Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5
- Thread starter HarryHenderson
- Start date
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
John Green was a friend of my parents and I knew him through them and a couple of "sasquatch" investigations I did as a LEO. I was actually in Harrison Hot Springs the day after he died talking to councillor Buckley who informed me of his passing. So - yes - I did know he had passed away.
BTW - if you don't understand the "clues" I gave you that you quoted - then perhaps you need to read them again.
You remind me so much of Bill Munns in your willingness to go out on wild tangents without any evidence to back them up and then play word games when your flimsy excuses for intelligent discourse are shown to be false or ill-founded.
Perhaps this might help again...Without the ORIGINAL film - you have nothing with which to base your claims on because you have no idea what processes caused what artifacts or visual effects between what was on the original film and the product you are viewing today.
Got that?
Last edited:
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
Right, and that fact means that your speculation about double exposures (reasonable though they are) are moot. It's a good observation, but since nobody can prove it happened in the original film, it tells us nothing about the original film.
Some times you just have to bite the bullet and accept that the data you have isn't reliable enough to support anything but the most offhand speculation.
John Green was a friend of my parents and I knew him through them and a couple of "sasquatch" investigations I did as a LEO. I was actually in Harrison Hot Springs the day after he died talking to councillor Buckley who informed me of his passing. So - yes - I did know he had passed away.
BTW - if you don't understand the "clues" I gave you that you quoted - then perhaps you need to read them again.
You remind me so much of Bill Munns in your willingness to go out on wild tangents without any evidence to back them up and then play word games when your flimsy excuses for intelligent discourse are shown to be false or ill-founded.
Perhaps this might help again...Without the ORIGINAL film - you have nothing with which to base your claims on because you have no idea what processes caused what artifacts or visual effects between what was on the original film and the product you are viewing today.
Got that?
I think I get that. And thanks for your time.
Thanks, John.
My suspicion is that what we are able to get from the internet in the form of videos of the PGF are going to all be corrupted in some manner. People take what was produced by one source and recycle it endlessly, and in the process errors and artifacts can be introduced. And then those errors and artifacts are spread around the world in any subsequent uses of the same material.
For example, the famous Legend Meets Science program, it has a certain version of the film that they produced, and that's been converted to DVD and used by a host of people to break out bits and pieces to examine. Then those pieces are reassembled and put up on the internet, spreading whatever artifacts the LMS process introduced.
When questioning whether there is an artifact created by the video conversion process, which can indeed blend "frames" together producing an apparent double exposure, we'd need to check out versions of the PGF produced by different people. Part of the problem there is that there are not a lot of people or film companies that have produced versions of the PGF that can be compared. After all, how many have produced what is supposed to be the "whole reel" of film? I honestly have little confidence that there ever was a viewing of the entire original roll of film. It seems right form the beginning it was chopped up and copied as separate pieces, and then reassembled (supposedly) into what we're intended to believe is the real, complete, first roll of film. So far I have not seen conclusive evidence that what we are told is the complete reel is what it is claimed to be.
I think it is wise not to overlook the fact that every single person interested in the PGF considers just the Patty sequence as the "PGF" film. Check out the frame numbering convention. It starts out at frame 1, and that frame being the first frame of the Patty sequence, NOT what would have been the first frame of an entire roll of film.
With there being no intact roll of film that can prove that something specific immediately preceded the Patty scene, we have to either trust that the scenic footage preceded it because someone said it did, or not trust it because there is no conclusive evidence that it really did. I personally think that there was WAY more footage that Patterson shot, and that we've only been given access to what he and his homies decided to condense it down to for the final edit which fit their story.
I have not seen any evidence that would show that the scenic shots were part of the very same roll of film that Patty was on. Nor that the Patty footage actually started at that frame 1. There could have been even more shaky stuff that came before "frame 1" that was trimmed out for whatever reason. Who knows?
And because the whole of bigfootery is built upon a foundation of lies and deception, there is likely no way we would ever be able to get to the real bottom of that mystery, meaning the mystery of the film and its various parts (included and excluded from the final edit). Heck, how many people had a piece of that film? A hand full of people bought copies, bought rights to this or that, had possession and lost possession of whatever pieces existed. What a mess. If it were legitimate, it would not be so hard to track down and pin down. It's like they did the old cowboy trick of brushing away their tracks with a branch as they crept along. No camera original, no complete reels, no second reel, no third reel, no preliminary reels, it's all been hidden away or dumped.
I'm going to see if I can find more than one version online of the film showing the earlier sequences included. If there are, see if they have the same or different artifacts.
