Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xspider1

Is There A Better Way To Explain What We See In The Patterson-Gimlin Film?

Recommended Posts

Crowlogic

And where might I find some of that?

Don't know cause I maintain Sasquatch has been extinct since the mid to late 1970's. But you owe yourself a REALLY critical look at Phillip Morris creations. His recreation is a mockery of trying to reproduce something he had a crucial hand in, or at least he says he did. I don't buy it I trust my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

The film is being beaten to death and needs to be left alone. If it is exposed as a hoax (Kitz very well is the man to do it), so be it, it does not diminish the sightings credible individuals have had over the years. We need less patty cake obsessing and more real life investigating sightings and writing follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Don't know cause I maintain Sasquatch has been extinct since the mid to late 1970's. But you owe yourself a REALLY critical look at Phillip Morris creations. His recreation is a mockery of trying to reproduce something he had a crucial hand in, or at least he says he did. I don't buy it I trust my eyes.

What happened in the mid to late 1970s that makes you think Patty died then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

There is no question that a recreation specifically intended as a recreation is valuable in helping us all better determine what it is we se in the PGf. The trick is funding such an effort. It seems almost inevitable the funding will come from some documentary effort, maybe Kit's maybe another.

But such efforts would definitely be valuable.

Bill

Bill, can you put an estimate on the cost of such a recreation? Include the cost of an independent review panel to come up with conditions and a checklist of whether the result is a match, close to a match, or not at all a match, the cost of your work on the filming and processing and site location, the cost of a couple suits to get a range of possibilities on the suit, and publishing costs/ converting to digital.

Get me a quote and let's see if we can't get a taker on this.

Remember, the suit does not have to replicate the footprints, we don't know if those were created by the suit, and it seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I can tell you where to go to see a live one, I just can't tell you how long you'll have to wait at that location. I will say this though, if you wait there, watching, and don't see anything, you need to wait a little longer. If you wait there long enough and don't agree that what you see looks a lot like Patty I'll give you a refund.

I think what we see in the film is a Sasquatch inside of a Phil Morris gorilla costume modified by Patterson with a Bob H glass eye. You know why Sasquatch smoke Marlboros, right? It's all part of the Phillip Morris connection.

Getting back on track, I think a good recreation would be nice. I would like to see it done with camera/film that Roger P had at the time. I think it would be hard to reproduce the quality of the original film using anything else. Shooting a recreation in HD wouldn't, in my opinion, help solve the mystery.

I have looked at some Phil Morris costumes online and none of them look much like Patty to me. I've also spent some time in the woods and never seen an animal that looked much like Patty to me, so I'm stymied.

Also, not that it's relevant here (maybe nowhere), but I like the word behaviour to have a "u" in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sepoy

What if the film is proven a hoax? Would this really kill the idea of the existence for a sasquatch? I don't think so because of the number of sighting reports a year.

I do understand Melissa's point about the relevance of the back story, but in history the back story is always relevant. The question here thoough is there enough verifiable information to gather and put the film into the hoax catagory. One could point out that there isn't a paper source to pull from, but we do have witness testimony. Of course there goes the pro/con argument about the character and trustworthiness of the witness. I will point out that witness testimony has signifigant historical value. The Federal Writer's Project of the 1930's relied completely on oral testimony for the slave testimonies. So oral testimony from someone involved in an event can be very relevant in defining an issue. Kitakaze's interviews may indeed provide us with evidence that may lead us to understand what we are seeing on film. Here is the rub though, in history, a theory can and is usually argued ad nauseum. So in all likelihood we are back to square one. It will be interesting to see Kitakaze's finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sepoy, you bring up very valid points. Question though - how many "back stories" do we have surrounding the Kennedy Assination (for example)? Call them conspiracy theories or what not, but there are people who really think some of the "military contract companies" in Dallas were behind it. There are also those who say Oswald was a patsy for the Cubans, who had someone else at Dealy Plaza..

In my opinion, you can only go so far with a back story. While I find them very interesting - rarely do they offer us anything by way of proof. In the case you discuss. If "proof" can come from this, then by all means I am for it. But, I see many focusing on items in this particular "back story" that tells us very little, if nothing at all.

JMO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gershake

 - edited for being embarrassing -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was trying to be funny, hoping no one would think I was serious. Sorry. If there is such an animal as bigfoot, I think some of them travel along the Oregon/California border, from the coast to the Cascades and back via the Siskiyous, Red Buttes, Marble Mountains, Trinitys that sort of thing (just north of Bluff Creek). There is an interesting (to me) number of reports on either side of the border almost directly to and from the coast over to around Klamath Falls, OR. If I were serious, which I wasn't, I'd pick a trail, how 'bout the Sturgis Fork Trail near Applegate, Oregon. I'd sit on the southern side of the creek that runs through there and I'd wait with a camera, a gun, or a grin and at some point (if there is such an animal) expect one or more of them would pass through that area. Problem is, it might pass 100 yards south of you and you'd never know it, or maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 mile north and walk along a ridge where you wouldn't see it through the trees. Anyway, I wouldn't charge you anything to tell you where to go (which I already did) and I'd refund your money (of which I didn't charge you) if you never saw one there...is it getting funny yet ;)

Edited to add, as my wife will attest, my sense of humor is not always funny, most people don't get it, and most people don't even know when I'm trying to be funny, regardless of how funny I think I am. So, my bad, not yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gershake

 I'm new and don't know anyone here yet so didn't know you were trying to be funny. Will edit my post accordingly. ... :D (I guess I should have continued reading to the Marlboro part!)

EDIT - or to the last line where you said you hadn't yet seen a sasquatch. :D *******, shake...

EDIT again - WOW, it censors god­****?! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

Sepoy, you bring up very valid points. Question though - how many "back stories" do we have surrounding the Kennedy Assination (for example)? Call them conspiracy theories or what not, but there are people who really think some of the "military contract companies" in Dallas were behind it. There are also those who say Oswald was a patsy for the Cubans, who had someone else at Dealy Plaza..

In my opinion, you can only go so far with a back story. While I find them very interesting - rarely do they offer us anything by way of proof. In the case you discuss. If "proof" can come from this, then by all means I am for it. But, I see many focusing on items in this particular "back story" that tells us very little, if nothing at all.

JMO. :)

Those aren't back stories, they are just stories and they aren't supported by facts. The facts of Oswald's history (back story if you will) support the idea that he was the lone gun man, therefore his "back story" was very important.

Bill started a thread here looking at frames from other Patterson films. I don't know what he's looking for or why but he is certainly looking into Patterson's history. Is that work unnecessary too? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but until he finishes what he's doing we won't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wolverton

I am curious about the recreation suit picture. Did they try to shoot it on video or film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sepoy

Those aren't back stories, they are just stories and they aren't supported by facts. The facts of Oswald's history (back story if you will) support the idea that he was the lone gun man, therefore his "back story" was very important.

Bill started a thread here looking at frames from other Patterson films. I don't know what he's looking for or why but he is certainly looking into Patterson's history. Is that work unnecessary too? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but until he finishes what he's doing we won't know.

Very true. I do think exploring Patterson's background is important. Based on information in the forefront as well as periphery in what we know about Patterson, researching his story is very relevant to the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

I think Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin's backgrounds are important to a certain extent, as everyone should have as many facts available to them as possible in order to make a decision on whether they think Patty is real or not, but there is a difference between background facts that are useful and facts that are not.

For instance, recently Kitakaze in a discussion with Melissa (in his PGF thread) has spent alot of time focusing on Bob Gimlin approaching Patricia Patterson at Roger's funeral and asking for money, although i agree it is in bad taste for him to approach her like that, i don't see what it has to do with the film being real or not.

Basic background of the two men and the events surroounding the filming are whats important not Bob Gimlin's behaviour after Roger passed away. To me anyway.

I don't know if the film is real and i don't really care if it's a hoax. So this is just my opinion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

That was pretty funny when you said "if you don't see one, wait a little longer", Ace. : ) haha! My take on the back story is derived from wondering what could possibly be uncovered that would indicate that the PGF is a fraud, beyond a reasonable doubt? A confession from BG? That wouldn't cinch it for me. Why would anyone believe a person IF they had already been lying for 43 years?? A scenario describing events leading up to an attempted hoax at Bluff Creek? Again, not a deal breaker for me considering what we see in the film. So, yes we have to wait and see.

I think Drew asked an excellent question regarding the cost of an appropriate recreation attempt. (I imagine that the follow-up analysis would be free, ;). I would contribute a modest amount myself to an Escrow fund set-up for that purpose. Then, if the History Channel, etc. wanted to show the recreation, the contributers could split the proceeds accordingly, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...