Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread
Subject: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: flitchers17ny posted Mon, Dec 22 2003, 6:11pm 
what are everyones thoughts on this? Didn't one of the men that shot that film admit it was his mother in a suit on his death bed? or was that someone else?
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Cisco posted Mon, Dec 22 2003, 7:53pm 
A guy's mother used a suit supplied by a Hollywood costume artist and ran around in the woods in front of Patterson, the dupe, while Gimlin, who was "in" on it, was the one to lead Patterson to hoax. Well anyways this is the substance of the misinformation being fed to the public. Oh yea, and there were no bigfoots until Ray Wallace ran around in wooden feet. Ray Wallace launched the Legend. Yep. Thats what happened. Believe the Media - They Are Your Friends.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: flitchers17ny posted Mon, Dec 22 2003, 10:01pm 
yeah thats right, Ray Wallace, I didn't believe that, because there have been reports of yeti/Sasquatch type cases for hundreds of years. old Indian tales and what not. I guess. but about the guys mother was the one for the Patterson-gimlin film, I read that somewhere and I wasn't sure if it was referring to that tape.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Cisco posted Mon, Dec 22 2003, 10:40pm 
Actually the Wallace family never claimed their mother, or any of them, were in a suit in the Patterson film. Thats something the media has added onto the story.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Panthera posted Mon, Dec 22 2003, 8:30pm 
I've heard they've re-evaluated that one and the evidence is turning back toward authentic.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: G Man posted Tue, Dec 23 2003, 5:52am 
It's at least a very good hoax for the time. It's still very controversial. I think that there are some costume people that want to believe that a suit like that could have been made in 1969. It's been analyzed to death and some prominent scientists, such as the late Grover Krantz believe(ed) the film is authentic.

I think that some younger people look at this and say hoax right away, but I think it was pretty incredible to pull this off over 30 years ago.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Jerry D. Coleman posted Tue, Dec 23 2003, 6:19am 
Actually he never admitted anything on his death bed in reference to Bigfoot. I'd guess he had a few more things going on in his head at the time.
Later though, a relative released a statement to the press that Wallace indeed hoaxed the tracks he'd found, but nothing to do at all with the Patterson film. This may be your source of confusion, i.e. Wallace / Patterson / Gimlin / Chambers, conspiracy some promote. Somewhat surprised Lee Harvey Oswald's not in the mix somewhere.
Who knows........
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Kimberly posted Tue, Dec 23 2003, 3:54pm 
Lee Harvey Oswals may not have been mentioned by name, but a little known fact...he's the guy in the ape suit!LOL!

Kimberly
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: eddi posted Tue, Dec 23 2003, 10:16pm 
Lee Harvey Oswald was already dead when the PG Film was shot, he died in '63, the PG film was shot around '66.

The plot thickens.................
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Gerry Bacon posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 8:02am 
Maybe it isn't an ape suit at all. Maybe it's video footage of a young Janet Reno.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Will Duncan posted Tue, Dec 23 2003, 9:57am 
There are quite a few biomechanical experts and anthropologists by now who have examined it and believe it to be authentic. There a few scientists who have looked at it in detail and question it, but in my experience it's been mostly the other way. It's usually people without detailed knowledge of the biomechanics of gait who automatically dismiss it.

A few years ago a lot of creedence was given to reports, which seem to have arisen from Jon Landis (the former Mr. Barbara Streisand), that a Hollywood special effects expert made the costume used in the PG Film. Investigator Bobbie Short tracked the man down in a nursing home and he denied the whole thing.

The major BF investigators (Green, Krantz, Dahinden, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Bayanov, Bourtsev) generally consider the film to be authentic.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Cisco posted Tue, Dec 23 2003, 8:48pm 
If elephants were unknown creatures and someone video taped them and showed it on tv, the same people would say "Ha! What a hoax. Its so obvious its fake". Many people don't come to conclusions by logic, but rather by beliefs.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Jerry D. Coleman posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 6:40am 
Hey Will,
Personally, I think too much of a to-do is made about the entire Patterson film. Lets say it's authentic, put that in our pockets and go forward in the search. Lets say it's a hoax and file it away and go forward in the search. Either way if your interest for the existence of Bigfoot remains you should go forward in the search, no other sum can come from the equation.

