Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

CMcMillan Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:57 am

BurdenOfProof wrote:Even if you prove that bob heironimous wasnt in the suit, you do know that does not therefore prove the PGF is real? You do know that right?

Have i said it proves that PGF is real no?
I have said that the people who believe it is a hoax make just as much crap and don't look at the stories that are told either.
The suit is the issue!
you want show us the BIGFOOT, I say show us the SUIT!!!
stop hiding behind supposed legal issues

Hucksterfoot Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:00 am

CMcMillan wrote:But in the big foot forums the man who says he has the suit or knows about the suit describes the body part as a 1 piece while the man who took a lie detector test named Heironimus described the body part as a 2 piece upper and lower then feet, hands and head. Seems the people who call it a costume can not get their story together. And how come we can't see pictures of this supposed costume more stories just like people accuse footers of creating.

You're the one that can't get it straight.
Heironimus described it as a three piece suit - a head piece, torso, and legs.

The upper part is the torso, and the lower part is like his bigfoot pants :], then the head piece - that makes three parts. Hands and feet attached. Still makes three parts.

The man - Kitakaze - on the bigfoot forum says:

I can tell you now the suit has three main parts: head, torso, legs.

Why don't you just post the link were he describes the body part as a 1 piece ... then quote him saying that it's a 1 piece, like you're claiming. Otherwise, I think you are just being obtuse.

CMcMillan Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:05 am

Hucksterfoot wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:But in the big foot forums the man who says he has the suit or knows about the suit describes the body part as a 1 piece while the man who took a lie detector test named Heironimus described the body part as a 2 piece upper and lower then feet, hands and head. Seems the people who call it a costume can not get their story together. And how come we can't see pictures of this supposed costume more stories just like people accuse footers of creating.
You're the one that can't get it straight.
Heironimus described it as a three piece suit - a head piece, torso, and legs.

The upper part is the torso, and the lower part is like his bigfoot pants :], then the head piece - that makes three parts. Hands and feet attached. Still makes three parts.

The man - Kitakaze - on the bigfoot forum says:
I can tell you now the suit has three main parts: head, torso, legs.
Why don't you just post the link were he describes the body part as a 1 piece ... then quote him saying that it's a 1 piece, like you're claiming. Otherwise, I think you are just being obtuse.

You are the One who can't understand.
So the Feet were attached to the Legs?
So the hands Were attached to the torso?
It was described by the "supposed creator of the suit with the following" The one who said Patterson purchased from him and he asked how to hide the zipper and how to make broader shoulders.
He described it as follows.
Head, One Piece Body, 2 hands, and 2 feet (Not legs) which describes it as 6 pieces do the math.
Then Heironimus descibes the suit as Head, Upper body, Lower Body (Ohh yes you will claim the ellusive He modified the suit)
Also Heironimus said he had to be sewn into the suit?

Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.[59]
Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris "used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967".[60]
Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt."[61] At Bluff Creek he put on "the top."[62] Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back, and into which one stepped.[63]
Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit, but offers no evidence to support this idea.

Heironimus' statements about the multiple pieces and upper torso part is promoted by "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up", a video study of M. K. Davis' enhancement about how the costume is put together. He made the comment that he wore football shoulder pads which, according to Heironimus, explains why the shoulders and arms appear to be out of proportion to the rest of the body. The zipper of the suit was in front and could not have been seen from the back. The position of the zipper would raise a question about Morris' participation or his recollection.

