Let's Dissect This Analysis Of The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[James G.]

OK, all let's dissect this analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film. OK, I admit I agree with these scientists. But, all, what do you think?
What do you all think?

I spent a lot of time in zoos years ago, as a young amateur herpetologist. And I knew men who handled Great Apes. And I must agree about how odd those tracks appear to not coincide with the known, identified to science, certain species of gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees.

I'll say that some kind of biped animal, yet unidentified to science.

Once more, all, amateur scientists or whatever, what do you think?

To me, as former horse rider, what's real about this:

The subject of that film, do doubt, has never seen a horse before. Now it sees three of them. It has no idea those four-legged animals are not  predators. Roger Patterson's mount throws him down immediately, on the mere sight of that subject. The pack horse bolts, and runs off. Bob Gimlin's mount rears and retreats, and his horseman skills keep him from being thrown. I know I'm not that good!

Mankind is the only thing that can harm or kill at a distance. The subject knows that. It wants to maintain some distance from those horses. And, as I conclude logically as a scientist, looks back -- as we see in the film -- to ensure those horses aren't advancing.

Horses aren't dumb as people think. If that's a person in a suit, I'd be very surprised a horse would react like that. Very Surprised. These men are cowboys and cavalrymen, and they learned to trust their mounts. Why, all of a sudden, are these horses panicking? Over a man in a suit?

Hardly.:


Bigfoot - Sasquatch evidence analysis

[The General]

It's just frustrating that all the evidence is so circumstantial.  Grainy film, plaster casts that can be faked, witnesses with stories that can't be proven.  Where are all the Sasquatch bodies?  Bones?  Show me a dead Sasquatch and I'll believe the Patterson film.  Really, I do want to believe, but that doesn't make it real.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

And what does Sasquatch think of the evidence so far? 


Harry Laughing

[James G.]

It's just frustrating that all the evidence is so circumstantial.  Grainy film, plaster casts that can be faked, witnesses with stories that can't be proven.  Where are all the Sasquatch bodies?  Bones?  Show me a dead Sasquatch and I'll believe the Patterson film.  Really, I do want to believe, but that doesn't make it real.

Yes, General, it can be frustrating. I agree. Yet, I have woods surrounding my home that are full of squirrels.

Yet, explore those woods. You won't find any dead squirrels -- other than road kills. You won't find any bones or any evidence these animals exist. Nature tends to take care of its own.

As nuts as I sound, please recall this account from Fred Beck. Now, he may have been some delusional person. But he describes the Sasquatch as some creature that assumes a physical shape and then assumes a spiritual shape.

But, General, I agree with your rationale as a scientist. It makes no sense that we have no real evidence. So, maybe, this may be true. It would make a great discussion on Coast To Coast AM, if that program would make sense. As it doesn't anymore.

I hope this link holds up:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

What do you all think of what this 'ole boy from the backwoods says? And I've known a lot of 'ole boys.'

[James G.]

And what does Sasquatch think of the evidence so far? 


Harry Laughing

That's the late Micheal Peter Hall. He died after contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion sustained after an automobile accident. Although he stood nearly seven-foot-two inches (as a former collegiate basketball player once spotted in Los Angeles by a Hollywood film maker), he lacked the body mass to pose as a Bigfoot. Hence his costume. Now, look into the late Mr. John Chambers.

He once worked with Mr. Richard Keil (roughly six-foot seven inches), and Mr. James Gregory (roughly six-foot-two inches). And Mr. Chambers worked with the late Mr. Ted Cassidy (roughly six-foot-eight inches -- the proverbial Lurch from the Addams Family; note the wire frame to make him appear broader). See Mr. Cassidy "stripped down" in Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969) as Harvey. Scrawny, isn't he?

John Chambers costumed Mr. James Gregory (a scrawny, middle-age white man -- Inspector Luger in the "Barney Miller" sitcom years later) in "Beneath The Planet Of the Apes." As General Urus. And making Gregory appear massive. And, by the time he was done with the costume, it weighed nearly 120 pounds. And Chambers tried the nude, "sauna" scene with Mr. Gregory trying to match the Patterson-Gimlin film. And he admitted he failed. Because there's muscular that he couldn't duplicate.

And that was why, as Mr. Chambers explained, the gorillas in those movies had to wear clothes.

Now, look at the Patterson-Gimlin film. That subject is nude.

Call me a nut and I admit I can be wrong, but I feel that's some animal.

[C110]

I think the Patterson film is a fake.  Sorry to say that.   I wanted it to be for real.   The first time I saw the Patterson film was as a kid on the tv series In Search Of hosted by Leonard Nemoy.  I believed the footage then but as I got older I began to think it was all a hoax.   Much like the Travis Walton abduction case,  it didn't take much time searching the internet to realize this was also a hoax.

