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

Guest

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.

Hello,

Oswalds story is not mearly a "backstory" that I give you. But, there are "backstories" or what some call "conspiracy theories" that have more legs than the actual information surrounding the Assination of JFK. Take for instance some think Marilyn Monroe's death has something to do with it (an angry fan, lover etc). If we (care to) delve into her backstory, does it tell us anything about the Assination? No, but some continue to throw that in. There are people camped out on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas (I heard they were moving that, not sure if it happened or not, not the building but everything inside) I have seen them and been approached by them. They have a boat load of "backstories" they think are important. But, those stories tell me nothing either. There are many backstories to the Assination, that have nothing to do with the Assination.

There are some parts of Patterson's life (and Gimlin's) that are germane to the conversation of the Patterson Film, but many that are not, and will tell us nothing. Yet, those are the parts that are picked apart, and used to determine the credibility. For example, we have the story of Gimlin showing up at Patterson's funeral to demand payment. Does that tell us anything about what walked across the sandbar in Bluff Creek? Nope, not a thing. There is the fight over whether Patterson fell off his horse, bending the stirrup.. Does that tell us what walked across the sandbar at Bluff Creek? Nope. Not even the stirrup being bent tells us anything of importance to solving the mystery at hand.

Bill's work is his. I won't speak to his work, or what it will or will not add to this conversation. I am not experienced enough to decide what he can or can not discover in this film.

Some parts of a backstory can be important, but not everything... But, that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

I think those of you bigfooters that want a recreation of the suit are asking for a dissapointment. Certainly with unlimited funds and time someone somewhere will be able to recreate what you see in the film. Anything is possible, the human creative mind is limitless and what it can accomplish is unbounded. The question is not can what we see on film be replicated, of course it can, the question is more, is it probable that Roger Patterson had the ability materials talent and time to do it? That we will never know. Any kind of recreation will just lead to a bunch of dissappointed footers. Be careful what you wish for.

It is the same with Meldrum declaring that the PAtty walk could not be replicated by a human. How stupid is that. Of course a bipedal human with free will and a creative, intelligent mind could imitate the walk of a bipedal ape. There was nothing superhuman about Patty, even an amatuer could see that. Meldrum set himself for an obvious fail and he did. Was he that stupid or did he just jump at the chance to be on TV again?

There are artists today that can make almost exact replicas of Van Gough's, and Da'Vinci's. Does that mean the originals are fakes, no, all it proves is that intelligent creative humans with the funds and time can make replica's of original things. Big whoopee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

With 43 years of endless discussion on the subject; it actually is a pretty big whoopee. I think it's a mistake to think: 'Oh! Yes, of course one could duplicate Patty' because it hasn't been done and, there have always been very good reasons to attempt it, including money. Sorry, nycBig, I'm not in the all things are possible camp. There's a saying that might apply here: "If you attempt the impossible, you will fail."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

I think the Mythbusters should have ago at it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gershake

Good call! P:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

With 43 years of endless discussion on the subject; it actually is a pretty big whoopee. I think it's a mistake to think: 'Oh! Yes, of course one could duplicate Patty' because it hasn't been done and, there have always been very good reasons to attempt it, including money. Sorry, nycBig, I'm not in the all things are possible camp. There's a saying that might apply here: "If you attempt the impossible, you will fail."

If you take the mess that is the Cow camp picture and get a tailor to tuck and tweak it in places and pad it out in other places, then shear the fur in places, then get a 6'5" - 7' bulky musclular guy to wear it, then teach him to walk with a compliant gate. you will get closer to what looks like Patty...right?, Then give it another pass, gets some double faced tape and some glue and some pins and shear the fur some more, add some fur in other places, hackle the fur here and there, rehearse the walk some more and you will get closer to looking like Patty..right. Keep refining, keep adjusting. You can continue doing this over and over until you match what you see on the camera. What will that prove? The same thing can be done trying to recreate Oliver the chimp. As long as there is nothing paranormal about the subject there is no reason why it cannot be duplicated. It does not mean that Roger hoaxed it and that Patty is not real. All it will do is revive the speculation that Roger would not have had the time or expertise to create it himself and he must have had Hollywood help. So we would have just went in a big circle for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

As long as there is nothing paranormal about the subject there is no reason why it cannot be duplicated.

Do you mean 'paranormal' as in "without scientific explanation"? Maybe there isn't any reason why a Bigfoot subject as believable as Patty (if not even a 'match') cannot be created but; it has been attempted more than a few times, without success. I'm just saying that an honest, modern and adequately funded attempt by someone(s) qualified to give it a great effort (i.e., Bill perhaps) could either prove the hoax theory to be an almost certainty or, virtually impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

I'm going to do something I told myself I wouldn't do anymore, and that is to dissect a post.

Hello,

Oswalds story is not mearly a "backstory" that I give you. But, there are "backstories" or what some call "conspiracy theories" that have more legs than the actual information surrounding the Assination of JFK. Take for instance some think Marilyn Monroe's death has something to do with it (an angry fan, lover etc). If we (care to) delve into her backstory, does it tell us anything about the Assination? No, but some continue to throw that in.

Who cares? Some people think that the US government was responsible for 911. Would you like to use that as an example too?

There are people camped out on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas (I heard they were moving that, not sure if it happened or not, not the building but everything inside) I have seen them and been approached by them. They have a boat load of "backstories" they think are important. But, those stories tell me nothing either. There are many backstories to the Assination, that have nothing to do with the Assination.

Really? That's the first I've heard of people camping out on the steps of the Texas School book Depository. You said they "are" camped out there? That means right now, right? Do you have a source for that? Pictures, a current news story?

There are some parts of Patterson's life (and Gimlin's) that are germane to the conversation of the Patterson Film, but many that are not, and will tell us nothing.

Until the investigation is complete (which might be never) there is no way to judge what is germane to the conversation.

You are in no position, nor have the qualifications, to judge, and neither do I.

Yet, those are the parts that are picked apart, and used to determine the credibility. For example, we have the story of Gimlin showing up at Patterson's funeral to demand payment. Does that tell us anything about what walked across the sandbar in Bluff Creek? Nope, not a thing. There is the fight over whether Patterson fell off his horse, bending the stirrup.. Does that tell us what walked across the sandbar at Bluff Creek? Nope. Not even the stirrup being bent tells us anything of importance to solving the mystery at hand.

So going back to your Kennedy analogy... we all see him getting him killed, that is indisputable, as is that there was a subject walking across the screen in the PGF.

Does the Zapruder film tell us who killed Kennedy? No... it only shows the act. It was the investigation that told us who did it, although you could argue there are still questions. There are still questions about the PGF and what is wrong with asking questions? I understand that there are people uncomfortable with those questions but what is the harm in asking them?

Bill's work is his. I won't speak to his work, or what it will or will not add to this conversation. I am not experienced enough to decide what he can or can not discover in this film.

But you claim to be neutral... why don't you question his motives like you question the skeptic? If you are truly neutral you would question everything. Why do you just question PGF skeptics?

Some parts of a backstory can be important, but not everything... But, that's just my opinion.

Of course not everything is important, but no one can judge what is or isn't until the truth is revealed...which may never, but until then I reserve the right to question everything about the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm going to do something I told myself I wouldn't do anymore, and that is to dissect a post.

Okay.

Who cares? Some people think that the US government was responsible for 911. Would you like to use that as an example too?

Who cares? We were discussing backstories. What I have been discussing is described as a backstory.

Really? That's the first I've heard of people camping out on the steps of the Texas School book Depository. You said they "are" camped out there? That means right now, right? Do you have a source for that? Pictures, a current news story?

Camped out, did not mean in tents. These people are there everyday. They pass out their fliers and information. Heck, one guy approached me with a newspaper filled with information about what he thinks is important to the Assination. It wasn't very well done, or dry.. I had black ink all over my hands.. These people are there every day (weather permitting of course).