Some skeptics say that Heironimus' arms are too short to match that of a bigfoot and that he was a few inches shorter than the creature on the film, but "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up" explains that the relative position of the elbows and hips are those of a human. Also it has been speculated that the Bigfoot appears to be nearly seven feet tall when Heironimus was only six foot two and Heironimus was also not as bulky as the creature but a suit would prohibit a reasonable comparison.

the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film? - Page 5 Bigfoot-Costume

lets also not forget

Dave Kindlon and the Rick Baker Revelation

I heard this again while working on Gorillas in the Mist at Rick Baker's [studio]. We had just pulled out the old Harry and the Hendersons r/c [radio controlled] head and were talking about "real" Bigfoot sightings. I mentioned the Patterson film and Rick responded, "You know that's a guy in a suit. John Chambers built that around the time of Planet of the Apes." It was common knowledge in the shop from around the time that they were building the "Harry" suits for Harry and the Hendersons

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

I was surprised when I received a call from Rick Baker's studio. The ever-cryptic Baker read my fax and had a reply for me, read to me by someone at his studio: "He [Rick] no longer believes this is true."

What are we to make of this response? That Baker believed it once himself? If he did, what made him change his belief? It did not escape my notice that Baker had still not answered the question of who he heard the information from! Perhaps Baker started a rumor that took on a life of its own, and now doesn't want to deal with it. Or maybe he knew the truth, was not supposed to tell, and is now covering up

CMcMillan Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:46 am

I am again not saying that the PGF is real or Hoaxed.
I am just pointing out that the people who claim it was a Hoax are not looking into all the conflicting stories on how the hoax was created by the very people they say admit that it was a hoax.
I have to say the supposed picture they show up in the one I showed where is the zipper in the front of the suit?
The creator said the zipper was in the front.

Basically the PGF costume comes down to the same issues everyone complains about the Bigfoot. to many excuses on how it was made and where it was made and who did it.
So if your a real skeptic then you need to take in account all the conflicting stories. And all the people trying to cash in on saying it was a hoax.

I think its a nice film but at this point and time where we are it doesn't matter if it was hoaxed or is real.
It will NEVER be fully proven either way.

CMcMillan Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:36 pm

Again you are missing the whole point
THE SUIT costume story has many flaws in it as well
They MAN who said he wore it the suit doesn't fit the descriptions that others have of it the one who supposedly made it.

SO your THIS IS Verified PROOF its not. The Suit is as a mystery as Bigfoot is.
The Skeptics have been looking for this suit just as many years as some have been looking for bigfoot.
But Skeptics claim the suit is real but we don't have actual evidence of the suit just guess WHAT STORIES!!!

CMcMillan Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:15 pm

Again I am not saying it is A real film.
I am saying both sides are inconclusive and present the exact same arguments and same Mystery behind either Big foot or the Costume.
People can take either side both sides knowing that neither side can prove with out a doubt what they are saying is true.

StankApe Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:29 pm

Danny Squatchanini Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:00 pm

Someone mentioned that the alledged suit was in an episode of Rost in Space Wink

. Here is the link-http://www.hulu.com/watch/141#x-0,vepisode,1,0

StankApe Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:10 pm

SasquaiNation Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:12 pm

Danny Squatchanini wrote:Someone mentioned that the alledged suit was in an episode of Rost in Space . Here is the link-http://www.hulu.com/watch/141#x-0,vepisode,1,0

Any links to this that Canadians can watch? Apparently I'm not good enough to view this American site.

Danny Squatchanini Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:03 pm

Can't help you there, Mr. Canadian. Rooks rike your out of ruck. cheers

Hucksterfoot Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:41 pm

CMcMillan wrote:You are the One who can't understand.
So the Feet were attached to the Legs?

Yes, according to Heironimus

CMcMillan wrote:So the hands Were attached to the torso?

Yes, attached to the arms that were part of the torso, according to Heironimus

CMcMillan wrote:It was described by the "supposed creator of the suit with the following" The one who said Patterson purchased from him and he asked how to hide the zipper and how to make broader shoulders.
He described it as follows.
Head, One Piece Body, 2 hands, and 2 feet (Not legs) which describes it as 6 pieces do the math.

I did the math, and already know the Morris suit was a six piece suit - You were the one claiming that it wasn't.