For example, the famous Legend Meets Science program, it has a certain version of the film that they produced, and that's been converted to DVD and used by a host of people to break out bits and pieces to examine. Then those pieces are reassembled and put up on the internet, spreading whatever artifacts the LMS process introduced.
When questioning whether there is an artifact created by the video conversion process, which can indeed blend "frames" together producing an apparent double exposure, we'd need to check out versions of the PGF produced by different people. Part of the problem there is that there are not a lot of people or film companies that have produced versions of the PGF that can be compared. After all, how many have produced what is supposed to be the "whole reel" of film? I honestly have little confidence that there ever was a viewing of the entire original roll of film. It seems right form the beginning it was chopped up and copied as separate pieces, and then reassembled (supposedly) into what we're intended to believe is the real, complete, first roll of film. So far I have not seen conclusive evidence that what we are told is the complete reel is what it is claimed to be.
I think it is wise not to overlook the fact that every single person interested in the PGF considers just the Patty sequence as the "PGF" film. Check out the frame numbering convention. It starts out at frame 1, and that frame being the first frame of the Patty sequence, NOT what would have been the first frame of an entire roll of film.
With there being no intact roll of film that can prove that something specific immediately preceded the Patty scene, we have to either trust that the scenic footage preceded it because someone said it did, or not trust it because there is no conclusive evidence that it really did. I personally think that there was WAY more footage that Patterson shot, and that we've only been given access to what he and his homies decided to condense it down to for the final edit which fit their story.
I have not seen any evidence that would show that the scenic shots were part of the very same roll of film that Patty was on. Nor that the Patty footage actually started at that frame 1. There could have been even more shaky stuff that came before "frame 1" that was trimmed out for whatever reason. Who knows?
And because the whole of bigfootery is built upon a foundation of lies and deception, there is likely no way we would ever be able to get to the real bottom of that mystery, meaning the mystery of the film and its various parts (included and excluded from the final edit). Heck, how many people had a piece of that film? A hand full of people bought copies, bought rights to this or that, had possession and lost possession of whatever pieces existed. What a mess. If it were legitimate, it would not be so hard to track down and pin down. It's like they did the old cowboy trick of brushing away their tracks with a branch as they crept along. No camera original, no complete reels, no second reel, no third reel, no preliminary reels, it's all been hidden away or dumped.
I'm going to see if I can find more than one version online of the film showing the earlier sequences included. If there are, see if they have the same or different artifacts.
I found one version that looks like the LMS version, it has the copyright note on it which I think designates it as the LMS version. I loaded that into my plater and clicked frame by frame and there is a clear, distinct V tree, followed by a distinct, yet jerky frame of Patty, with no double exposure or blending between frames.
Attachments
What is clear, however, is that both of these clips were made by different entities. The one called "Full Frame" is not full frame, it is zoomed in, or cropped, same thing. It's also sharper, presumably pulled form a better copy of the film. The second one, American Bigfoot, has more of the frame included, which points out that the prior one has phony sprocket holes and frame borders added in. Adding in fake sprocket holes and film borders? Is there nothing about bigfootery that can be trusted to be clean?
I actually enjoy the exercise of exploring the PGF, and whatever new questions come along. After all, it's really the foundation of bigfootery, and what else is there in bigfoot-land to ponder? Believers and skeptics alike have the PGF in common.
The things Denny has introduced are interesting, to me anyway, and may or may not provide additional clues as to how the film was put together. Some things, like artifacts or even intentional modifications, can be introduced and then make the rounds and be propagated throughout the entire interwebs, giving the impression of being valid and original. But only by taking notice and examining it from a variety of angles can those kinds of things be weeded out.
Some people might say who cares, what's it matter, it's all a big hoax anyway. True enough, but here we are, taking part in bigfoot discussions because bigfoot is an interesting enough subject to play with.
Besides, the believers have spent a lot of time and energy building up a huge facade of phony evidence, and forged so many things about this seminal event that it's good to break down those false constructs to get closer to the truth. Believers have made SO many false claims about Patterson, Gimlin, and the film, and it's refreshing to bit by bit get closer to the truth.
And of course it's raining hard outside, so this is a bit of an interesting diversion.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,718
One thing to consider is that celluloid film has a limited life.
If the PGF original film is sitting on a shelf somewhere, the odds are that it is toast anyway.
Even if we could find the original film, would it be in any condition to view it?
Is this an angle that we could approach Pat Patterson with? 'You know this will be lost forever if we don't archive it?'
