score!:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Bigfoot-Inside-Story/dp/1591021391

From one debunker to another, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

I have left this thread for days at a time to reflect and ponder and I think it is pretty much winding down now. On Greg Long's book, it is a hatchet job. If I remember correctly it mentioned Bigfoot sightings around Yakima, Washington (Patterson's home town) including one where a man driving in a rainstorm was stopped in the road by a white haired Bigfoot that circled his car and looked through the window at him. The book actually postulated that that must have been Patterson in a costume, out faking sightings. Curious that he would have constructed a white haired costume when most sighting reports describe dark haired creatures, and that he would have gone so far as to go face to face with someone through a car window, giving the best possible view of himself. That is also a very good way of getting oneself shot, for anyone who tries something that stupid.

Furthermore- there is a difference between a "skeptic" and a "debunker." A sceptic is someone with an open mind who needs to see the evidence and is prepared to make up their mind either way. A debunker is someone who goes in with a preconceived disbelief and is determined to defend it no matter what. I am glad to see Jonathan H identify himself and Batman under which of those titles they wish to be known.

[Batman]

Furthermore- there is a difference between a "skeptic" and a "debunker." A sceptic is someone with an open mind who needs to see the evidence and is prepared to make up their mind either way. A debunker is someone who goes in with a preconceived disbelief and is determined to defend it no matter what. I am glad to see Jonathan H identify himself and Batman under which of those titles they wish to be known.

Debunking means to falsify something because you have evidence to the contrary. Being skeptical means to doubt claims that lack evidence.
They are not mutually exclusive.

For example I am skeptical of bigfoot and believe science has debunked it in many ways.

[Jonathan H]

Hey, look a monster has washed ashore--this is what BigFake needs, at a minimum:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/18/-montauk-monster-mystery-creature-washes-california-beach_n_6347812.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

But it will never happen, as there is no evidence and cannot be. The true origins of the so-called "Sasquatch" tale are entirely modern: a hoax that took on a life of its own, perpetuated a decade prior to Pattersons's faked footage.

[Batman]

Even Loren Coleman had to admit it was raccoon but that didn't stop a million posts from people wanting it to be the result of the so called Philadelphia experiment, lol.

[Pcdunn]

Is it my imagination or are we hearing about fewer bigfoot sightings of late? Hopefully it's finally extinct.

I dunno about that-- the "Finding Bigfoot" TV show on Animal Planet is still going strong, finding "sightings" to investigate and going to local town meetings where a third of the audience claim to have seen or heard a Bigfoot critter.

I watch that show for entertainment, but did learn something very interesting about the P-G film: the woman biologist said she saw it shown in a movie theater, shortly after Patterson and Gimlin's story originally broke. She was taken to see it by her father, who developed a great interest in the Bigfoot mystery.

I'm on the fence still on the film footage. I've read the original magazine story about it in one of my Dad's magazines, have read some articles and books on Bigfoot in general, and have always wondered about the "suit" question.

I think the most advanced "ape suit" make-up of the era was in the first "Planet of the Apes" movie. To think Patterson could duplicate it years ahead of that movie... I just don't know.
A good deal of the information in this thread is new to me, though, so I think I'll need to do more research.
Pat D.

[pinkmoon]

I dunno about that-- the "Finding Bigfoot" TV show on Animal Planet is still going strong, finding "sightings" to investigate and going to local town meetings where a third of the audience claim to have seen or heard a Bigfoot critter.

I watch that show for entertainment, but did learn something very interesting about the P-G film: the woman biologist said she saw it shown in a movie theater, shortly after Patterson and Gimlin's story originally broke. She was taken to see it by her father, who developed a great interest in the Bigfoot mystery.

I'm on the fence still on the film footage. I've read the original magazine story about it in one of my Dad's magazines, have read some articles and books on Bigfoot in general, and have always wondered about the "suit" question.

I think the most advanced "ape suit" make-up of the era was in the first "Planet of the Apes" movie. To think Patterson could duplicate it years ahead of that movie... I just don't know.
A good deal of the information in this thread is new to me, though, so I think I'll need to do more research.
Pat D.

Hi,if it was faked then why can't someone fake it now that suit would have Been better then anything Hollywood or Disney could produce and we are asked to believed a skint cowboy betters these film studios.People have tried to make a suit as good and they just can't and some of the detail that thanks to computer enhancement we now see details that Mr Patterson never pointed out at the time surely you would if you arranged such a good hoax

[Pcdunn]

Pinkmoon: I agree that it seems odd that the creature in the P-G film seems so realistic, compared to the standard Hollywood "gorilla" suit of the times. Why is "Patty" covered in a light brownish fur, when most ape suits are black? Why does "she" lack the laughably fake hard "hairless chest plate" seen in movie ape suits? ( I was vividly reminded of this yesterday when I saw an old episode of "Night Gallery", from the early 1970s, featuring a white hunter, his wife, and a strangely aggressive "gorilla" (played by a guy in a suit). That was horrible, and it is AFTER the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Kensei: I was fascinated to hear of your experience as a witness of a Bigfoot sighting! Keep looking for the truth, and don't give up!

Pat D.