the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

[quote="CMcMillan"][quote="Hucksterfoot"]

CMcMillan wrote:

But John Chambers didn't make it did he?
we have 3 stories of WHO made it.
John Chambers (in his death bed said he didn't make it wasn't involved and when they asked Rick Baker about it he admitted he was wrong that Chambers never said he made it)
Phillip Morris (A one Piece costume with a zipper)
Bob Heironimus (saying that the suit was homemade from some skinned animal like a bear, described it as a 2 piece costume No zipper)

SO the skeptics have just as many excused for the film and the suit as the believers.

First of all, I never said John Chambers made Patterson's monkey suit; Chambers did the Planet of the Apes makeup. The point: this kind of detail was not needed for the job.
By the way, the Phillip Morris suit was not a one piece suit, and Heironimus mentioned a three piece suit. It's a red herring anyways; Patterson modified the suit. Plus, dead red horse not a bear.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/man_who_sold_bigsuit/

six pieces: head, body (a back-zippered fake-fur torso with arms and legs), and a pair of glove hands and latex feet.

[quote="Hucksterfoot"][quote="CMcMillan"]

Hucksterfoot wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:

But John Chambers didn't make it did he?
we have 3 stories of WHO made it.
John Chambers (in his death bed said he didn't make it wasn't involved and when they asked Rick Baker about it he admitted he was wrong that Chambers never said he made it)
Phillip Morris (A one Piece costume with a zipper)
Bob Heironimus (saying that the suit was homemade from some skinned animal like a bear, described it as a 2 piece costume No zipper)

SO the skeptics have just as many excused for the film and the suit as the believers.

First of all, I never said John Chambers made Patterson's monkey suit; Chambers did the Planet of the Apes makeup. The point: this kind of detail was not needed for the job.
By the way, the Phillip Morris suit was not a one piece suit, and Heironimus mentioned a three piece suit. It's a red herring anyways; Patterson modified the suit. Plus, dead red horse not a bear.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/man_who_sold_bigsuit/

six pieces: head, body (a back-zippered fake-fur torso with arms and legs), and a pair of glove hands and latex feet.

But you missing and ignoring the other "statements" People said Chambers made it.
Show me where Phillip Morris suit wasn't stated to be a one piece since Morris said specifically that he got a call on how to hid the Zipper and to make the shoulders wider.
So your ignoring the different stories and doing what skeptics claim bigfooters do. making stuff up with all the different stories.

CMcMillan wrote:
But you missing and ignoring the other "statements" People said Chambers made it.

Who cares about the Chamber rumors; Chambers denied it. Plus, if he did make it, guess that would have been the same suit Opal Heironimus, Willa Smith, John Miller and Bob Hammermeister saw in the trunk of the blue Buick, right?
Phillip Morris is the only person who claimed to have sold a suit to Patterson, and Bob Heironimus is the only person who claimed to wear that Patterson modified suit.

CMcMillan wrote:
Show me where Phillip Morris suit wasn't stated to be a one piece since Morris said specifically that he got a call on how to hid the Zipper and to make the shoulders wider.

I already did ...and yes, he did get a call about that zipper on the torso.

Heironimus said the suit had a Upper body and lower.
In that article they don't talk about an Upper body and lower body.

About August 1967 (Morris recalled in a 2002 interview on Charlotte radio), he sold one of his gorilla suits to Roger Patterson, who used it in his famous hoaxed Bigfoot film on October 20 of that year. Morris informs that his suit was made in six pieces: head, body (a back-zippered fake-fur torso with arms and legs), and a pair of glove hands and latex feet. Patterson may have seen the Morris ad for gorilla suits in Amusement Business magazine, says Morris (whom I have talked with on several occasions, and whose lecture on the subject I attended at the Society of American Magicians convention in Buffalo on July 17, 2009).

Seriously do your research. On the conflicting stories that Heronimus said.

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.

Amazing how the stories don't match!!

Oh its amazing how you they say well Patterson modified it. Or such.
Well that is just as an amazing story much like you people claim that big footers have.

Here Show me the proof!! Show me the actual Costume with all these supposed modifications and horse skin added to one he paid for.

Edit:
I am not saying the Patterson film is "valid" but I am saying that the whole costume is just as big a mystery that the film is. And it has lots of stories around it as well.

