Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5 - Page 7

dmaker · 23rd November 2015, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by John Nowak

That would explain a lot.

I'm curious - has anyone ever floated the theory that Patty was the last Bigfoot?

Yes, I have seen this theory posted at the BFF. It's not hugely popular. I believe Crowlogic used to think this, but has since retreated from that and believes the PGF to be a hoax.

John Nowak · 23rd November 2015, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by dmaker

Yes, I have seen this theory posted at the BFF. It's not hugely popular. I believe Crowlogic used to think this, but has since retreated from that and believes the PGF to be a hoax.

Ah, thanks.

The Shrike · 24th November 2015, 05:15 AM

If Patty was the last Bigfoot then the thousands of reports since relatively soon thereafter could not have been bigfoots. This is impossible because DWA said so and his buddy WHO IS A LAWYER agrees.

dmaker · 24th November 2015, 07:17 AM

Exactly! And only trained primatologists could possibly describe with consistency a giant monkey.

captain koolaid · 24th November 2015, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

If Patty was the last Bigfoot then the thousands of reports since relatively soon thereafter could not have been bigfoots. This is impossible because DWA said so and his buddy WHO IS A LAWYER agrees.

What if Patty was the last Bigfoot and every report after that were of ghosts? That would explain why there are footprints... but with no Bigfoots in them. My theory... Bigfoot ghosts...

Think about it.

GT/CS · 24th November 2015, 10:28 PM

Ghosts make footprints??? Can they throw candy, too? Do they show up on thermal imagers?

captain koolaid · 24th November 2015, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Ghosts make footprints??? Can they throw candy, too? Do they show up on thermal imagers?

Dude... Poltergeistfoots. It's the only logical explanation.

Think about it.

GT/CS · 24th November 2015, 11:54 PM

Cool. I'm in!

rockinkt · 25th November 2015, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

RP: "Well, Bob-ol' buddy, here we are in Bluff Creek, where we've come to film a sasquatch documentary where Ray Wallace has been hoaxing tracks for years."
BG: "Yup."

RP: "I'm sorry I wasted all but these last few feet of film on scenery and stuff. I think I'll use it all up on some more scenery and stuff."
BG: "Yup."

RP: "I'm sorry I didn't bother to figure out how to get a guy in a furry suit to play the sasquatch in our movie. I agree with ya that it's pretty lame not to have a sasquatch in our sasquatch mov - - - Holy Frijoles! There's one now! It looks uncannily similar to the one I drew in my bigfoot book a years ago, too!"
BG: "Yup."

Yup.

LTC8K6 · 25th November 2015, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Northern Lights

He bounced the check for the rental of the camera for cripes sake. He didn't have money to waste on endless reels of film.

Uh huh...

Quote:

Al brought to Seattle the film of the creature and a great deal of footage that Roger had taken of the waterfalls and trees and various thing like that. The footprint film was supposed to be there but it wasn't.

Film of the creature, and a great deal of film of scenery...

John Green 1992 interview of Bob Gimlin.

Plus, we know that he reloaded the camera for Bob after Patty had walked off, and Bob went looking with the camera.

Roger had plenty of film, and had filmed lots of scenery on this trip and other trips, and had used more than one movie camera, iirc.

Gilbert Syndrome · 25th November 2015, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Uh huh...

Film of the creature, and a great deal of film of scenery...

John Green 1992 interview of Bob Gimlin.

Plus, we know that he reloaded the camera for Bob after Patty had walked off, and Bob went looking with the camera.

Roger had plenty of film, and had filmed lots of scenery on this trip and other trips, and had used more than one movie camera, iirc.

Exactly. Roger had plenty of film with which to film some decoy shots of scenery, and then we get Patty at the end of the reel. It was almost like Roger intended to waste as much film as he could before getting his shot of Patty, because that is exactly what he did.

Then there's the mysterious 2nd reel of film that supposedly included all of the casting footage etc. Roger quite obviously had enough film to generally dick about with.

Giordano · 25th November 2015, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Uh huh...

Film of the creature, and a great deal of film of scenery...

John Green 1992 interview of Bob Gimlin.

Plus, we know that he reloaded the camera for Bob after Patty had walked off, and Bob went looking with the camera.

Roger had plenty of film, and had filmed lots of scenery on this trip and other trips, and had used more than one movie camera, iirc.

