• 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.
Has anyone taken the images from that picture comparing Patty to the Optic Nerve/BBC suit and overlayed them? I'd like to see how they differ in bulk so we can estimate how much padding could have been used (Obviously, this would also depend of the build of the person in the suit).

Seeing as how I got that image from Cryptomundo, I should point out how, despite it being known that the "wild man" involved was described as carrying a sword and having tattoos, Loren Coleman is still trying to spin the latest news about that Vietnamese "wild woman" as if it involves a Bigfoot-like creature. In fact, they even use a picture of the Minnesota Iceman to illustrate the article on the main page! It seems that the numerous problems with the Iceman are being ignored since it shares some similarities to the descriptions given to the Vietnamese version of Bigfoot.

I'd imagine the argument is that it can't be a coincidence that something made up could closely match up to a "real" creature. This is, of course, not true at all. Willis O'Brien sketched out a giant Frankenstein's Monster for his proposed, but never made, "King Kong vs. Frankenstein" movie (aka "King Kong vs. Prometheus" and "King Kong vs. The Ginko") that looks like a stereotypical Bigfoot description (minus the hair/fur). I should also note that the original project predated the P/G footage, so it's doubtful that Mr. O'Brien was inspired by Bigfoot for his drawing. Ray Harryhausen could probably confirm or deny this (Just don't mention Godzilla in front of the guy). It should also be noted that elements of the project were used in "King Kong vs. Godzilla" and "Frankenstein Conquers the World."

Finally, this has some more information about Ape Canyon and Rant Mullins' hoaxes.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
...snip...
Getting back to Patterson's artwork, here are two other examples of his drawn Bigfoot artwork. However, Patterson didn't only draw; he also sculpted. Here you can see a montage put together by Desertyeti, which compares a sculpted bust of a Homo erectus by J. McGrergor, a Bigfoot bust (apparently made prior to the P/G film) made by Roger Patterson, and a frame showing Patty's face. You can read more about it here and see other views of the McGregor bust here. They all bear a close resemblence don't they? And the whole Kunstler drawing issue seems to suggest that Patterson copied what he liked from other peoples' artwork and modified it as he saw fit, just as Desertyeti suggests was the case with the bust.
...snip...
Click to expand...
Quite a blow to the "a simple cowboy would have no skills to build a Patty costume" line, eh?

Another unconfortable tidbit of data swept under the rug? There's quite a mound under the PGF defenders' rug...

As for the "why would a hoaxer build a female bigfoot costume?" line, well, besides the obvious "why not?" "what's easier to fake? Dangling boobs or dangling weenies?" questions there is a previous lenghty abduction report involving female bigfeet. And, as the following post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2811400&postcount=6615) shows, there were renderings of apewomen and cavewomen that could easilly have ben an additional source of inspiration.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Bigfoot was probably out of ice in his forest habitat, and decided to go for a hike in the mountain to replenish his ice reserve. Can't make a good wood-forest cocktail without ice.
Click to expand...

Much more ignorant than humorous. Suggest u stick to quantum physic.
 
Maybe You're Right

Correa Neto said:
?
Check post 7888...
Click to expand...

Maybe these mysterious beasts are just a reflection of 'local psyche'.
(another reason for us to be proud) Our American beastie is: big, hairy, bi-pedal, stealhy, docile, and elusive.
Whereas Latin America has: mangey, burnt looking, savage, quadrupedal, dog thing.

I can accept that at face value. :)
 
Simple (theoretical) question:
If someone were to totally disbelieve in the sasquatch phenomenon, and yet be certified in a field of study, why would they dedicate so much time to arguing against certain people's inclinations and perceptions? This, in itself, is pointless, a "grasping for the wind".

To me, it seems that certain experts have an axe to grind. Perhaps, they themselves are treated this way by their peers, when expressing obnoxious beliefs pertaining to their field of study. So, they attempt to take it out on someone who they feel is their inferior.

There is no common ground, when dealing with this subject. Just an endless string of attack/response.

When certain subjects come up, and they have no scientific answer, they claim foul (topic too sensitive) or some other nonsense. Like crying 'Ref'!
 
I'm happy to see that you can understand my point of view.

Now lets go a bit OT and take a closer look at the "mangey, burnt looking, savage, quadrupedal, dog thing".

The mapinguari is usually featured as bipedal, but some versions describe it as a creature with a single foot (the capelobo is quadrupedal*). This detail is ignored by the cryptozoology "researchers" who claim it is a real animal (as well as the cyclops head and the mouth in the belly details). This is bad methodology, its cherry-picking of details and myth-twisting.