If the PGF original film is sitting on a shelf somewhere, the odds are that it is toast anyway.
Even if we could find the original film, would it be in any condition to view it?
Is this an angle that we could approach Pat Patterson with? 'You know this will be lost forever if we don't archive it?'
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Really? Do tell.
One standard in the bigfoot industry is not looking closely at anything, not asking questions, promoting tne myth.
The Yakima locals all knew Bob Heironimus was in the suit and what a con man Roger Patterson was. It wouldn't surprise me that the locals, friends of John, also know what a fake he was and that he was in it for the money and kicks. He did not believe in Sasquatch himself.
Having consulted someone with considerable expertise both with that camera and in video creation, who was willing to provide some good evidence, I am now convinced that the "double exposure" explanation of the ghost image is very likely incorrect. For one thing, there is a shutter mechanism in that camera which prevents double exposure. And he provided convincing evidence that it was far more likely to have been introduced in the making of the video. As part of this, he demonstrated other frames in the slomo that have ghost images, something I could and should have seen had I not been so "enthusiastic".
Science marches on, but not in a straight line!
Science marches on, but not in a straight line!
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
Though not timely, I would be remiss to not acknowledge John Green. Take away the PGF and Green is the singular reason I ever read more than 10 words on the subject. "Year of the Sasquatch" (1970) was a Christmas gift and the book that hooked me. That very copy on a shelf not three feet away. His seeming "newsman" lay it out there and you decide style in combination with the over-the-top-insane subject matter was actually pretty compelling. No doubt especially so as a youngster.
Shockingly, I've not known too much about the man personally beyond writer/newspaper owner in BC, Canada until the recent posts by ABP and rockinkt (and others). I surely don't remember him ever saying he 'believed in Bigfoot' or that everything he was saying was the absolute truth...cause he was 'just a reporter'.
Ultimately what he did was supply the cause with a century's worth of "Bigfoot stories" that, true or not, have endured so well we discuss many of them still. And it is true that when you're 13, reading or telling a "scary Bigfoot story" late at night is potentially as much scary fun as an imagination can have. There's a lot worse people in the world than John Green. RIP "my youth".
Shockingly, I've not known too much about the man personally beyond writer/newspaper owner in BC, Canada until the recent posts by ABP and rockinkt (and others). I surely don't remember him ever saying he 'believed in Bigfoot' or that everything he was saying was the absolute truth...cause he was 'just a reporter'.
Ultimately what he did was supply the cause with a century's worth of "Bigfoot stories" that, true or not, have endured so well we discuss many of them still. And it is true that when you're 13, reading or telling a "scary Bigfoot story" late at night is potentially as much scary fun as an imagination can have. There's a lot worse people in the world than John Green. RIP "my youth".
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,356
Are you saying that Green never really declared Bigfoot to exist? He did.
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
Don't worry about it, and thanks for the correction.
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
<cough> Missed the point. Writing stories that purport Bigfoot exists and stating one "believes in Bigfoot" are two different things. He purported/declared Bigfoot exists in any number of ways and places, including the very act of publishing anything on the subject, but I NEVER heard (read) him say he "believes in Bigfoot". One is a perpetuation of the gag, the other a conviction in the mind.
My bigger point in saying any of it is one perpetuating a fable/myth/story for people's pleasure is not the same as one trying to recruit faithful followers because they truly believe that you truly believe. Meldrum flat out lies to get recruits, Green flat out told stories to.
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
One of the two men who filmed the infamous Bluff Creek Bigfoot video has long regretted his involvement. Filmed in 1967 in Northern California, the Patterson-Gimlin film has long remained the most hotly debated and tantalising piece of footage ever recorded in relation to the Bigfoot phenomenon.The video, which offers a clear view of a large bipedal ape-like creature walking along the creek bed, soon became world-famous and attracted the attention of Bigfoot enthusiasts and critics alike.Patterson himself sadly passed away back in 1972 which means that Bob Gimlin, who sold his share of the rights to the film to another researcher for the measly sum of $10, is now the only person left alive who knows what really happened that day.The level of harassment and abuse he has since received over the footage however has left him wishing that he had never agreed to take part in the original expedition in the first place."It ruined me," he said. "They’d come driving in my driveway all times of the night and go ‘Bob! We want to go out Bigfoot hunting.' My wife was a teller at a savings and loan institution. Of course, she was sitting right there and the public would come in and make smart remark.""This went on and on and on until she come home crying. She’d say, ‘I’m not tough enough.’ A couple times we were going to split up over this."Despite these problems however Gimlin still maintains that he knows what he saw that day."I can understand why they don’t believe in it - because I didn’t believe it either. But I saw one. And I know what I saw. And I know it wasn’t a man in a suit. It couldn’t have been." - See more at: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.co...ut-about-bigfoot-footage#sthash.C3Z5bWtA.dpuf
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/296460/bob-gimlin-speaks-out-about-bigfoot-footage
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/296460/bob-gimlin-speaks-out-about-bigfoot-footage
Yet he keeps flying out to footie events across the country. You'd think there was money in it or something.