I thought that Bigfoot documentaries usually tried to fill up film with pictures of the human hunters' faces showing their amazed reactions to their encounters with alleged Bigfoot activities? "Oh, there is an entire Bigfoot family sitting three feet away but don't turn the camera to them; instead just focus on me telling you what I see." Or, "Oh, now I feel the presence of something big outside the tent. See how scared am!" Sort of The Blair Witch Project.

At least showing the empty scenery is an improvement.

HarryHenderson · 27th November 2015, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by River

Gimlin may have had to sign documents saying he would never tell any of the trade secrets in order to maintain his share of the profits. There may be many reasons why he would. One of them is, why give up the gig until even the "target audience" loses interest. Some are dug in hard. mostly because they have told stories of their own in order to belong to this special club. (and i mean special as in special, not special. lol)

After Gimlin passes (or perhaps some time after Mrs Patterson does) some of the family will cash in on the relics or other items of interest that may have escaped the special club publications to date.

There is already proof that the thing was a hoax. footers just refuse to admit it. (there are actually many ways to prove their story was bogus)

This is one of many.

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

I wouldn't say that Gimlin was uninformed of the situation, but I don't think he was anywhere near to being the brains of the operation, and nor do I believe that he contributed much of anything other than his services for whatever amount of beer-money Roger had promised him.

I think Gimlin will likely have been included in whatever preparations went on before the event, but I don't think he'd have been overly interested in them, he just doesn't strike me as someone who gave much of a monkey's either way, other than when he was getting paid and how much moolah he was getting.

In the years since the PGF and Rogers' death, Gimlin has become quite the performer, and he's definitely enjoying the role that he adopted in Roger's absence. Every time he tells his story he adds a little more drama to it.

Most of all, he knows he has a fan-club, and he knows that this fan-club would champion his every word, regardless.

Imo, though, I don't really think Gimlin had much to do with the PGF other than being there, pointing at things, jumping off logs and holding Rogers hand whenever he needed to tinkle in the woods.

I don't disagree with either one of you. What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know.

And in my opinion, all of Gimlin's crimes have come after the actual filming.

John Nowak · 28th November 2015, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know.

I'm inclined to suspect it was test footage for a horror or adventure film.

Skeptical Greg · 28th November 2015, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

I don't disagree with either one of you. What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know.

We kicked that idea around a while back..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1095

HarryHenderson · 29th November 2015, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

We kicked that idea around a while back..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1095

You nailed it on the head.

I knew it had been brought up before but didn't remember exactly what had been said or decided. It's what makes the most sense I think given who the players are and what has and hasn't happened in the 48 years since.

William Parcher · 29th November 2015, 03:02 PM

I think that there are problems with the idea that Patterson decided to run a hoax only after he saw the footage of Patty. How you describe the problems depends on if you believe Heironimus or not, but there are problems either way. The problems begin with the secrecy of the costume and the film development and knowing that there needs to be no secrets at all if your plan is to film a guy in a Bigfoot costume as an acknowledged simulation/recreation of a real Bigfoot.

If Heironimus is telling the truth then you can kiss the idea goodbye.

Skeptical Greg · 29th November 2015, 03:05 PM

The fact remains, RP was doing the documentary thing, and a decision to try a hoax would have been a logical spawn of that endeavor...

Patterson had stars in his eyes...

William Parcher · 29th November 2015, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

The fact remains, RP was doing the documentary thing, and a decision to try a hoax would have been a logical spawn of that endeavor...

Patterson had stars in his eyes...

The stars are in his eyes whether he produced a for-profit documentary (with the costume wearer named in the credits) or a for-profit Bigfoot hoax.

It may have been a hoax project right from the beginning. If he was unable to make the costume look realistic (to his satisfaction) on film he could continue trying or just go ahead and use it as a documentary simulation without any lies. Remember that he had a whole crew of actors months earlier in Washington. There is no evidence that he openly told all of them that in a few months he would have a costume ready for the Bigfoot scene and would any of you guys like to audition for that.

As it appears to me, he not only tried to fool the world he tried to fool all of his previous actors as well. Hey guys, wait til you hear this. Gimlin and I went to California to film some more scenes for the documentary we all were working on and all of a sudden there was a Bigfoot. I filmed it.

rockinkt · 29th November 2015, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

<snip>
Gimlin and I went to California to film some more scenes for the documentary we all were working on and all of a sudden there was a Bigfoot. I filmed it.

This.