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH wrote:I think the P/G film is the ONLY legit film of Bigfoot ever taken. I respect the hell out of Dr. Meldrum, but I just can't take Paul Freeman's "Oh! There he goes!" footage seriously, as Meldrum DOES. I'm a staunch believer in Bigfoot, but I am skeptical about EVERY piece of footage EXCEPT the Patterson/Gimlin film. Your thoughts? Any films you believe ARE real footage? If so, can you provide links?

The Patterson-Gimin film will be scrutinized for eternity. The footage is real, but no way to 100% prove it either way based on viewing alone. remember- no one has been able to duplicate this film in either, suit design, movement of creature, or similar type of footage. Say what you want but the fact is the creature has presevered the test of time.The original was held by Mrs. P and on a documentary, I believe the name is Munnis? was able to take the original and make digital copy, which showed much improved clarification, which was further evidence of the footage's legitimacy. And this guy worked for the movies and he built the monkey suits and he agreed with the film's authenticity. But of course the footage is open for interruption and with that can be a much heated debate as evident on this forum. Opposition to the film is well-deserved and welcomed, these important points must be debated, which make the job of believers that much harder. Critics make very interesting points (for the most part), which must be investigated and not ignored. all aspects of facts not *circumstantial* evidence. Points brought up about how Mr. P needed money and he didn't take his camera out till the third day, and he drew pictures in his book of a female, does nothing to take away credibility from the film. As believers you must have thick-skin and not let personal insults so easily offend one.
So what else can we look at as believers, as tangible evidence to further solidify that bigfoot is a real creature. Well for one the footprints, which of course we all know cast were made by B. Timus as well pictures by the timber company showing pronounced pressure ridge in the mid tarsal region, on this fact Im almost positive, G. Kranz was the first scientist to confirm this fact later in the 1970's. The depth of the tracks- they were deeper than the horse and rider, which equated roughly to around 1200 lbs. i have yet to hear a legitimate argument to dispel this fact. So just based on these two facts alone, this is very compelling evidence, which would be impossible for a monkey-man to duplicate. not to mention the long arm-length, which surpasses any human demension. As well, on simple observation the huge mass and girth of this creature is undeniable. the massive arms, back, thighs, and legs. When human comparison was placed side-by-side, the size differential was evident. The technology in the late 60's was simple not there to fabricate this creature. I've heard all the buzz surrounding this issue and any movie from this era is a joke and any reference to dispute this fact is a mute point. Not until the last 10 years or so has the costume design been good enough and even then the best movies are all c.g./blue-screened. If you look at the film from the very beginning, when the creature is still on the creek bed floor….it's difficult to decipher between the tree trunks and the bigfoot and if you did not know what you were viewing, the creature would remain undetected. but is standing there in plain view. The way in which the creature is camouflaged is amazing and unlike the sierra-killers view-point- this animal is meant to be there. All remaining films thus far, without the physical evidence to back it up is pure entertainment and thought provoking conversation.

g

Stank,
You still haven't said which "Costume" is the correct version of the costume.
Experts have shown that yes the gate of the film can be imitated with coaching. That is people watching the walk and forcing themselves to do it.
So it is not a natural walk even with the BIG feet on.
Dr. Meldrum had a suit and they did testing on it. The 3 researchers were suprised by the results but they did say it was doubtful that an actor would be able to just put on the suit and do the walk.

CMcMillan wrote:Oh its amazing how you they say well Patterson modified it. Or such.
Well that is just as an amazing story much like you people claim that big footers have.

Certainly no absolutes, and it isn't my claim; Heironimus and Morris surmised that Patterson modified it ...I just happen to believe Morris and Heironimus. I do though, remain tentative.
I spend enough time on this subject ...I am a footer.

How many tries would it take to imitate the walk of Bob heironimus? The point being, it might take a concerted effort to achieve it.
...Anyways, That Stanford University gait test demonstrated that it is within the realm of human possibility. That's all, a demonstrable test. Like, road kill North American seven foot monkey with a midtarsal break would be one example of demonstrable.
...Science isn't about proving things, it's all about falsifying, and we’re left with provisionally accepting the last thing left.

Hucksterfoot wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Oh its amazing how you they say well Patterson modified it. Or such.
Well that is just as an amazing story much like you people claim that big footers have.

Certainly no absolutes, and it isn't my claim; Heironimus and Morris surmised that Patterson modified it ...I just happen to believe Morris and Heironimus. I do though, remain tentative.
I spend enough time on this subject ...I am a footer.

