Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

ShadowBorn

Bill

Again thank you for coming through with that information that you have given. That could explain why it might of been said that there could of been three reels that I read some where on the net. There is so much disinformation that is out there that it makes it hard to know what actually took place with the film. It does not take much to throw people off. I know that I am not knowledgeable But I trust what you are saying since I have the means of understanding what you are talking about. We have the tools to look up this info so that is not a problem.

 

The lab did exactly what it was suppose to do for the client. It did not matter if there were two different films with two different creatures on it. The lab would not care just as long that the film was developed properly for the client as long as it stayed with the limits of the law. Outside those limits of the law then it is up to the tech to report it. I too agree with you that we should " dwell in the land of facts, knowledge, and truth " with out it we would all be lost. I am not sure how much I can thank you for answering my thread.

 

I am still debating whether Patty is real or not but that is not a question for anyone here. What I saw did not look like Patty and it was way to lean and tall yet muscular. Like I have said before chewbacca looking.  I have not met Bob Gimlin yet and am hoping that I will one day so that I can ask him questions. But I am sure that he must be tired of being asked the same questions over and over. So maybe to be able to just enjoy a beer with him and let him speak would be nice. My problem would is how will I keep my big mouth shut .Although I have heard that there is more that took place on that day with that creature. What took placed leads me more toward this event as being a real event and not a hoax. It speaks of more of animal /creature behavior that has been seen often in sightings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Meeting Bob is a joy. He's a fascinating guy. But the first time I actually had some quality private time with him, over dinner at a steakhouse in Yakima, back in 2009, I just wanted to get to know him, so  we talked about horses. I don't think the PGF was even mentioned. Subsequently, I've talked to him at length about it, though, including doing about 4 hours of oral history of him, Roger, the film and the resulting effect on his life.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

Bill, I too had the pleasure of getting to know Bob Gimlin over a meal, where I sat directly across from him. Horses and mules took up a good part of the conversation then, as well. We were at the appropriately named Sasquatch Inn, near Harrison, with a group of researchers ranging from newbies like myself at the time, to John Green and Barry Blount, who have both since passed away, much to our loss. I truly hope to have the opportunity to talk with him again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Q: Is it even possible Roger brought the film to the Sunday viewing when he arrived?

 

The invited guests were already there and waiting for Roger to arrive.   One witness (Green?) said in an interview posted on the BFF, the film was already there when Roger arrived.

 

Could this just be an assumption on the person's part?  If I heard of a filming on Friday and was invited to see it on Sunday I would assume they had already seen it when they called me for the Sunday invite.   

 

Did seeing the film box make them think it was already there?   

Did they pull the film out of such a box?

I can't imagine when they arrived they asked, "is the film here?" when they walked in.   There must be some other basis for that thinking IF they didn't ask such a Q.

 

I'm not trying to make something happen which did not happen.  I just wonder if taking the observation of one of the viewing party guest(s) is accurate.  Wouldn't they already assume the film was there anyway from the minute they got the invite?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

Wouldn't they already assume the film was there anyway from the minute they got the invite?

 

According to at least two accounts (McClarin and Murphy), the invite from Patterson came around midday on Saturday the 21st.

 

Dahinden and McClarin then proceeded by plane and bus to Yakima.

 

One could assume that there was a film ready at that point and that it was viable for viewing.

 

On the other hand, perhaps Jim and Rene took the long trip North merely on the chance that there would be something for them to see when they arrived.

 

Perhaps Technicolor, specifically Leonard Tall, was able to get an early start and have the film processed by noon at which point DeAtley was notified, and he in turn notified Patterson following his emergence from Bluff Creek.

 

Possibly Mr. Gimlin knows the answer to your question...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
16 hours ago, Bill said:

Meeting Bob is a joy. He's a fascinating guy. But the first time I actually had some quality private time with him, over dinner at a steakhouse in Yakima, back in 2009, I just wanted to get to know him, so  we talked about horses. I don't think the PGF was even mentioned. Subsequently, I've talked to him at length about it, though, including doing about 4 hours of oral history of him, Roger, the film and the resulting effect on his life.

 

 

One thing that Bob Gimlin could do, Bill....that could, potentially, be of great significance down the road....after he passes on....would be to privately record a video of himself giving a 'Final Statement' on the Patterson Film...for the sake of the general public. 

 

The video would be kept private until after the (sad) event of his passing on....unless, as in Roger's case....he has the opportunity to make a "deathbed statement". But, as we all know....many people 'pass on' suddenly, without having the chance to make final statements to their loved ones.

 

In the case of this significant film.....I think it would be a good thing for Bob to make a statement, that is completely private, for the time being….only to be made public if he were to pass away suddenly. 

 

I'm mentioning this idea now....in case you, or some other close friend of Bob's would want to talk to him about it. :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

The 4 hour oral history video I made was essentially what you describe, a full testament of Bob's about the film, Roger, and his life. Whether it can be labeled a "Final Statement", I don't know, but it will be a record for preservation, once I get it edited and transcribed. The editing, by the way, will not cut out anything, but I was running 4 cameras, so there needs to editing between cameras.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
17 hours ago, Bill said:

Meeting Bob is a joy. He's a fascinating guy. But the first time I actually had some quality private time with him, over dinner at a steakhouse in Yakima, back in 2009, I just wanted to get to know him, so  we talked about horses. I don't think the PGF was even mentioned. Subsequently, I've talked to him at length about it, though, including doing about 4 hours of oral history of him, Roger, the film and the resulting effect on his life.

 

Thanks for this post, Bill. Unlike several of you, I never met Gimlin and am unlikely to do so. But I've read much about him, and being somewhat of a sensitive guy (unlike popular belief), the embolded portion of your words are a big factor for me.

 

I think yours and Sweaty's thoughts on "a final statement" are sound, but I don't think it will make a difference in sasquatchery.......unless, of course, he writes, "Surprise! It was all a gag!", which I don't believe he will write.

 

More important to me is the effect the film had on him and his wife. All the years of him essentially hiding out from a hostile element of the public. All the horrible things said and written of him. How his friends and new acquaintances treated him upfront and behind his back. 

 

Beforehand, I'm quite sure he never had a clue. What a nasty series of surprises he was in for.

 

Wouldn't it be great for him if he was vindicated within his lifetime? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

The 4 hour oral history video I made was essentially what you describe, a full testament of Bob's about the film, Roger, and his life. Whether it can be labeled a "Final Statement", I don't know, but it will be a record for preservation, once I get it edited and transcribed. The editing, by the way, will not cut out anything, but I was running 4 cameras, so there needs to editing between cameras.

 

Bill

 

 

That certainly is a good thing, also, Bill...to have 'on record', from Bob......but, it is very different from a "deathbed statement". 

 

The criticism the skeptics have had, regarding the lack of a 'deathbed confession' from Roger...is that he had a motive for "keeping the hoax going"....(providing income for his widow).  But that possible motive becomes irrelevant....if Bob Gimlin "follows suit"...(to use a poor choice of words ;) )....by also, on his deathbed, maintaining that the film is/was legit. 

 

The status of the PGF will be....forever.....that the 2 principals involved in the making of the film both maintained the film's legitimacy....even on their 'deathbeds'. 

 

Your interview does not qualify as being such a 'final statement'.  Two key aspects of the recording I am suggesting...is 'TOTAL privacy'....(i.e...not in front of his wife, or any other person)….in Bob making his statement/declaration....and, it only being released to the public in the event of a sudden passing.

 

If nobody wants to suggest this idea to Bob...at some point, I will. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

One thing that Bob Gimlin could do, Bill....that could, potentially, be of great significance down the road....after he passes on....would be to privately record a video of himself giving a 'Final Statement' on the Patterson Film...for the sake of the general public. 

 

The video would be kept private until after the (sad) event of his passing on....unless, as in Roger's case....he has the opportunity to make a "deathbed statement". But, as we all know....many people 'pass on' suddenly, without having the chance to make final statements to their loved ones.

 

In the case of this significant film.....I think it would be a good thing for Bob to make a statement, that is completely private, for the time being….only to be made public if he were to pass away suddenly. 

 

I'm mentioning this idea now....in case you, or some other close friend of Bob's would want to talk to him about it. :) 

 

 

Perhaps there is a statement included in some kind of 'Will' with that thought in mind.  

 

If it was a hoax Bob Gimlin is not confessing at this point or he would have done so.  

 

Bob strikes me as the kind of guy who would have confessed long ago had it been a hoax.  Strikes me as a guy who knows what he saw that day.  Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

The one thing that I see that is odd beside Bill and BC is that others still believes that it might be all a hoax. That people want a living testimony stating that they made this film all up by two people who are still alive. Yet there were way more people involve after the sighting that took placed that makes this event real. Sure this creature was filmed crossing across a creek bed but this event did not stop there. There was more to this event that has not been told about this creatures behavior that shows it might be a real event that took place. The problem is that the film was just the beginning that proves that this creature was real. There were just way to many people involve with this sighting to say that it was not a hoax.

 

I say this due to the behavior of the creature that was not known at that time when this creature was filmed. I am not sure that Roger could of known of their behavior like what we know of them now. So there is no way that this film could have been a hoax to things that I have learned after the sighting and the filming of Roger and Bob. Behavior of a creature is not some thing that can be faked it is learned through actions in the wild. In order for them to have faked the actions the actions had to have been studied before hand which would still prove that this creature is real.