The documentary was a cover for the hoax. IMHO.

OntarioSquatch · 29th November 2015, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Yes, I have seen this theory posted at the BFF. It's not hugely popular. I believe Crowlogic used to think this, but has since retreated from that and believes the PGF to be a hoax.

That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle.

Skeptical Greg · 29th November 2015, 04:18 PM

Anxiety?

eerok · 29th November 2015, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle.

It's exactly the kind of anxiety people get from declining to accept the existence of Oompa-Loompas.

Anyway, I think that most of us never believed in bigfoot. I started off thinking bigfoot was a joke, and never saw a good reason to change my mind.

Maurice Ledifficile · 29th November 2015, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle.

Here we go again. Who cares what people used to believe.

No one "believes in the non-existence of bigfoot". That makes no sense right there.

We do know. No uncertainty, no anxiety. Nothing to handle.

No evidence of bigfoot = no bigfoot. Nothing simpler.

John Nowak · 29th November 2015, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle.

Also, some people come to their senses.

Gilbert Syndrome · 30th November 2015, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

I don't disagree with either one of you. What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know.

And in my opinion, all of Gimlin's crimes have come after the actual filming.

I'm not too sure if it was originally intended to be the hoax that it became, but if it's true that they were in the process of making the movie at the time, then it's possible that the PGF either came directly from this, or happened as a result of it.

I'd like to know more about the intended movie they were making, which, apparently, was later made and released by different people.

Gilbert Syndrome · 30th November 2015, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Anxiety?

I think he's projecting.

Jango · 30th November 2015, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here the sole appears to be square at the heel. It is generally regarded as an illusion.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/062b8a5a.jpg

Here the sole appears to be ovoid. It is generally regarded as an illusion
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/f0cf8956.gif

Here the toes appear to be flexing upwards. It is generally regarded as not being an illusion. I think it needs to be further examined as being another illusion.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...psbfc6880a.jpg

From an evolutionary perspective I think it is fascinating, but the thing in the pictures looks like a Chewbacca-met-gorilla suit.

John Jones · 30th November 2015, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle.

HAHAHAHA! Look what you wrote!

John Jones · 30th November 2015, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Jango

From an evolutionary perspective I think it is fascinating, but the thing in the pictures looks like a Chewbacca-met-gorilla suit.

You have some expertise in evolution, do you?

Jango · 30th November 2015, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by John Jones

You have some expertise in evolution, do you?

No, but it doesn't make it any less fascinating to me.

John Nowak · 1st December 2015, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

I think he's projecting.

That's probably the only explanation.

People fly around the world to see wild tigers, lions, or gorillas, but a nine-foot ape is too terrifying to contemplate? What the hell?

Resume · 1st December 2015, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

I think he's projecting.

Yes.

OntarioSquatch · 1st December 2015, 06:55 AM

An example:

John Smith is a credulous Bigfoot proponent, but as years go by without any hard evidence, he begins to question his belief more and more. It's worth noting that John isn't the skeptical type. In fact, not knowing whether his favorite idol is real or not just makes him really nervous, so instead of taking a neutral stance, he tries hard to convince himself that there's no such thing as Bigfoot.

John's world still revolves around Bigfoot and so one day he decides to join the JREF and BFF for discussion. Proponents on the BFF who suggest that Bigfoot is out there only piss him off so he signs in every day to debate the existence of Bigfoot with proponents and insult and belittle anyone who challenges his fragile belief.

Maurice Ledifficile · 1st December 2015, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

An example:

John Smith is a credulous Bigfoot proponent, but as years go by without any hard evidence, he begins to question his belief more and more. It's worth noting that John isn't the skeptical type. In fact, not knowing whether his favorite idol is real or not just makes him really nervous, so instead of taking a neutral stance, he tries hard to convince himself that there's no such thing as Bigfoot.

John's world still revolves around Bigfoot and so one day he decides to join the JREF and BFF for discussion. Proponents on the BFF who suggest that Bigfoot is out there only piss him off so he signs in every day to debate the existence of Bigfoot with proponents and insult and belittle anyone who challenges his fragile belief.

Pay attention. John Smith doesn't exist (like bigfoot).

Knowing there is no bigfoot (no evidence of bigfoot = no bigfoot) is not a belief. No one has to try very hard to convince themselves that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence of its existence.

This is simple logic a six year old can grasp if they try. Give it a go.