+1 I give a lot more respect to people who believe in the possibility of bigfoot but can admit the truth about the pgf

Hucksterfoot wrote:How many tries would it take to imitate the walk of Bob heironimus? The point being, it might take a concerted effort to achieve it.
...Anyways, That Stanford University gait test demonstrated that it is within the realm of human possibility. That's all, a demonstrable test. Like, road kill North American seven foot monkey with a midtarsal break would be one example of demonstrable.
...Science isn't about proving things, it's all about falsifying, and we’re left with provisionally accepting the last thing left.

SO Science is about falsifying? Seems this is in conflict of what other scientists believe?

BurdenOfProof wrote:

Hucksterfoot wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Oh its amazing how you they say well Patterson modified it. Or such.
Well that is just as an amazing story much like you people claim that big footers have.

Certainly no absolutes, and it isn't my claim; Heironimus and Morris surmised that Patterson modified it ...I just happen to believe Morris and Heironimus. I do though, remain tentative.
I spend enough time on this subject ...I am a footer.

+1 I give a lot more respect to people who believe in the possibility of bigfoot but can admit the truth about the pgf

Burden what is the TRUTH about the PDF ?
Please you say their is TRUTH but what is the TRUTH?

I want Burden to answer this question since HE has brought up that their is SOME ABSOLUTE TRUTH

The truth is roger fooled the bigfoot community and still does so today. Never fooled scientists though, not then not now.

CMcMillan wrote:SO Science is about falsifying? Seems this is in conflict of what other scientists believe?

It really is about falsifying, which is disproving things; it doesn't mean making false unsound claims or fudging the data. The peer review process is one example: Tests/experiments, data, lab procedures, all put under scrutiny. The method of falsification, testable by empirical experiment.
Scientists like nothing better than to falsify your hypotheses, your body of evidence, try to prove it wrong.

Gimlin had nothing to do with cameras? "I was basically the horse person." Maybe he was too busy with Heironimus's horse Chico to remember.

They should just make a 24 hr Bigfoot channel for dopes like us. You would see like on cable access TV some fat guy hosting it and having callers debate shit like this. Kinda like that episode of Family Guy the Kiss episode when some guy was hosting a Kiss call in then he switched over to Battlestar Galactica

StankApe wrote:sorry papa bear, the entirety of the film has been debunked in depth. there is nothing on that film that isn't well within normal human ranges of a man in a suit. anyone who says different is selling you something

no need to apologize, as a mere formallity. like the 1998 BBC comparison? you watched this documentary and you believed it…so who's selling who something??? its well within the normal human range, because it is a human. you doubters and your classic one-liners is comparable to Packham's narration and investigative style completely manipulative. even the phone conversation with bob gimlin was edited and worded in such a way to lure Bob. Bob has been an honest man from the start. he refused a polygraph, because it will never exonerate him 110% only make him look like a 45 year old liar. what makes you 100% so sure bob Hieronimus is telling you the truth? the facts brought up on this topic have not been properly addressed. All i read is the suit and this hearsay, time and time again. nothing tangible. i thought this was a bigfoot forum not a trolling site…wtf

Packham - who recently came out in support of UK ABCs - was very unhappy with the way the programme was presented and the fact that the 'success' of the recreation was actually scripted before the reinactment had been filmed.

g

@ stank….
appreciate the response and respect your opinion. I would….as well as other on this thread, who aren't clear to the point your eluding too, would love any opportunity to review the thread, which changed your mind. I think it would make a great topic for discussion. But to be clear your still not 100% convinced, but closer to the PGF being a phony than prior. With that, I will try later this afternoon to find this thread, and hope for an interesting find!!!

g

StankApe wrote:I would say I'm 99.99999(to the power of ten) convinced it's a fake.

I have a lot of doubts about the footage and waver either side of the 50% mark depending on the analys. However I couldn't possibly come to your percentage unless I had examined the film personally and been engaged in a rigorous scientific study that covered every angle necessary in order to falsify the claim that the footage depicts a genuine cryptid.

I can point to lots of problems with the footage and put together a convincing case against the film, but I would never get as close to the near certainty you are claiming. I doubt that anyone in the scientific community could either.

g

Here is my problem

Their are issues with the FILM yes.

Their are Issues with the Stories around the "supposed costume" the costume stories change as much as Bigfoot stories.

Patterson Passed a Lie Detector test Before the film was put out. But so did they other guy of course it was what some 30+ years later?

Lets see we have someone on the BF forums saying they know where the costume is and they will not release it because they are working on a "FILM" well its funny why aren't they putting it out now to prove it is a fake? ohhhhhh need to make it a money issue.
Seems even Skeptics are out for the money HUH stank?