 

Like I have said before that there is way to many people involve for this filming of this creature for it not to be real. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

There was evidence before and after the film was filmed. There were only two people at the time of the film. 

 

Not several. The film is a thing of beauty hoaxed or not. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
14 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

The one thing that I see that is odd beside Bill and BC is that others still believes that it might be all a hoax. 

 

 

I keep open the idea it could hoax.   

 

I am now totally convinced Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.  However, for several years my mild interest in the subject had me thinking JFK was killed by multiple gunmen.  I was of one belief and later the opposite (for reasons we wont cover here).

 

So what is the view of the PGF:

 

I am in the mushy middle. I am not certain the PGF is a real thing.  I lean toward I being a real film.    I came to the BFF a while back after rediscovering a little interest in the subject of Bigfoot and esp. the PGF.  I expected the dialog and the brains on the BFF would only take a short period of time to prove to me the PGF was a hoax.  This should have been easy to demonstrate.  I expected that I would see it demonstrated easily, obviously, and quickly.  I was shocked on just how weak the case was to show the PGF was fake.  This weakness was glaring and really opened my mind the film isn't a certain hoax and continue to dine of the subject.

 

I think the PGF holds up well but I keep an open mind in that my assumptions and observations could be wrong.  A good example is the Mach Effect. 

The Mach Effect is basically an effect where we can 'see' lines and diff shades when those lines are not there.  Sometimes this effect would make one shade seem darker or lighter than its' actually shade.  In X-ray (especially the old days of plain film x-rays vs digital) there have been young interns who told someone they had broke a bone when in reality the bone only looked broken.  This was often from the Mach Effect.   That effect made it look like there was a line when no line existed.  

 

I think its possible what I am seeing on the film has a small chance of just being wrong due to things such as the Mach Effect.   I do also think when people see Hip Waders and other nonsense it is the Mach Effect in reverse allowing skeptics to see suit lines which are not even there.

 

For a few of us posters out there, I think we are just undecided.  Even undecided people lean a certain way though.  It is more like various levels of belief or various levels of disbelief.   

 

So far the laughable attempt to make a Patty Suit have been the strongest indicator the film is genuine.  If someone showed me it could be done I would at least consider it could be either.

 

As it stands now, I just read and learn and try to process this impressive film the best I can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

Backdoc 

My reasoning comes from what came after the filming and what was observed by other witnesses who investigated the site. The observation that was done afterwards is what has me convinced that what was filmed on that day by Roger and observed by Bob as this creature walked across this creek bed was real. It is the behavior of this creature that has me convinced that makes this creature in this film real. We see other animals of similar size pretty much react the same way and I am talking large bears. Where they will calmly just walk away slowly and will occasionally look back. Usually ones that have never seen humans and have now seen them for the first time in their lives.

 

But yes I do agree with you as well about seeing things in that film that make it look like it's a costume. But for me as a kid I never had that impression that it was a man in a costume. As a kid I saw it as an actual animal which is the best way I can describe it now. As an adult My mind has been clouded with people talking about how it was a man in a costume. Yet, no one to this day has been able to recreate the same film using a costume while using the same camera at the same distance in the same light condition. Now I feel like they are not giving any justice of the filming of this creature that we call the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

Not sure what the source was for making a statement there were three films associated with the P-G film. But it is completely false. To my knowledge there were only two films: one of the subject and one of the footprints in the ground. Both of these films were shown at the scientific & press showing in Vancouver, British Columbia in late October 1967 and when I spoke with the late Bob Titmus about the matter (October/November 1987) he told me that when he saw the films and spoke with Roger Patterson, he was more convinced than ever about their authenticity and made a decision to go down to the site to make an inspection of the area, as he felt the trackway would tell him immediately if this was a real film.  He was 100% convinced they were real.

 

Also, a newspaper article from that time period mentions films (plural) and in Ivan Sanderson's second Argosy write up on the matter  [Sanderson, Ivan Terence. “More Evidence That Bigfoot Exists.” Argosy, April 1968, pages 72-73. (Article makes mention of “What proof do we have, other than the films  taken by Roger Patterson...” Another indication, without a doubt, that two films were shot October 20, 1967 by Roger Patterson]. 

 

The second film of the trackway is likely in storage somewhere in the BBC vaults in England and Pat Patterson, after Roger died, loaned it to them, with no experience in lending out original material. Several inquiries have been made about the second film but to my knowledge nothing has come of it.

 

Daniel Perez

Bigfoot At Bluff Creek (1994, revised 2003).

Bigfoot Times, 1998 to present

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...