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
What I like about it, is that he reiterates his regret, and also his very near divorce. Like he's done in the past, he skirts around the idea that he wishes he hadn't gotten involved, and that could very well be his conscience at work. His wife isn't all too keen on the whole saga, and probably due to the fact that she knows it's a joke, but Gimlin tries to make out like she can't handle it because it's too much, and people are making jokes, not because she thinks it's a hoax.
I seriously doubt he'll ever come clean, but it's these little snippets that allow us to see his true feelings for the film. It was similar to when he was on X Creatures, and he mentioned that there was a chance he could've been fooled by Patterson.
I think that, and this recent interview, are the closest we'll see to any kind of confession from Gimlin.
It also mentions that he sold his share of the film for $10... is that true?
Last edited:
I don't think there's much truth to be found in any of this pgf nonsense.
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
I tend to agree, I just thought it a bit odd that assuming he genuinely believed what he saw, and had on film, to be real, then why would he sell it for $10?
Entertaining that scenario, does he seem that stupid to you?
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
Yep.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It's not believable by rational people, just like a lot of the story about the PGF.
Then again, ol' Bob was so excited over having filmed bigfoot, that he never bothered to watch the film at DeAtley's house that Sunday.
If you had been there at the filming of Bigfoot, would you have watched the film or not?
John Green was there, and saw the film, but not Bob.
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,356
He was tired.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
lol.
He was in the suit. So he could answer a lot of questions an honest reporter like Green would want to ask him. Was it hot inside the suit, Bob? Was it easy to see through the eye-holes? Did the diaper-butt make it more difficult to walk? Did Roger pay up yet?
Insofar as Green being of noble character, that position requires some very strong evidence in support of it, given that he sold a lie for personal profit. I'm going to admit some small degree of cynicism given how his filthy rich and powerful parents bought him his own resort-area newspaper. I started off on a roofing crew at age 14. My parents didn't even know I had a job.
He is from the class of privilege, where preying upon the masses is a way of life.
At best, you can play dumb along with him: golly, after all this time "researching" bigfoot he is way too stupid to realize there is no bigfoot.
I don't care much except as an example of BLAARGing study. John Green, a rich college boy, has his parents buy him a shiny toy to play with at the resort.
At first, he can hardly believe it himself: the newspaper already has a silly Sasquatch Indians hoax going as a means of getting the Hot Springs name out there.
By golly, it turns out to be a money maker for him! He can publish April Fool's stories about Sasquatch kidnappings, which creates its own book market, expedition market, speaking market, etc. among the ignorati.
So John Green never has to do an honest day of labor his whole life.
He was in the suit. So he could answer a lot of questions an honest reporter like Green would want to ask him. Was it hot inside the suit, Bob? Was it easy to see through the eye-holes? Did the diaper-butt make it more difficult to walk? Did Roger pay up yet?
Insofar as Green being of noble character, that position requires some very strong evidence in support of it, given that he sold a lie for personal profit. I'm going to admit some small degree of cynicism given how his filthy rich and powerful parents bought him his own resort-area newspaper. I started off on a roofing crew at age 14. My parents didn't even know I had a job.
He is from the class of privilege, where preying upon the masses is a way of life.
At best, you can play dumb along with him: golly, after all this time "researching" bigfoot he is way too stupid to realize there is no bigfoot.
I don't care much except as an example of BLAARGing study. John Green, a rich college boy, has his parents buy him a shiny toy to play with at the resort.
At first, he can hardly believe it himself: the newspaper already has a silly Sasquatch Indians hoax going as a means of getting the Hot Springs name out there.
By golly, it turns out to be a money maker for him! He can publish April Fool's stories about Sasquatch kidnappings, which creates its own book market, expedition market, speaking market, etc. among the ignorati.
So John Green never has to do an honest day of labor his whole life.
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
I've never labeled Green noble. Nor thought it. Nor claim he was a great writer, humanitarian or faithful to his wife. Or if his place in life was deserved or not. Only that his writings gave me many a pleasant memory in and of my youth. As did numerous others including
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
I don't think much of any of it can be accepted as truth. If I were Bob, though, and I was trying to pass myself off as credible, I'd have just said I attended the screening, but he chose not to, oddly.
Bob seemed like he immediately wanted less to do with the entire deal, whereas these days, he's all for promoting it.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
But according to the radio interview right after the incident, he actually used the camera...some of the filming work is actually his work and not Roger's...
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
No, I agree, I do think it's odd.
I'd like to see what he now feels about his X-Creatures interview with Chris Packham, to see if he'd elaborate more on the whole possibly being fooled by Roger thing. He seems to change his story and his level of belief depending on who he's talking to.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Sorry. I saw "Bob" and I thought Heironimus.
So Harry I sure understand your experience. I had a similar one with the loch ness monster, before I ever heard of bigfoot. It had a 1500 year head start on bigfoot.
I read my father's books on his shelves, in fact, and that strikes me now as unfair. He had these Ripley's believe it or not type books and strange happenings. He read them but had no belief in things like the loch ness monster.
I mentioned the loch ness monster to him and he destroyed me over it. I was pretty excited about it, and was utterly crushed. When bigfoot came along, after the PGF anyway - he ridiculed that too and had an article on our kitchen table about it.
So I never got to fall in love with bigfoot before he annihilated the idea. Any writer, and John Green was prolific, would have instilled bigfoot romance in me.
I can speak frankly about Green and still recognize that.
Last edited:
Northern Lights
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 762
This helps to explain a lot, thanks.
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
You know I disagree explicitly with friends far more than I do anyone else in part because I care what they think I think.
I didn't mean to sound so defensive about some supposed "death of a youth's innocence." Firstly, it wasn't that innocent. And in this particular instance the "pleasant memories" reflecting far more on a time and place than any specific person/thing. And all of it void of that pesky hindsight.
Simply, Green happened along at the right time with the right subject to pique my incessant curiosity. "And there has to be some truth to it no matter the author because it was published in a book and books never lie. Certainly not a book about Bigfoot." Actually, I always thought for a "newspaper publisher" his graphics and layout were pretty rank. Probably because he was using the
And in all honesty I'm surprised he lived this long. I think he looked pretty old and feeble way back then. What he really was was just good enough to keep a 12 year old wondering. As you confessed, the romantic Bigfoot "wonderings" of your youth could easily have been different had you not been living with Buzz Killington.
We'll pretend you're sincere, what does it "help to explain" to you? A lot? Why there is no Bigfoot? In your own words please.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Hey, that's an interesting point.
It is a nuance to the nascent Sasquatch industry in North America, starting in Canada.
Green was called down from Canada for the PGF because he had already established a reputation as a bigfoot researcher, beginning with the expedition that never happened out of Harrison Hot Springs.
BLAARGers are always inflating professional credentials all out of proportion to reality and this turns out to be an example of that. To call him a publisher is to call any of us a publisher anytime we make copies at Kinko's.
I originally thought Green was stupid when I saw the pictures of him along the trackway on the logging road. Everything was so transparently fake about the PGF, the tracks, and most of all Patterson. But he isn't that stupid. It was becoming a phenomenon and at least one millionaire by then was paying North American bigfoot researchers. Tom Slick paid John Green to hunt bigfoot.
Northern Lights
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 762
I was being sincere. It helps to explain, to me, that he was told at a very early and influential age that Bigfoot doesn't exist, can't exist, and surprise surprise, in his mind, it doesn't. In my own words (who else's could I possibly use??), I don't think it's a coincidence that his current mindset is in line with what his father told him to believe.
I would be interested to hear if others firmly on the non-existence platform were told at a young age that there's no such thing from someone they looked up to.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
At some age, sure. I was a child. I fell for Santa and that's a pretty easy one to spot.
I'm thrilled with the psychology here. How can I transform anything into "proof of bigfoot"? Bigfoot exists because an internet poster's father said it didn't exist.
There are bigfeets in zoos, in the supermarket meat department, bigfoot skin boots - but his father said not to see it. So he doesn't.
When he looks at the PGF and sees Bob Heironimus' Diaper Butt, he imagines it to be a human in a suit too.
I'm thrilled with the psychology here. How can I transform anything into "proof of bigfoot"? Bigfoot exists because an internet poster's father said it didn't exist.
There are bigfeets in zoos, in the supermarket meat department, bigfoot skin boots - but his father said not to see it. So he doesn't.
When he looks at the PGF and sees Bob Heironimus' Diaper Butt, he imagines it to be a human in a suit too.