John Nowak · 1st December 2015, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

Pay attention. John Smith doesn't exist (like bigfoot).

But we have film of him in 1967...

Resume · 1st December 2015, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

An example:
John Smith is a credulous Bigfoot proponent, but as years go by without any hard evidence, he begins to question his belief more and more. It's worth noting that John isn't the skeptical type. In fact, not knowing whether his favorite idol is real or not just makes him really nervous, so instead of taking a neutral stance, he tries hard to convince himself that there's no such thing as Bigfoot.

A neutral stance is as unnecessary with footie as it is with mermaids, Nessie, menehunes and werewolves.

Quote:

John's world still revolves around Bigfoot

Now this is projection.

Quote:

and so one day he decides to join the JREF and BFF for discussion . . . <blathersnip> so he signs in every day to debate the existence of Bigfoot with proponents and insult and belittle . . .

Accurate observations concerning ridiculous anecdotes, faux research and psuedoscientic procedures are hardly insults. Describing them as such rather indicates where the fragility of belief lies.

William Parcher · 1st December 2015, 09:48 AM

Again, if you believe that Heironimus is telling the truth then the PGF was intended to be a hoax. I will give one example but there are many others.

Patterson & Gimlin were already at Bluff Creek and had been camping there when Heironimus arrived to be filmed wearing the costume. He was instructed by P&G to hide his vehicle (his mother's car) with brush/branches and they did do that. This was obviously done so that anyone who might come by would only see Gimlin's truck and not notice that another person had come to the scene. Such a witness could destroy the hoax by later saying that they saw two vehicles at the camp instead of simply seeing Gimlin's truck.

If the intent is to film a guy in a costume to show what a Bigfoot would look like for your documentary then the concealment of your actor's vehicle is entirely unnecessary.

dmaker · 1st December 2015, 09:50 AM

John Smith, didn't he find the Golden Bigfoot Plates?

tsig · 1st December 2015, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

An example:

John Smith is a credulous Bigfoot proponent, but as years go by without any hard evidence, he begins to question his belief more and more. It's worth noting that John isn't the skeptical type. In fact, not knowing whether his favorite idol is real or not just makes him really nervous, so instead of taking a neutral stance, he tries hard to convince himself that there's no such thing as Bigfoot.

John's world still revolves around Bigfoot and so one day he decides to join the JREF and BFF for discussion. Proponents on the BFF who suggest that Bigfoot is out there only piss him off so he signs in every day to debate the existence of Bigfoot with proponents and insult and belittle anyone who challenges his fragile belief.

John sounds like a real gold plated *******.

23rd November 2015, 05:28 PM	#242
John Nowak Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2014 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 1,806	Originally Posted by dmaker Yes, I have seen this theory posted at the BFF. It's not hugely popular. I believe Crowlogic used to think this, but has since retreated from that and believes the PGF to be a hoax. Ah, thanks.
	__________________ >Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do. -historian

24th November 2015, 09:56 PM	#245
captain koolaid Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 538	Originally Posted by The Shrike If Patty was the last Bigfoot then the thousands of reports since relatively soon thereafter could not have been bigfoots. This is impossible because DWA said so and his buddy WHO IS A LAWYER agrees. What if Patty was the last Bigfoot and every report after that were of ghosts? That would explain why there are footprints... but with no Bigfoots in them. My theory... Bigfoot ghosts... Think about it.
captain koolaid Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 538	__________________ "Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

24th November 2015, 10:28 PM	#246
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Inland NW Posts: 4,942	Ghosts make footprints??? Can they throw candy, too? Do they show up on thermal imagers?
	__________________ Normal in a weird way.

24th November 2015, 10:55 PM	#247
captain koolaid Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 538	Originally Posted by GT/CS Ghosts make footprints??? Can they throw candy, too? Do they show up on thermal imagers? Dude... Poltergeistfoots. It's the only logical explanation. Think about it.
captain koolaid Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 538	__________________ "Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

24th November 2015, 11:54 PM	#248
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Inland NW Posts: 4,942	Cool. I'm in!
	__________________ Normal in a weird way.

23rd November 2015, 12:19 PM	#241
dmaker Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,738	Originally Posted by John Nowak That would explain a lot. I'm curious - has anyone ever floated the theory that Patty was the last Bigfoot? Yes, I have seen this theory posted at the BFF. It's not hugely popular. I believe Crowlogic used to think this, but has since retreated from that and believes the PGF to be a hoax.