I'm assuming what you state about John Landis refers to the Mark Chorvinsky interviews, at least in part, now should we take Mr. Landis' statements as some kind of fact, I think not.

So is there no Bigfoot? Chambers, Wallace, Patterson, Gimlin and even Landis can join this parade: guilty by association, possible by opportunity and written off due to past hoaxes, plan does not work for me.

Is there a Bigfoot? Researchers I choose not to name theorize and / or claim and present evidence that would not stand up in the weakest of small claims court cases: Folklore and tales, old commercial packaging, un-named eyewitnesses, total speculation about Bigfoot, plan does not work for me either.

Ego’s and the controversy have seemingly taken over the search, becoming counter-productive in ever respect . It’s one thing for us to chit-chat about Bigfoot’s sex life or wonder if the beast can see colors on an open forum for entertainment and direction but to log such things in a book or debate such theory’s as some kind of fact wastes all our efforts and continues to drive good people into a hole they dare not peek from and into the field.

After so many years of replaying the same debate or seeing the reaction to their theory’s, one would think a rational person would go out into the field and actually try to find something fresh, new and or at least, at the very least anything that may collaborate a few of their past statements, rather than pouring more and more sensationalism into this unknown and yet discovered Cryptid.

It’s a new millennium, this generation is better informed than mine was, this generation has knowledge at their fingertips, mine didn’t and this generation just aren’t buying books as fact or Television as gospel.

I think it’s well overdue to stop this madness, perpetrated by so few that effects so many. They need to stop dreaming up controversy from behind the keyboard and hit the trail. I know for a fact a couple gents that couldn’t even set-up a tent or catch a fish, don’t even ask if they could keep a fire going all night, but I’ll give them this, they sure can spell big words.

Will, I am on your side! Read between the lines, oh and those names you named , of what I know, I respect them all for their true logic and knowledge.

Merry Christmas to all,

Jerry
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: ocean_angel posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 8:08am 
I think it is possible the Patterson sighting could go both ways. Of corse it's possible it could be a fake, but on the other hand what proof do we have to say so? What fasinates me about this footage is that no matter what you think about the sighting (true or false) - you know deep down it's a possibility you could be staring right at the creature humans have wondered about for so very long.

I've seen the footage many times but does anyone know where I can find it online?
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Jerry D. Coleman posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 2:13pm 
I saw on another forum talk about Beckjord offering first generation footage of the Patterson film on E-bay for one million dollars, but it does include Free Shipping! Really I saw that.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: finbar posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 12:59pm 
hmmm? so i guess i shouldn't post my is bigfoot christian or jewish? question to the forum, then...
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Jerry D. Coleman posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 1:53pm 
LMAO, Finbar ya kill me!
But everyone knows Bigfoot is a mutant atheist ferret or was, it will be revealed as such in my new book due out next Wednesday after 4 long and laborious months looking deep into this phenomena, entitled "Born Again Bigfoot, the Second Coming!"
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: evolver posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 2:45pm 
I was always under the impression that bigfoot was a Budhist. Thanks' Jerry, for clearing that up for me.

Roy, for whom it' all making sense,now
Subject: Re: Jerry and Fin...
From: Ella posted Wed, Dec 24 2003, 3:49pm 
I'm literally gasping for breath and rolling on the floor. I have good medical insurance with my employer, but it covers only 80 per cent plus a deductible. If I develop a strangulated hernia from hysterically laughing and unable to stop, guess what? I'm gonna send yall my medical bill for my hospitalization and hernia surgery, the part my insurance says I have to pay out of my own pocket. So be advised.

Oh yeah--IMO, Patty was the real deal, all right.
Subject: Re: Jerry and Fin...
From: Lord Nerevar posted Thu, Dec 25 2003, 1:39pm 
They aired that thing on the Discovery channel or wherever it was the other day again where they show the 3-D animation of the skeleton of the creature in the film and I got to say, once again, that particular show still looks like a crock. I still don't think their animation looks like how the "creature" in the film is moving.

And I dunno, to me the thing just doesn't look real. They claim the stupid bulge in the leg goes toward proving authenticity, but I still think that's crap too. Could've been padding, who knows? And the casual looking back "it" did just looks phoney to me, I'm sorry. I want to believe there's large primates out there as yet to be discovered like a lot of people, but to me the film is fake.

As far as not being able to make a suit back then that "real", please, they stuck a man on the moon then someone sure could have come up with a stupid ape suit that was better than usual.
Subject: Re: Jerry and Fin...
From: Cisco posted Thu, Dec 25 2003, 4:39pm 
> And the casual looking back "it" did just looks phoney to me

Actually just about all animals I have spooked in the wild have done a "look back" while running off, except for animals like ducks and rabbits.
Subject: Re: Jerry and Fin...
From: Gerry Bacon posted Fri, Dec 26 2003, 5:45am 
Even rabbits will often run a little ways and stop. I think, like Cisco says, may animals either look back or loop around. They don't want to lose track of you and they aren't willing to leave their home territory if they don't have to. I've had instances while trailing deer where, after jumping them several times, just moving off the trail a few yards and have them circle back around to check up on me. To me, Patti's looking back is not at all strange and in fact, is to be expected.

Gerry
Subject: Re: If I were Patty, I'd look back.
From: Ella posted Fri, Dec 26 2003, 7:18am 
And she looks totally real to me....because (sez me) she WAS! I'm sure she's gone to that big forest in the sky by now, but hopefully she left some furball posterity.

A good site to check is out is that of M. K. Davis, the photography expert. He spoke in 2002 and 2003 (June) at Chester's Southern Crypto Conferences too. If I had not been a believer before I heard and saw his presentation in June 2002, I would have walked out convinced that Patty lived.
Subject: Re: If I were Patty, I'd look back.
From: Cisco posted Sun, Dec 28 2003, 12:33pm 
Theres a theory that Bigfoots that have been seen were male Bigfoots that came out to try to scare away or draw off the human from a female bigfoot that had a baby. In the Freeman film it looks like the male bigfoot is walking away from a mother bigfoot with a baby in its arms. Seems to me he's trying to draw off the human. I know some birds will do the same thing. The mother will fly to the ground and act injured in an attempt to get the predator to chase it, away from the nest.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: (profile name not found) posted Thu, Dec 25 2003, 3:32pm 
Ayep. Chew the fat about Patty all you want. It's fun and so forth, but proves nothing. Only thing that will, is for somebody that really knows what they're doing, and has both the time and money, to get out there and get some REAL evidence.

McCall - who thinks Jerry just about nailed it
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Schlitz posted Thu, Dec 25 2003, 7:03pm 
I believe the show that Lord Nerevar was referring to was called Sasquatch-legend meets science. Here is the BFRO's link on the program. http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Gerry Bacon posted Fri, Dec 26 2003, 5:49am 
Well McCall, after I win that 125 mill tonight, I'll be getting in touch with you and a few others and we'll be off in search of the Great Wooley One. Pathfinder has the beer, we'll have you pick up the Scotch and while Mr. Coleman pokes around in the woods, the three of us will guard the camp.

Gerry - with fingers crossed
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Lord Nerevar posted Fri, Dec 26 2003, 4:09pm 
I know animals will turn and look, but it still just looks phoney to me, much as the later film of a creature running across the hills looks just as fake to me. To me there just looks like SOMEthing artificial about it.
Subject: Re: Patterson-Gimlin film
From: Yuuki_Hizoku posted Mon, Dec 29 2003, 9:58am 
Patty once bought an eye contact from me, so...


Close Window