Until the investigation is complete (which might be never) there is no way to judge what is germane to the conversation.

You are in no position, nor have the qualifications, to judge, and neither do I.

It's called common sense. Do you think how Pattersons stirrup was bent, means anything? What could you or I possibly be told about what is walking across that sandbar by figuring out whether this stirrup was bent?

So going back to your Kennedy analogy... we all see him getting him killed, that is indisputable, as is that there was a subject walking across the screen in the PGF. Does the Zapruder film tell us who killed Kennedy? No... it only shows the act. It was the investigation that told us who did it, although you could argue there are still questions. There are still questions about the PGF and what is wrong with asking questions? I understand that there are people uncomfortable with those questions but what is the harm in asking them?

Who said there was anything wrong with asking questions? We all ask questions. That is not a statement I made. But, as I said, SOME of the things being discussed - and what SOME think are the "nail in the coffin" for the film, won't tell us whether that is a man in a monkey suit, or a real monkey.

But you claim to be neutral... why don't you question his motives like you question the skeptic? If you are truly neutral you would question everything. Why do you just question PGF skeptics?

That answer is simple. I can't ask the questions I want to ask. That person is no longer on the earth. I don't question things that seem "reasonable" to me. There is much I question. I have read nothing from either perspective that tells me Patterson was, or was not a hoaxer. I am allowed to that opinion, and the last time I checked, members of this forum were allowed to question those who put work forth for discussion. If this is wrong, I hope a member of the staff will let me know.

Maybe you do not find my questions neutral, but some do. Maybe it's in your perception of what I am saying.

Of course not everything is important, but no one can judge what is or isn't until the truth is revealed...which may never, but until then I reserve the right to question everything about the film.

Your right, no one can judge what is or is not the truth, until the truth is revealed. To include Hoaxing. To date there is no real proof of hoaxing. Many comments and personal statements, but no proof. Yet, these 'hearsay' comments are being thrown about as the truth. I find that very unfair, especially when you consider the person who is being branded a hoaxer, can not defend himself.

People can question whatever they like. I never said they couldnt. Go right on ahead. I reserve the right to ask questions, because until we have proof on way or the other - all we have are questions and assumptions. But, I wont be spinning my wheels over questions about "stirrups."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

To date there is no real proof of hoaxing.

Are you talking about the PGF? or wrt to Roger Patterson? or Hoaxing in general?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

haha! No hoax has even been proven Drew, you know that.

I don't mean to detract from the startling revelations in the other thread but let me see if I can summarize:

1.) There is some difference of opinion as to why Chico was there.

Did anybody ask Chico??

2.) If the toes don't fit, you must acquit.

3.) Immediately after the top-secret filming, the suit was paraded around town for at least two days.

ok, got ya!

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest manofthesea

I think the Mythbusters should have ago at it :lol:

They've already stated that they won't (can't) do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

Have they? Gutted, that would have been a good show and helped alot of people out in making up their minds, did they say why do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShadowPrime

I think a lot of the "heat" over the PGF would go away if skeptics would say something like this ...

"The PGF is a very interesting piece of footage. It may show a living bipedal ape... or it may not. And you know what? There is probably no way to ever tell, based JUST on this piece of footage - or maybe based on ANY piece of footage. There is nothing IN the PGF that demonstrates it is a hoax, a man in a suit. In fact, if it IS a man in a suit, it is a really GOOD suit. But... what the PGF shows is that virtually no piece of film, IN AND OF ITSELF, can 'prove' that BF is real."

I don't agree with ALL the sentiments in that theoretical skeptical position, but.. I would have a hard time really arguing with them.

Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Most of what I "know" about the PGF is what I have learned here on the BFF and most of that not until Kit joined.

With that said, and understanding that the most defended alternative to Patty being a real animal is the concept of it being Bob Hermonius in a suit, then what is the "backstory" on Bob H? I don't remember reading very much at all about him and yet according to the hoax theory he is the subject that we all see in the film.

What about Bob? :P

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...