24th November 2015, 05:15 AM	#243
The Shrike Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 5,147	If Patty was the last Bigfoot then the thousands of reports since relatively soon thereafter could not have been bigfoots. This is impossible because DWA said so and his buddy WHO IS A LAWYER agrees.

24th November 2015, 07:17 AM	#244
dmaker Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,738	Exactly! And only trained primatologists could possibly describe with consistency a giant monkey.

25th November 2015, 02:51 AM	#249
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,320	Originally Posted by The Shrike RP: "Well, Bob-ol' buddy, here we are in Bluff Creek, where we've come to film a sasquatch documentary where Ray Wallace has been hoaxing tracks for years." BG: "Yup." RP: "I'm sorry I wasted all but these last few feet of film on scenery and stuff. I think I'll use it all up on some more scenery and stuff." BG: "Yup." RP: "I'm sorry I didn't bother to figure out how to get a guy in a furry suit to play the sasquatch in our movie. I agree with ya that it's pretty lame not to have a sasquatch in our sasquatch mov - - - Holy Frijoles! There's one now! It looks uncannily similar to the one I drew in my bigfoot book a years ago, too!" BG: "Yup." Yup.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,320	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

25th November 2015, 05:31 AM	#250
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,423	Originally Posted by Northern Lights He bounced the check for the rental of the camera for cripes sake. He didn't have money to waste on endless reels of film. Uh huh... Quote: Al brought to Seattle the film of the creature and a great deal of footage that Roger had taken of the waterfalls and trees and various thing like that. The footprint film was supposed to be there but it wasn't. Film of the creature, and a great deal of film of scenery... John Green 1992 interview of Bob Gimlin. Plus, we know that he reloaded the camera for Bob after Patty had walked off, and Bob went looking with the camera. Roger had plenty of film, and had filmed lots of scenery on this trip and other trips, and had used more than one movie camera, iirc.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? Last edited by LTC8K6; 25th November 2015 at 05:33 AM.

25th November 2015, 10:53 AM	#251
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Uh huh... Film of the creature, and a great deal of film of scenery... John Green 1992 interview of Bob Gimlin. Plus, we know that he reloaded the camera for Bob after Patty had walked off, and Bob went looking with the camera. Roger had plenty of film, and had filmed lots of scenery on this trip and other trips, and had used more than one movie camera, iirc. Exactly. Roger had plenty of film with which to film some decoy shots of scenery, and then we get Patty at the end of the reel. It was almost like Roger intended to waste as much film as he could before getting his shot of Patty, because that is exactly what he did. Then there's the mysterious 2nd reel of film that supposedly included all of the casting footage etc. Roger quite obviously had enough film to generally dick about with.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

25th November 2015, 12:55 PM	#252
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Uh huh... Film of the creature, and a great deal of film of scenery... John Green 1992 interview of Bob Gimlin. Plus, we know that he reloaded the camera for Bob after Patty had walked off, and Bob went looking with the camera. Roger had plenty of film, and had filmed lots of scenery on this trip and other trips, and had used more than one movie camera, iirc. I thought that Bigfoot documentaries usually tried to fill up film with pictures of the human hunters' faces showing their amazed reactions to their encounters with alleged Bigfoot activities? "Oh, there is an entire Bigfoot family sitting three feet away but don't turn the camera to them; instead just focus on me telling you what I see." Or, "Oh, now I feel the presence of something big outside the tent. See how scared am!" Sort of The Blair Witch Project. At least showing the empty scenery is an improvement.

27th November 2015, 08:04 PM	#253
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,874	Originally Posted by River Gimlin may have had to sign documents saying he would never tell any of the trade secrets in order to maintain his share of the profits. There may be many reasons why he would. One of them is, why give up the gig until even the "target audience" loses interest. Some are dug in hard. mostly because they have told stories of their own in order to belong to this special club. (and i mean special as in special, not special. lol) After Gimlin passes (or perhaps some time after Mrs Patterson does) some of the family will cash in on the relics or other items of interest that may have escaped the special club publications to date. There is already proof that the thing was a hoax. footers just refuse to admit it. (there are actually many ways to prove their story was bogus) This is one of many. Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome I wouldn't say that Gimlin was uninformed of the situation, but I don't think he was anywhere near to being the brains of the operation, and nor do I believe that he contributed much of anything other than his services for whatever amount of beer-money Roger had promised him. I think Gimlin will likely have been included in whatever preparations went on before the event, but I don't think he'd have been overly interested in them, he just doesn't strike me as someone who gave much of a monkey's either way, other than when he was getting paid and how much moolah he was getting. In the years since the PGF and Rogers' death, Gimlin has become quite the performer, and he's definitely enjoying the role that he adopted in Roger's absence. Every time he tells his story he adds a little more drama to it. Most of all, he knows he has a fan-club, and he knows that this fan-club would champion his every word, regardless. Imo, though, I don't really think Gimlin had much to do with the PGF other than being there, pointing at things, jumping off logs and holding Rogers hand whenever he needed to tinkle in the woods. I don't disagree with either one of you. What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know. And in my opinion, all of Gimlin's crimes have come after the actual filming.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

28th November 2015, 05:26 AM	#254
John Nowak Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2014 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 1,806	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know. I'm inclined to suspect it was test footage for a horror or adventure film.
	__________________ >Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do. -historian

28th November 2015, 08:47 PM	#255
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' . Posts: 18,478	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson I don't disagree with either one of you. What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know. We kicked that idea around a while back.. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1095
	__________________ ‘Trust in Allah but tie up your camel.’

29th November 2015, 02:40 PM	#256
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,874	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg We kicked that idea around a while back.. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1095 You nailed it on the head. I knew it had been brought up before but didn't remember exactly what had been said or decided. It's what makes the most sense I think given who the players are and what has and hasn't happened in the 48 years since.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

29th November 2015, 03:02 PM	#257
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	I think that there are problems with the idea that Patterson decided to run a hoax only after he saw the footage of Patty. How you describe the problems depends on if you believe Heironimus or not, but there are problems either way. The problems begin with the secrecy of the costume and the film development and knowing that there needs to be no secrets at all if your plan is to film a guy in a Bigfoot costume as an acknowledged simulation/recreation of a real Bigfoot. If Heironimus is telling the truth then you can kiss the idea goodbye.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. Last edited by William Parcher; 29th November 2015 at 03:04 PM.

29th November 2015, 03:05 PM	#258
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' . Posts: 18,478	The fact remains, RP was doing the documentary thing, and a decision to try a hoax would have been a logical spawn of that endeavor... Patterson had stars in his eyes...
	__________________ ‘Trust in Allah but tie up your camel.’

29th November 2015, 03:24 PM	#259
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg The fact remains, RP was doing the documentary thing, and a decision to try a hoax would have been a logical spawn of that endeavor... Patterson had stars in his eyes... The stars are in his eyes whether he produced a for-profit documentary (with the costume wearer named in the credits) or a for-profit Bigfoot hoax. It may have been a hoax project right from the beginning. If he was unable to make the costume look realistic (to his satisfaction) on film he could continue trying or just go ahead and use it as a documentary simulation without any lies. Remember that he had a whole crew of actors months earlier in Washington. There is no evidence that he openly told all of them that in a few months he would have a costume ready for the Bigfoot scene and would any of you guys like to audition for that. As it appears to me, he not only tried to fool the world he tried to fool all of his previous actors as well. Hey guys, wait til you hear this. Gimlin and I went to California to film some more scenes for the documentary we all were working on and all of a sudden there was a Bigfoot. I filmed it.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

29th November 2015, 03:38 PM	#260
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,320	Originally Posted by William Parcher <snip> Gimlin and I went to California to film some more scenes for the documentary we all were working on and all of a sudden there was a Bigfoot. I filmed it. This. The documentary was a cover for the hoax. IMHO.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,320	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

29th November 2015, 04:04 PM	#261
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	Quote: Yes, I have seen this theory posted at the BFF. It's not hugely popular. I believe Crowlogic used to think this, but has since retreated from that and believes the PGF to be a hoax. That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle.

29th November 2015, 04:18 PM	#262
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' . Posts: 18,478	Anxiety?
	__________________ ‘Trust in Allah but tie up your camel.’

29th November 2015, 05:09 PM	#263
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle. It's exactly the kind of anxiety people get from declining to accept the existence of Oompa-Loompas. Anyway, I think that most of us never believed in bigfoot. I started off thinking bigfoot was a joke, and never saw a good reason to change my mind.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

29th November 2015, 05:39 PM	#264
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle. Here we go again. Who cares what people used to believe. No one "believes in the non-existence of bigfoot". That makes no sense right there. We do know. No uncertainty, no anxiety. Nothing to handle. No evidence of bigfoot = no bigfoot. Nothing simpler.
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright Last edited by Maurice Ledifficile; 29th November 2015 at 05:41 PM.