CMcMillan wrote:Then Heironimus descibes the suit as Head, Upper body, Lower Body (Ohh yes you will claim the ellusive He modified the suit)

Yet, you said:

CMcMillan wrote:Phillip Morris (A one Piece costume with a zipper)

CMcMillan wrote:Heironimus described the body part as a 2 piece upper and lower then feet, hands and head. Seems the people who call it a costume can not get their story together.

So. which is it?

CMcMillan wrote:But in the big foot forums the man who says he has the suit or knows about the suit describes the body part as a 1 piece

Still waiting for that link were kitakaze says it was a one piece.

CMcMillan wrote:(Ohh yes you will claim the ellusive He modified the suit)

Again , not my claim ...Heironimus and Morris claim this; I just happen to believe them and all the other collaborating witnesses of the suit.

Hucksterfoot Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:02 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
I have to say the supposed picture they show up in the one I showed where is the zipper in the front of the suit?
The creator said the zipper was in the front.

You won't find the zipper in the front. Morris said the zipper was up the back. Do you actually read the stuff you copy and paste here.

CMcMillan Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:10 pm

Hucksterfoot wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:
I have to say the supposed picture they show up in the one I showed where is the zipper in the front of the suit?
The creator said the zipper was in the front.
You won't find the zipper in the front. Morris said the zipper was up the back. Do you actually read the stuff you copy and paste here.

LOL yes I do.
Since Morris CHANGED is statements several times where the ZIPPER WAS LOL
maybe you should do your own research on what was said and you will see the way it changes.

SO SHOW ME THE COSTUME

***** Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:03 pm

Predisposition and bias has a huge impact on visual interpretation. We truly do, 'See what we want to see.'

I've also seen great arguments from both proponents and the hoax camp. This one we will all probably have to agree to disagree on. Wink

Hucksterfoot Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:03 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
LOL yes I do.
Since Morris CHANGED is statements several times where the ZIPPER WAS LOL
maybe you should do your own research on what was said and you will see the way it changes.
SO SHOW ME THE COSTUME

What good is it, if you have to defend your belief with lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods? Show where Morris (his own words) changed several times where the zipper was.
Do my own research? I'm busy addressing asinine and the nonsensical.

CMcMillan Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:15 pm

Hucksterfoot wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:
LOL yes I do.
Since Morris CHANGED is statements several times where the ZIPPER WAS LOL
maybe you should do your own research on what was said and you will see the way it changes.
SO SHOW ME THE COSTUME
What good is it, if you have to defend your belief with lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods? Show where Morris (his own words) changed several times where the zipper was.
Do my own research? I'm busy addressing asinine and the nonsensical.

Ok So Morris didn't change But the fact that the Supposed person who passed a lie dector test said it was in the front.
Again lets see your PROOF of the suit. SHOW US the Suit and the Hoax. You seem to not be able to do this why?
We have more evidence of Bigfoot than you do of this supposed suit.

http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/philip-morris.htm

When Morris
Two weeks after sending out the costume, Morris got another phone call from Patterson. ``He asked me to send him some extra fur and asked how to hide the zipper in the back and how to make the person in the costume look larger,'' Morris said. ``I told him to brush the fur over the zipper and use hair spray to hold it, and then get some football shoulder pads and sticks for the arms to give the illusion of being taller, and use stuffing to get more bulk.'

mentioned there being a line on the subjects back in the Patterson/Gimlin film and suggested to Long that this was his zipper line on the suit, Long
never said a word about his star "Heironimus" saying that the suit he wore had no zippers or buckles.

Hucksterfoot Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:01 pm

CMcMillan wrote:

Ok So Morris didn't change But the fact that the Supposed person who passed a lie dector test said it was in the front.

You sure Heironimus said that?
Not getting all mix em up with Bigfoot-Sewing it Up are ya?

CMcMillan wrote:Again lets see your PROOF of the suit. SHOW US the Suit and the Hoax. You seem to not be able to do this why?

I never claimed I have proof of the suit. I have enough reasons to believe Heironimus as it is ...and, as I said before, that belief is tentative. Certainly not going to be swayed by fabrications, red herrings, and irrelevant Chambers and Baker rumors.

CMcMillan wrote:We have more evidence of Bigfoot than you do of this supposed suit.

Ya, we have supposed suits all over Yakima, and a posse out to find them.
the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film? - Page 5 Possebf

You wanna play a proof game do ya ...Show us the Bigfoot, the real demonstrable thing. You seem to not be able to do this why?

CMcMillan Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:56 pm

So you can't prove the suit or the film is a HOAX
Everything everyone has said their has been a contradiction of it.
You say you have no reason to doubt Heironimus yet his story doesn't match the suit makers stories.
So who is telling the truth and who is lying?
I don't see you posting any thing to say the film is a Hoax.
Posting pictures of the group of people doesn't show anything. Besides they all knew each other.

BurdenOfProof Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:53 pm

Why does gimlin deny hieronimous being in the area at the time when he clearly was as shown in the pictures?

CMcMillan Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:32 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:Why does gimlin deny hieronimous being in the area at the time when he clearly was as shown in the pictures?

Why does Hieronimous Suit discription not match the supposed creators or the supposed found one?

BurdenOfProof Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:42 pm

Well it might match, it might not, he might have worn the suit he might not have, we dont know, but there is definately a good case for it.

But the question remains why does Gimlin not acknowledge that Hieronimous was there at the time.

***** Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:58 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:Well it might match, it might not, he might have worn the suit he might not have, we dont know, but there is definately a good case for it.

But the question remains why does Gimlin not acknowledge that Hieronimous was there at the time.

Why has the film never been successfully reproduced by a man in a suit? Did Bob have a 41 inch stride, and was he carrying an invisible lumberjack on his back? Have you examined any of Bill Munn's work on this topic?

"Two loggers with no previous gorilla suit experience made a suit that was better than today's state of the art, and certainly light years ahead of the 1967 state of the art. I'm not saying the film's real, I'm saying give credit where credit is due, and admit that if it is a fake, it's astounding. If you disagree then go through a stabilized version frame-by-frame as I have.

The half dozen or so Hollywood special effects artists who have since "come forward" to claim that they were responsible for the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot suit, and the dozens of guys who have "come forward" to claim that they were the guy wearing the suit, are no more evidence against the film than Ray Wallace's wooden feet are evidence that no real Bigfoot footprints exist.

Critics of the film also say that the creature's behavior is unrealistic. I have no knowledge of what a real Bigfoot's behavior might be, but I have encountered bears half a dozen times, and they acted exactly like the Patterson-Gimlin creature: just walked away, unconcerned, with maybe only a look or two back."

Brian Dunning at Skeptoid Media

I don't think Bob Gimlin is concerned with crediting Bob H. with anything after what he's been through because of Bob H's claim to fame. I don't blame him.

BurdenOfProof Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:30 pm

why does the film need to be reproduced?

its impossible, unless we time travel and go back to 1967, but even then and even if patty was real and we convinced her to walk accross the creek... the video would still look completely different.

The lens used, camera set up, film stock, camera angles, horse dismounting / cameraman movement etc, location of subject, movement of subject etc etc.

WAY too many factors.

you want the film reproduced?

well go out and film another bigfoot as patterson supposidly did so easily.

CMcMillan Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:14 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:why does the film need to be reproduced?

its impossible, unless we time travel and go back to 1967, but even then and even if patty was real and we convinced her to walk accross the creek... the video would still look completely different.

The lens used, camera set up, film stock, camera angles, horse dismounting / cameraman movement etc, location of subject, movement of subject etc etc.

WAY too many factors.

you want the film reproduced?

well go out and film another bigfoot as patterson supposidly did so easily.

Why should WE who are not questioning the film do it?
Skeptics should be doing it. Yet they can not replicate the suit! Even with all the Information and supposidly knowing the maker of the suit it can not be matched using the time periods resources.

Sponsored content

the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?