[James G.]

That's the late Micheal Peter Hall.

Journalist correction: His name was Kevin Peter Hall. A former collegiate basketball player turned "movie monster." Because of his height. He was the first black man I've heard of that has done that. Now, the stout Michael Clarke Duncan (but only six-foot-five inches) was costumed as a Gorilla in The Planet Of The Apes (2001). But Hall was less broad, although taller than Duncan -- and the white actors like Mr. Richard Kiel, James Gregory, or and the late Mr. Ted Cassidy (see below) who preceeded him. (Note: The late Mr. Cassidy is listed as six-foot, nine inches. Also: note additional credit: Star Trek, 1966, What Are Little Girls Made Of?, as Ruk. Note the wire-frame costume to make him appear broader.

Hall portrayed Harry -- as seen in the video, and also costumed as the alien seen in Predator (1987). I had to cheat and look it up on the internet. Us old-timers shouldn't do that.

But note all, despite the costume, he still has human proportions. Although that's a Bigfoot costume, the arms are too short and the legs too long to match the Patterson-Gimlin subject. And his costume lacks muscular. In my view. Having been around Great Apes. I'll say that.

I do my best to correct errors of information. Thanks for your patience, all.

[James G.]

I think the Patterson film is a fake.  Sorry to say that.   I wanted it to be for real.   The first time I saw the Patterson film was as a kid on the tv series In Search Of hosted by Leonard Nemoy.  I believed the footage then but as I got older I began to think it was all a hoax.   Much like the Travis Walton abduction case,  it didn't take much time searching the internet to realize this was also a hoax.

Yes, as the wildlife biologist accurately points out in the video link in my original post, it can't be proved or disproved one way or another. So, I conclude as an amateur scientist, it all hinges on the power of belief.

I know reliable anthropologists who visited the Bluff Creek site within a few years, and took matching photographs of the same landmarks seen in the film. And superimposed the transparencies. Such estimated the height of the subject at seven-feet, three inches. Now, if so, as I believe, how many of us know some 'ole boy who stands seven-foot-three, and has the body mass to costume and relate such musculature?

Thanks for your reply. And thanks for doubting it. We want the real answers to our world. If we all agreed on everything, our quest for knowledge and truth would never advance.

[anagrammy]

The most recent evidence, plus the horse reactions, have convinced me this film is authentic. 

Horses have to be able to identify a predator; otherwise, they would never have survived.  They are extremely uncomfortable around any animal that is unidentified.  One time, I was riding an Arabian up out of a wild area onto a rural street in front of a llama breeding facility.  That mare immediately reared and bolted upon seeing a horse-like creature with a long neck and a tiny head--to a horse who had never seen one, a monster.  Imagine running into a human with a long neck and a tiny head at the top.  You would run screaming too.  Those horses would not even look up if it were a man wearing a suit.

Using the latest techniques, the documentary showed that the creature has a hernia on its leg.  The hernia protrudes at the right time when the underlying muscle moved.  It was replayed several times with the comments of various animal and photography experts.

I am going to hunt down the name of the documentary for y'all, but I couldn't wait to post this for you thirsty cypto fans.

Anagrammy

[C110]

Anagrammy, wouldn't a man in a bigfoot costume also scare a horse.  I know it varies from horse to horse but some horses can be spooked by a hat blowing of the rider's head to a piece of trash blowing in the wind.  To me the film clip seems staged regardless of the horse's reaction.  Again.... I wish it was the real deal. 

[anagrammy]

Good question about the balloon.  A balloon is an unnatural object but it only scares horses if it is nearby, i.e., perceived as a clear and present danger (LOL).  Trainers get them over it easy enough by the technique of flooding.  They have them everywhere for a few days and then on their backs and both sides and moving and still, etc.  Until they get the idea.

A horse seeing something unfamiliar close up will tend to bolt; however, that same llama at a distance would not cause alarm.  It would be an unusual smell, but not close enough to cause alarm.  Now, we understand Bigfoot is a stinker--has a strong pungent smell which would be completely unfamiliar to the horses.  There were a lot of trees, which means the creature would just look like a moving object of some kind, so you know the horse was relying on smell. 

Man smell is familiar, no reaction because it's a walking man relatively far away (even if dressed weirdly)
Bigfoot is unfamiliar, big reaction

Also, sometimes horses, like cattle, are overcome by curiosity, but ONLY if the novelty item is still.  Temple Grandin showed this in her book and movie about animal behavior.  I once brought some students in to see the horses, one of which was a very young gelding, unbroken.  He had never seen a black human being and was absolutely in love with this girl.  Wherever she moved, he went too.

One of the reasons people found horses so useful is that they (horses) could recognize danger by smell long before a human could.

Anagrammy

PS.  The Patterson film is getting more street cred these days as later films seem to show the same type creature, same build, same gait.  I'm hoping this is one mystery that may be solved during my lifetime.

[b_dubb]

i always thought this photographic evidence was pretty compelling.  i saw a documentary in the last year or two where they discussed the possibilty that it was a guy in the suit.  they didn't make a slam dunk case to debunk the film but it made me wonder. 

if that was a guy on horseback who filmed this footage, that horse must have been trangquilized because i have used a 16mm film camera before and it isn't easy to get a steady shot if you're standing on the ground.  but on a horse?  no way.  you'd be all over the place.  and unless you were standing around with your camera ready to go - as in finger on the button and camera in hand - it would be really difficult to respond to something like this quick enough to get any footage.  not to say this is bullshit (staged) but it makes me wonder.

bottom line (for me): i'm just not sure.  but i think it's a pretty amazing piece of film.  has anyone tried to reproduce similar footage with technology that was available in the late 60's?  that would be a pretty interesting experiment.  maybe one for Mythbusters

[James G.]

bottom line (for me): i'm just not sure.  but i think it's a pretty amazing piece of film.  has anyone tried to reproduce similar footage with technology that was available in the late 60's?  that would be a pretty interesting experiment.  maybe one for Mythbusters

Yes, Mr. John Chambers tried to reproduce the level of "nudity" seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film during his costuming tasks for "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" (Studio Financier: 20th Century Fox, 1970) with the "sauna scene" with Mr. James Gregory (playing a Gorilla) and Mr. Maurice Evans (playing an Orangutan).

And he admitted he failed trying it. And stated his own efforts -- as the best monster creator in Hollywood on the late late 1960s -- looked too fake.

The late Mr. Chambers admitted that if he'd built that costume, he'd accepted credit for it. 

[b_dubb]

And he admitted he failed trying it. And stated his own efforts -- as the best monster creator in Hollywood on the late late 1960s -- looked too fake.

but did he film it?  something that looks like crap in person can start to look realistic on film.  the human eye is a really amazing optical device.  cameras - even really good ones - are inferior in their capacity to capture light, shadow, details. so something could look more believable on film than if you were standing there looking at something with your own eyes

[James G.]

A horse seeing something unfamiliar close up will tend to bolt; however, that same llama at a distance would not cause alarm.  It would be an unusual smell, but not close enough to cause alarm.  Now, we understand Bigfoot is a stinker--has a strong pungent smell which would be completely unfamiliar to the horses.  There were a lot of trees, which means the creature would just look like a moving object of some kind, so you know the horse was relying on smell. 

Man smell is familiar, no reaction because it's a walking man relatively far away (even if dressed weirdly)
Bigfoot is unfamiliar, big reaction

Anagrammy: Good, intelligent, scientific comment. I feel the sense of strong body odor spooked the horses, more than what it could ever do from a man wearing a suit.

[b_dubb]

the horse was spooked?  i'm not convinced.  the shot is very stable for a handheld camera.  i don't think you could get a decent shot like this if you were on a horse let alone a spooked horse.  that film was shot in the 60's.  focus by hand.  lot's of fine motor movements.  with a heavy piece of equipment (camera). 

[anagrammy]

Wow.  That's true--if one horse bolts and rears the other one will, at the very least, back up.  It's inconceivable that one horse would remain motionless while the other went nuts. 

It almost seems like the camera was on a tripod, which means staged. 

Then what about the "hernia" and musculature that the experts claimed they saw? What do you think?

Anagrammy

[guildnavigator]

the horse was spooked?  i'm not convinced.  the shot is very stable for a handheld camera.  i don't think you could get a decent shot like this if you were on a horse let alone a spooked horse.  that film was shot in the 60's.  focus by hand.  lot's of fine motor movements.  with a heavy piece of equipment (camera). 

I always thought that he fell off or somehow quickly dismounted the horse and then steadied himself on a log a few yards ahead of him. I seem to remember this from one of the many bigfoot documentaries i've come across.

[b_dubb]

@ Ana ... re: anatomical details ... i don't see a lot of detail in that film.  i'm talking 'fine' detail.  i think those parts of the anatomy could be a happy accident or a projection on the part of the viewer

@ guildNav ... i don't see how you could be thrown from a horse and then magically retrieve your gear from said horse and set up to shoot a subject all within a few minutes

i'm not saying this film is bogus.  i'm just asking questions. 

there was a documentary where a very tall guy who knew Patterson claimed that was him in a costume.  he also demonstrated an elongated, almost eliptical stride that he said he used in the film.  again ... doesn't prove the film to be a hoax but raises some questions
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-15814.html

Bob Heironimus walking with Patty beside him
btw - i was watching that youtube clip while listening to the new radiohead album.  fitting

Sasquatch Bigfoot Attack (Part 1)
i wouldn't wear a bigfoot costume even if i had body armor.  kerpow ... kerpow ... me dead.  not that funny.  for me. 

[James G.]

Bob Heironimus

Enough said. Remember that in the United States, you can't libel the dead like Roger Patterson.

Bob Heironimus is a joke. He is "reverse engineering" that walk, as I can do, too.

He is a fraud. I never liked Bob Heironimus. He was not in some suit. Where's tht suit, buddy boy? Where? Mr. John Chambers of Hollywood would have paid good money for it. Good money. With the backing of 20th Century Fox Pictures. Good money for that "suit."

If Roger Patterson was some fake, he'd have sold his creation to 20th Century Fox Pictures for good money. But that supposed suit never showed up in motion pictures. Ever.

From what i heard, 20th Century Fox Pictures contacted Roger Patterson after its people saw that film. Wanting to buy that costume from him. Patterson told them: "It wasn't a suit. If not, I'd have sold it to you."

So, Bob Heironimus can sue me if he feels he has the "truth." Good luck proving it. I care not about some polygraph, because that is not admissible evidence.

Bob Heironimus is a fake and a fraud. And a liar.

Besides, he stands only six-foot five. That subject has been reliably measured at seven-foot-three. I saw Bob Heironimus fake film overlay, which has put the subject in smaller reference. To make himself appear taller.

Bob Heironimus is a fraud. And that's that. All he wants is to make money off something, because he is a failure in life. Trust me. He is made of nothing. He only seeks to profit off something because he thinks he can.

As the current Coast To Coast AM practices these days. Making money, no matter what the integrity of what is truth in this world. Money. And that's that.

[b_dubb]

If Roger Patterson was some fake, he'd have sold his creation to 20th Century Fox Pictures for good money. But that supposed suit never showed up in motion pictures. Ever.

that suit would've been proof the film is a fraud and was probably destroyed long ago - if there WAS a suit.  i hear what you're saying about the special effects guy.  the film looks convincing.  but as i've said before a 16 mm film camera doesn't compare to the human eye.  the camera is imperfect and as such it could hide flaws in the suit. 


i'm not saying it's a hoax.  i'm just saying that given my knowledge of film, cameras and camera equipment that the story and the film are a little too good to be true. 


sincerely,


devil's advocate

[MV/Liberace!]

i thought one of the guys involved in this film came out and admitted the whole thing to be a hoax.  i saw an interview in which he said it.

[guildnavigator]

i thought one of the guys involved in this film came out and admitted the whole thing to be a hoax.  i saw an interview in which he said it.

I think I saw this, was he the one who said he was actually the guy in the suit?

Some TV program called "greatest hoaxes revealed" or something like that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b_dubb]

The Worlds Greatest Hoaxes : Secrets finally revealed (PART 1)

[aldousburbank]

I think I saw this, was he the one who said he was actually the guy in the suit?

Look closely, it's George Noory before his laser hair removal phase.  Simple creeptozoology really.

[Agent : Orange]

Lance Henrikson ftw

[anagrammy]

What about the breasts?  My first impression was that it was a costume too, but breasts?  And what about the hernia on the leg?

Anagrammy

PS. Has anyone independently investigated the Patterson connection with the TV production company?

[b_dubb]

the supposed connection with the production company is - in my mind - a smoking gun.  that's motive and means in my opinion.  as for the anatomical features of the film?  i don't know.  maybe they decided to go with breasts because they could fake a female bigfoot as females tend to be smaller than the males of the species.  the critter in this film is supposed to be around 7.5 feet tall which isn't far off from Romney's actual height.  and people are terrible at estimating size at a distance

[anagrammy]

This is the part that freaks me out--the breasts.  It freaks me because of the way they move naturally when the creature turned to look over its shoulder.  WHen you turn at the waist, the breasts turn also, and that's just what they did.  If it were a man in a suit with breasts, he would turn at the waist and the breasts would still face the front because they are not attached to the muscle.

Replay the video and tell me what you think.  The circumstantial evidence points to a fake, if it can be independently confirmed, but the breasts...?

Anagrammy

[b_dubb]

i think the breast point to a circumcised fake

i'll re-watch and reconsider. more later