29th November 2015, 05:41 PM	#265
John Nowak Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2014 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 1,806	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle. Also, some people come to their senses.
	__________________ >Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do. -historian

30th November 2015, 03:26 AM	#266
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson I don't disagree with either one of you. What I think really happened was it started out as a "legitimate" on-location documentary shoot that somehow turned into the PGF that we know. And in my opinion, all of Gimlin's crimes have come after the actual filming. I'm not too sure if it was originally intended to be the hoax that it became, but if it's true that they were in the process of making the movie at the time, then it's possible that the PGF either came directly from this, or happened as a result of it. I'd like to know more about the intended movie they were making, which, apparently, was later made and released by different people.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

30th November 2015, 03:29 AM	#267
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Anxiety? I think he's projecting.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

30th November 2015, 04:18 AM	#268
Jango Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,688	Originally Posted by William Parcher Here the sole appears to be square at the heel. It is generally regarded as an illusion. http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/062b8a5a.jpg Here the sole appears to be ovoid. It is generally regarded as an illusion http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/f0cf8956.gif Here the toes appear to be flexing upwards. It is generally regarded as not being an illusion. I think it needs to be further examined as being another illusion. http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...psbfc6880a.jpg From an evolutionary perspective I think it is fascinating, but the thing in the pictures looks like a Chewbacca-met-gorilla suit.
	__________________ "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

30th November 2015, 08:32 PM	#269
John Jones Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch That's a common theme with a lot of "skeptics". They go from believing in Bigfoot to suddenly believing in the non-existence of Bigfoot and then back to believing. They never accept the fact that they don't know. The anxiety that uncertainty brings is apparently too much some people to handle. HAHAHAHA! Look what you wrote!
	__________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

30th November 2015, 08:35 PM	#270
John Jones Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131	Originally Posted by Jango From an evolutionary perspective I think it is fascinating, but the thing in the pictures looks like a Chewbacca-met-gorilla suit. You have some expertise in evolution, do you?
	__________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

30th November 2015, 09:32 PM	#271
Jango Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,688	Originally Posted by John Jones You have some expertise in evolution, do you? No, but it doesn't make it any less fascinating to me.
	__________________ "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

1st December 2015, 04:06 AM	#272
John Nowak Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2014 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 1,806	Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome I think he's projecting. That's probably the only explanation. People fly around the world to see wild tigers, lions, or gorillas, but a nine-foot ape is too terrifying to contemplate? What the hell?
	__________________ >Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do. -historian

1st December 2015, 04:57 AM	#273
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome I think he's projecting. Yes.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

1st December 2015, 06:55 AM	#274
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	An example: John Smith is a credulous Bigfoot proponent, but as years go by without any hard evidence, he begins to question his belief more and more. It's worth noting that John isn't the skeptical type. In fact, not knowing whether his favorite idol is real or not just makes him really nervous, so instead of taking a neutral stance, he tries hard to convince himself that there's no such thing as Bigfoot. John's world still revolves around Bigfoot and so one day he decides to join the JREF and BFF for discussion. Proponents on the BFF who suggest that Bigfoot is out there only piss him off so he signs in every day to debate the existence of Bigfoot with proponents and insult and belittle anyone who challenges his fragile belief.

1st December 2015, 07:12 AM	#275
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch An example: John Smith is a credulous Bigfoot proponent, but as years go by without any hard evidence, he begins to question his belief more and more. It's worth noting that John isn't the skeptical type. In fact, not knowing whether his favorite idol is real or not just makes him really nervous, so instead of taking a neutral stance, he tries hard to convince himself that there's no such thing as Bigfoot. John's world still revolves around Bigfoot and so one day he decides to join the JREF and BFF for discussion. Proponents on the BFF who suggest that Bigfoot is out there only piss him off so he signs in every day to debate the existence of Bigfoot with proponents and insult and belittle anyone who challenges his fragile belief. Pay attention. John Smith doesn't exist (like bigfoot). Knowing there is no bigfoot (no evidence of bigfoot = no bigfoot) is not a belief. No one has to try very hard to convince themselves that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence of its existence. This is simple logic a six year old can grasp if they try. Give it a go.
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright