89 replies to this topic

[Bling]

I want to believe it, always have always will.....so there!

[itsnotoutthere]

Man in a monkey suit........wheres the big mystery?

[Imaginarynumber1]

The New Richard Nixon, on 20 October 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

While I am in no way claiming that the video is factual, I cannot find one reference to either Patterson nor Gimlin confessing a hoax. Patterson maintained to his death that it was authentic and Gimlin has never stated that it was hoaxed, at least not that I can find anywhere.

[Bling]

The New Richard Nixon, on 20 October 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

Can you provide evidence of this please?

[DieChecker]

I think there is no harm in examining the P-G film one more time. I must say, I am no longer a supporter of it being real, as I've seen and read way too much to indicate it is a hoax. I will admit however that there are plenty of reasons to think it real. I just think the "Cons" vastly overwhelm the "Pros".

I also think that showing the P-G film to be a hoax, in no way shows BF to not be real. No more then any of the ButchyKid Bigfoot videos would proove BF is real or imagined.

[DieChecker]

keninsc, on 20 October 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

I agree, first it was the real deal, then Gimlin claimed it had been a fake then he said he was misquoted, thern a couple guys came forward claiming to be the guy in the suit but none of them came produce the suit or a receipt from where they rented it. However, there is one compeling part of that movie that is rarely ever shown and that is the footprints which are photographed later in the movie. They clearly show them making deeper prints than that of the horse, but for some reason that section is hardly ever shown or refered to by anyone. To me, that was the only thing that made me wonder if it wasn't the real deal.

That is how I've heard it too. Patterson and Gimlin both refused to admit it was a hoax. The main witness claiming it is a hoax is Bob Heironomus, who actually was there at Bluff Creek, if Patterson's videos can be believed. And he said that once they got to the area, that he put on a suit that Patterson had and the rest is history. I've disbelieved Bob H mostly, since he had his own history with wearing suits and stirring up trouble. But, what he says does have some smell of truth to it. Too many background facts fit in with his claim of a hoax, even if he is not the "Guy in the Suit".

[keninsc]

DieChecker, on 20 October 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

That is how I've heard it too. Patterson and Gimlin both refused to admit it was a hoax. The main witness claiming it is a hoax is Bob Heironomus, who actually was there at Bluff Creek, if Patterson's videos can be believed. And he said that once they got to the area, that he put on a suit that Patterson had and the rest is history. I've disbelieved Bob H mostly, since he had his own history with wearing suits and stirring up trouble. But, what he says does have some smell of truth to it. Too many background facts fit in with his claim of a hoax, even if he is not the "Guy in the Suit".

Roger Patterson died shortly after the film was released in 1972 and it's mostly been Bob Gimlin who's been the main proponent. As I understand it Patterson was in favor of shooting the critter if they encountered it and supposedly Gimlin talked him out of it. What I saw made a good case for Patterson being duped by the two men, however......and this is a big however.......they ran out of film and had to reload. On the second can of film are the foot prints and they show a horse with rider walking beside them and you can clearly see the horse and rider don't make as deep an impression as the alleged Bigfoot. Patterson had a solid reputation and supposedly Gimlin had a bit of a shady past......how shady I don't know for sure.

Now there can be any number of reasons for that to happen, it was an area where a wash out had occurred and as anyone with any knowledge of being in such a place knows you can have soft and hard spots within mere feet of each other, however a horse with a rider has to weigh close to a ton and the hooves on a horse are significantly less as far as area is concerned.....but a horse has four hooves and a Biggy has two really large feet.....well, supposedly. Now, as just said, it could be just a lucky happenstance that the guy was walking in a softer area and the horse on firmer ground, but that I found compelling. Strangely, no one ever shows that footage and I know it exists because I saw it on a documentary about the alleged footage, which was very detailed.

Personally, I can't say one way or the other because........quite frankly, it could well be a man in a monkey suit, but it was either a really well thought out monkey suit......and it certainly appears to have large breasts giving the impression that it's a female. I'd be surprised if anyone in the sixties would have thought about it or even considered getting a female monkey suit......assuming one would be available.

I completely agree that there are things that sound completely plausible and have the ring of truth to them and yet there are some things I just can't accept because they could so easily be faked.

Edited by keninsc, 21 October 2012 - 12:30 AM.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Bling, on 20 October 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

I want to believe it, always have always will.....so there!

Bling Im with you I wanna believe that its real but usually the things I want dont come to fruition

[keninsc]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 21 October 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

Bling Im with you I wanna believe that its real but usually the things I want dont come to fruition

If it makes you guys feel better, I'm not a non-believer, I'm open to the possibility but that is based on the experiences of two people that I knew and know well and trust. I've been fooled enough in the past to maintain a very skeptical eye now, videos can be faked very easily, so can footprints and that doesn't include the number of times people have misidentified bear tracks or I should say double bear tracks for Bigfoot prints.

If I had the resources I'd love nothing more than to mount up a real expedition a couple times a year and spend some real time in an area that was active with sightings. I think it's not possible to simply pop in for a day or two and do a thorough, it just isn't possible. You have to really spend at least a couple weeks to possibly a month to really do a good job. Unfortunately, that requires a big old pile of money and unless I hit the lottery then I don't see it happening. However, I will take my vacations in areas where there have been sightings and who knows, I might get lucky......or not, but I'll be doing what i love anyway and that's spending time out in nature. So, it's all good.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 20 October 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Not buying your comparison.  I would think and bet that the TV series SMDM and BW had a bigger budget and more money at their disposal than Patterson and Gimlin for sure.  And again, don't forget this event took place nearly 10 years prior to this television series.

And what do you think the budget set aside for the costume would be?
Just because the SHOW had a large budget, doesn't mean they had a large budget for costuming. I know something like Blake's 7 was funded as if it was a police procedural - a large initial budget for costuming, relatively good one for location filming and so forth, assuming SMDM was budgeted for a prime-time adventure show, then it's location filming budget and guest cast budget would far outweigh it's budget for costuming, especially "one off" costumes, shows back in that day and age worked on the "what can we beg, borrow or steal from someone else?" principle as well, it could have just been something they had lying around the studio from something else.

Not knowing the realtive budgets of SMDM and Patterson, I can only say that Patterson would probably have had more money to spend on a single costume for a ten second piece of footage then a prime-time TV show because they only had to buy one thing rather then 45 minutes worth of things.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 20 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Whatever......you and others apparently need to broaden your minds, yours is severely lacking imagination and subjectivity.

Don't ignore me, come on, your afraid to reply back because you know Im right

[The New Richard Nixon]

Bling, on 20 October 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Can you provide evidence of this please?

type in google bbc bigfoot documentary

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I need to reign my imagination in actually, I'm always  looking beyond what people present to me looking for other answers.

[Night Walker]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 20 October 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Sorry Night Walker,

I disagree with your maps.  The majority of bigfoot sightings in Ontario occur much further to the north of my area.  The areas you've shown in your bigfoot sightings ranges (and if factual) is dubious.  Bigfoot areas and sightings have mostly taken place several 100's of kilometers north of where I am.  Trust me, there are no major forested areas anywhere near me and any that would encompass more than a few square miles,  in patches.  

It's not my Bigfoot map. It is from the Ontario Sasquatch research group (http://www.ontariosasquatch.com/). They are the ones on the ground collecting reports in your local area. If you consider it to be dubious then you should take it up with them. Perhaps you can reason with them using your knowledge of and commitment to the PGF.

Personally, I don't but much stock in the map either. However, it does serve to illustrate that Bigfoot is where people are - untamed wilderness is optional. The Bigfoot phenomenon is not be about a giant undiscovered species. You hit the nail on the head in post #26 - Bigfoot (and the Patterson film) is all about "imagination and subjectivity"...

Edited by Night Walker, 21 October 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Antilles]

The New Richard Nixon, on 21 October 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Don't ignore me, come on, your afraid to reply back because you know Im right

You are right.

It was a hoax. A very good one but it was a hoax.

Doesn't mean that there isn't something out there in the Pacific North West that isn't human - no, I don't mean Honey Boo Boo.

But the Patterson film is not proof.