When it comes to giant sloths, they were quadrupedal (probably sometimes they could stand on the hind legs), another detail conveniently forgotten by some cryptozoology "researchers".

Now, back to bigfoot, its my opinion that some "researchers" make similar errors when they use Native American folklore as backing to the claim that bigfeet are real creatures. Modern bigfoot/sasquatch myth was built with the incorporation of selected tidbits from such legends.

Certain cryptozoology "researchers" used loose sets of criteria that they felt would define or separate the reliable, consistent or plausible aspects. These aspects, however mirror nothing but the "researcher's" personal bias and sloppy methodology. It seems they had a preconceived picture and arbitrarily picked the details that matched with it. Sometimes I think being bipedal is all it takes for some to say a certain mythical being corresponds to bigfeet.

This trend seems pretty common in cryptozoology...

I am aware that myths are fluid and subject to constant changes and reinterpretations according to the passage of time as well as the eye of the beholder. However, irresponsible twisting of myths makes my blood boil since it can potentially damage a cultural heritage. I've seen it happen and I hate it.

BTW, we also have some genuine legendary hairy wildmen here in Brazil, tricksters such as the caipora/curupira.

*Please note the mapinguari and capelobo myths seem to blend at some areas, just as it seems to happen in North America with some myths twisted interpreted as representing bigfeet.
 
manofthesea said:
Simple (theoretical) question:
If someone were to totally disbelieve in the sasquatch phenomenon, and yet be certified in a field of study, why would they dedicate so much time to arguing against certain people's inclinations and perceptions? This, in itself, is pointless, a "grasping for the wind". ...snip...
Click to expand...
A skeptic's view is that the truth must be sought and sought through the impartial study of evidence, even if it ultimately brings us to a conclusion that is different from our initial position. Its actually pretty close if not equal to scientific methodology. Scientific methodology applied to everyday life, if you preffer.

Cryptozoology, UFOs, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, politics, philosophy, religion, etc., for a true skeptic there should be no closed or forbidden topics.
 
Book of Quotes (I could get rich)

Correa Neto said:
A skeptic's view is that the truth must be sought and sought through the impartial study of evidence, even if it ultimately brings us to a conclusion that is different from our initial position. Its actually pretty close if not equal to scientific methodology. Scientific methodology applied to everyday life, if you preffer.

Cryptozoology, UFOs, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, politics, philosophy, religion, etc., for a true skeptic there should be no closed or forbidden topics.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is sincere and faultless. But, still the 'anomalies' intrigue me.
 
Last edited:
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Seeing as how I got that image from Cryptomundo, I should point out how, despite it being known that the "wild man" involved was described as carrying a sword and having tattoos, Loren Coleman is still trying to spin the latest news about that Vietnamese "wild woman" as if it involves a Bigfoot-like creature. In fact, they even use a picture of the Minnesota Iceman to illustrate the article on the main page! It seems that the numerous problems with the Iceman are being ignored since it shares some similarities to the descriptions given to the Vietnamese version of Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Coleman is quite capable of deep investigation, but his spin on this story is pretty ugly. The news reports on this woman are often wildly contradictory. Part of the problem seems to be that the "father" gave conflicting and bizarre stories of her discovery, capture, appearance, behavior, etc. At first he consented to a DNA test, but then retracted that. As far as we know, no test was ever done. The "parents" insist that this is their long-lost daughter and that is all we have to go on.

The incident of her capture and that "wild man" she was supposidly with seem questionable. She may not have been with any man at all. The father is not consistent when he talks about the events. Nearly all early reports on her tell of a half-animal that walked like a monkey (or was crawling) and had hair to her legs. We later learned that she was found with short cut hair, trimmed nails, and did not walk like a monkey. Her hands and feet showed no signs of a "feral jungle life". She has distinct scars on one wrist and ankle which show that she had been previously bound by rope. She has all the signs of mental retardation and probably has been since birth. The spin is that she got that way from "going feral in the jungle". When her new family talks about that dude she may have been with, they don't call him human, Bigfoot, tribal, wildman, or anything like that. They call this man a spirit!

Here's the best investigative journalism I have read about her yet, from The Guardian. If you want to talk more about this we should start a new thread.
 
manofthesea said:
Your reasoning is sincere and faultless. But, still the 'anomalies' intrigue me.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but my reasonings are -and will always be- far from being flawless...

Aniway, we all are interested in "anomalies", otherwise we would not be here. We just reached different conclusions after looking at them.
 
Correa Neto said:
As for the "why would a hoaxer build a female bigfoot costume?" line, well, besides the obvious "why not?" "what's easier to fake? Dangling boobs or dangling weenies?" questions there is a previous lenghty abduction report involving female bigfeet. And, as the following post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2811400&postcount=6615) shows, there were renderings of apewomen and cavewomen that could easilly have ben an additional source of inspiration.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the showing of bare breasts okay as long as it was in an educational context back then? Certainly "documentary footage" of an "unknown animal" would be educational and (as tube noted) you'd have to add something to a gorilla costume in order to give it a definite gender...

Then again, some ape costumes already come with breasts (just like how some come with large shoulders).

Seeing as how his drawings often gave Bigfoot cavemen-like faces, I definitely agree that artwork depicting cave people and ape people would've been an inspiration. The similarities between Patterson's account of the filming and the Roe account also gives me pause.

William Parcher said:
snip
"Here's the best investigative journalism I have read about her yet, from The Guardian. If you want to talk more about this we should start a new thread."
Click to expand...

Great detective work on the case of the so-called "wild woman!" You've more than satisfied my curiosity on the matter, so I don't feel the need to discuss it further/start a new thread. Truth to be told, I mostly brought it up here due to the inclusion of the Minnesota Iceman (which gave me an opportunity to post that Bigfoot-looking Frankenstein picture). Thanks again!
 
Report # 21189 (Class A)
Submitted by witness on Friday, August 24, 2007.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daylight sighting by boaters where Holden Creek flows into Lake Chelan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Show Printer-friendly Version)
YEAR: 2007

SEASON: Summer

MONTH: August

DATE: 23

STATE: Washington

COUNTY: Chelan County

NEAREST TOWN: Lucerne

NEAREST ROAD: No roads up there we got there by boat on Lake Chelan

OBSERVED: My Wife and I Were traveling yesterday on the Lady of the Lake II out of Chelan Washington. We were heading from Chelan to Stehekin on the north end of the Lake. About half way up the lake we were dropping off 70 fire fighters at Lucerne. Just as the Boat was leaving the landing I saw something large and dark walking on the shore were a creek (I believe it's called Holden creek) runs into the lake. I saw it for a few seconds and told my wife that I thought I might have Just seen Bigfoot. I showed her the spot and told her to keep looking while I got the camera. She said "I see it" she said "it looked like an orangatang but more upright."
I ran to the bow with my camera. I looked around and saw the creature walking back up into the woods it had very dark brown hair covering its's entire body. It looked to be between 7 and 8 ft tall and probably weighed between 400 and 450 lbs. It had long arms and a long loping gate. I fired off three pictures hoping to capture a picture of this amazing creature. I ran in and told my wife and kids what I had seen. I looked back at the digital images and initially saw nothing because I don't have a tele photo lense, but later that night in Stehekin I was loking at the pictures and zoomed in on the part of the shore wher I had seen the creature and there he was! I had started to doubt what we had seen but now I have A picture to prove it to me when I begin to doubt it. I did not necessarily believe before this. Nad my wife and I were definitely not looking for bigfoot when we both saw him.




ALSO NOTICED: This isn't about the Bigfoot but if anyone tries to contact us for the next few days we wil be in Stehekin WA where there is no phone service but I will check my e-mail I would love to figure out a way to get a blown up copy of the picture to your organization.

OTHER WITNESSES: Yes. My wife saw it too

TIME AND CONDITIONS: Iyt was a clear day about 11:30 Am

ENVIRONMENT: Pine forest at th mouth of a creek on Lake Chelan The were fires on Mke Mountain to the South


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-up investigation report:

After speaking to the witness several times I believe him to be sincere. Immediately upon making contact the witness emailed several pictures to me. Unfortunately the distance from the shore to the "subject" severely limits the ability to discern what in fact the creature is, it appears to be nothing more than a "blobsquatch" due to the lack of detail. However it appears that the subject is quite tall as it clearly stands well above several large wind fell trees and other bushes on the lake shore. As the witness states in his report the majority of the tour boat's guests where focused on the off loading of fire fighters, they where apparently the only people to notice the animal. This area is extremely remote accessible only by boat or float plane. The likely hood of a hoax is extremely remote.
The witness has agreed to send the photos to me with the full files copied onto a CD; this will allow a more detailed examination.

Derek Freel


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About BFRO Investigator Derek Freel:

Derek Freel lives near Okanogan, Washington. He attended the 2005 Washington Expedition, 2006 Redwoods Expedition, 2006 Oregon Expedition and the 2006 Washington Expedition. Derek funds his research via his website www.bigfoot-shirts.com
Click to expand...
I think I won't be the only one being mindful of the fact that this guy claiming to have photographed bigfoot runs a tour boat.
 
manofthesea said:
Please try to remember, I'm no woodknocker, I'm an encounter woo. A regular guy who got chased. No pheromones, woodknocks, etc, etc. And yes, Pnw.
None of this glowing eyed, skunk smelling, skunk ape crap.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you don't mean to intimate that we should find you more credible then the people who claim to have seen a bigfoot that stunk, a bigfoot that had glowing red eyes, a bigfoot that talked, a bigfoot that was 3ft, white, and walked sideways. Or that it happened in Iowa, New Mexico, New york, etc.

manofthesea said:
Is Wikipedia peer reviewed, then please don't refer to this crap!
The events as they unfolded, stated that the sheriff found their rope appeared to have been cut, and he couldn't make sense of the tracks surrounding the snowcave. It's that simple. My question was if the
PHONE CALL WAS RECORDED OR NOT?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the detailed information I provided was not factual? You are the one who commented to Correa about being informed of the facts of the incident and implied that they indicated death by sasquatch. Here it is:
manofthesea said:
(It's not like on CSI) If you're unaware of the events as the tragedy unfolded, that is fine. The line that the two missing climbers rapelled on was cut. There were footprints leading away from the snow cave.
I wanted to know if the distress call was taped.
Click to expand...
In actuality you were the one who was uninformed and had the failure of common sense to consider bigfoot as responsible. Did you even look at an image of where James was found before we gave you posts providing them?

manofthesea said:
ETA: At the time of this tragedy, I wasn't into bigfoot yet. I'm a hiker. I've hiked and traversed all over these islands. I got into bigfoot around May of this year. When I found BFF. I've had a couple of encounters when I was a kid, but they were just stories I'd break out at work occasionally. Usually a new guy would hear rumor of my encounter, then I'd break it out on him eventually. No smirking. They detected the real fear that I experienced. (but that's really nothing compared to the freak wave I encountered while in the navy, steering a flat bottomed boat in Alaska, but that's not a cheap story to be discussed on a forum)
My interest in this story was from a hiker's standpoint. I've been researching which mountain would be my dream climb. Everest (too cold, too high), K2 (r u kidding?), or Kilimanjaro (with the great side strips to Serengeti, and that cool crater thing). Then this tragedy happened, and bloggers immediately commenced to offend the families involved by stating how dumb they were to climb midwinter etc. etc. That's when I followed the news reports a little closer, and these interesting little tidbits kept coming up, and stayed on my mind. Like a rappelling rope that was cut, mysterious footprint tracks, missing climbers (still), etc. etc.
Click to expand...
If it was only you that saw bigfoot in that tragedy and posted your thoughts on it here first then that iis another matter. I'm quite sure I've seen a thread at BFF where the incident was discussed and people were speculating about bigfoot being the cause. Does that ring a bell and if so did you post in that thread?

Now concerning you claim of bigfoot encounters including being chased, would you like to share the details or did I miss that somewhere? Have you already posted your stories over at BFF? It need not be mentioned that we will be skeptical but I'm curious to see if an alternative explanation might present itself.
 
I watched a TV special once some years ago that exposed this film as a big man in a monkey suit. They had even identified the man in the suit. Thats all it was. No bigfoot. Its a big fake.
 
Cainkane1, after evaluating the available data, I concluded that PGF is a fraud and bigfeet are not real. OK, "most or a lot likely" not real.

However, "I watched a TV special once some years ago" is not exactly a very good argument to rely on for a "case closed" veredict, don't you agree?
 
Cainkane1 said:
I watched a TV special once some years ago that exposed this film as a big man in a monkey suit. They had even identified the man in the suit. Thats all it was. No bigfoot. Its a big fake.
Click to expand...
Cainekane1, you are thinking of the 1999 Fox TV special 'World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed' hosted by Lance Henricksen and written by Robert Kiviat in which insurance agent Jerry Romney is identified as being the man in the suit.

Needles to say, Romney was not in the suit and the show was hack journalism at best. Proponents often refer to the show as though it helps validate the film. In the near future if you find yourself in need of a better short dismissal of the film then my advice would be to ask why Bob Heironimus, who claims to be the one wearing the suit, is shown in an earlier part of the film riding on a horse along with Roger Patterson. You can find where that is shown by going over the last few pages of this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom