Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,938
Likes
25,932
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Ooooggg! It exists! Okay, "hot Nessie action"? Please nooo...o_O
Screenshot 2019-07-11 at 00.52.10.png

Lucy is at it again! This time traveling to scenic Scotland to find the Mythological Loch Ness Monster!In her previous adventures with the other Fantasy, Monsters Lucy experienced things she'd never dreamed of, now she wants more. While Bigfoot and the Yeti were both fulfilling in their own special way, Lucy was always left hungry for more. Now she's hot on the trail of the Loch Ness Monster. Is he a shifter? Or a prehistoric dinosaur? Something else? No one knows but Lucy is determined to find out.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
Okay.. Beam me up Scotty!! :mattack: Nothing but horndog apes with nukes down here! Gads.. Really??!
 

kamalktk

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
4,540
Likes
5,533
Points
209
View attachment 18768

Lucy is at it again! This time traveling to scenic Scotland to find the Mythological Loch Ness Monster!In her previous adventures with the other Fantasy, Monsters Lucy experienced things she'd never dreamed of, now she wants more. While Bigfoot and the Yeti were both fulfilling in their own special way, Lucy was always left hungry for more. Now she's hot on the trail of the Loch Ness Monster. Is he a shifter? Or a prehistoric dinosaur? Something else? No one knows but Lucy is determined to find out.
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,102
Likes
2,440
Points
154
There is a US congressman called Denver Riggleman who apparently writes Bigfoot erotica.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... That such a carefully crafted suit — a sizeable investment — was only used to make one hoax film. ...
I don't believe any suit Patterson had obtained was originally intended to be used solely for a one-time filming as late as October 1967. I've generally avoided stating or promoting any overall theories as to what was going on, but I'll have to do so now to explain this belief.

Patterson had already undertaken a documentary / dramatic re-enactment film project. This is sufficiently well-documented and attested. He would have needed a suit / costume for the re-enactment sequence(s) in this documentary.

The project wasn't going well, owing to insufficient funding and a surprising lack of diligence in doing the requisite planning, coordination, and filming. Patterson was dependent on his brother-in-law DeAtley's largesse to ensure the project could continue. He was already overdue in returning the camera he'd rented, and the shop had already warned him of imminent legal action.

The documentary project was in trouble, and Patterson was the focal target for all the assorted problems, which had festered to the point of involving outright legal jeopardy.

That's the background - a "fine mess" Patterson had gotten himself into, and a pressing need to resolve it somehow.

Now here's my favorite working theory about what was really going on ...

Patterson and DeAtley reached a crisis point on the whole film project mess. There was film already in the can, but there remained who-knows-how-much additional expense and effort to complete the originally planned documentary. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether DeAtley initiated discussion of alternatives, but his status as a hard-nosed businessman makes me believe that at some point he laid down the law to his slippery brother-in-law Roger. The documentary project was a losing proposition unworthy of further investment, and the only way out was to aim higher - i.e., shoot for a more spectacular (hence more marketable and lucrative) outcome.

They had a suit, and they already had film in the can. The only thing that needed to be done was to change the spin on any film they could present - i..e., re-package it as an actual Bigfoot encounter rather than a re-enactment. To do this they needed to create an encounter on demand to which they could attribute whatever filmed footage they had or would end up having.

The October 1967 trip was done in such a way to ensure maximum contact and interaction among local members of the Bigfoot research community in the Walnut Creek (etc.) area. They ensured a number of relevant parties were personally aware of their presence and their plan to pursue Bigfoot out in the backcountry.

By the time P & G headed back to Yakima they'd accomplished only two demonstrable / tangible things - they'd made sure lots of folks could testify they were there, and they'd disseminated a story of a seemingly miraculous encounter which had been recorded on film which was already gone. This dissemination included phoning a story in to a local newspaper, which published it the following day. Everything about the encounter itself was hearsay.

Having generated a lot of buzz among interested parties and the press, they headed home the very next day - pausing only to phone Hodgson about their departure, suggest a screening of the fabulous film would be forthcoming, and bring closure to the encounter creation exercise.

Regardless of how occupied DeAtley was over the next circa 36 hours in getting any film developed, he was definitely busy notifying known Bigfoot aficionados (Green, Dahinden, and McClarin) and inviting them to see some film. This viewing happened on Sunday - without Gimlin, and only after DeAtley and Patterson had privately reviewed the film being screened and engaged in a long private conversation. Gimlin's absence (exclusion?) ensured Patterson would be the only witness the assembled audience could interrogate.

The film not only passed the "smell test" with the knowledgeable audience, but also succeeded in motivating Green and Dahinden to argue for a quick presentation to a university audience in British Columbia.

The new / re-spun film was immediately off and running as a promising hit whose longer-term marketability required two things to happen:

- Any and all mention of the documentary film project already underway needed to be swept under the carpet, and most importantly ...
- Any suit / costume obtained for that project was now debunking evidence that had to disappear.
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
398
Likes
1,087
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
- Any and all mention of the documentary film project already underway needed to be swept under the carpet, and most importantly ...
- Any suit / costume obtained for that project was now debunking evidence that had to disappear.
All of your post makes perfect sense, and my own thoughts included the possibility of "repurposing" some test/documentary footage for quick and easy money and fame — and further funding. A supposedly "genuine" film of Bigfoot would be more marketable than a niche documentary.

However, disposal of the suit, rather than keeping it? I'm not so sure. It makes sense with hindsight now we know how famous the film became and how well he did out of it. But at that time, he did not know that it would become such a Big Thing, and I would expect him to have kept his options open.

We can only speculate.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... We can only speculate.
I'm sticking rigidly to my "I still don't know for sure" stance :) .
I agree with you both ... It's all speculation until and unless one of the two surviving primary participants - Gimlin and DeAtley - provide additional clarification for what was happening in 1967.

I'm still not sure Gimlin was "in on it" all along. On balance the last 50 years' events make me suspect he wasn't aware (or at least not fully aware) of the plan being executed.

On the other hand ... I'm confident DeAtley hasn't been forthcoming with all he knows about the affair, and I therefore don't expect this case's mysteries to ever be resolved if he doesn't reveal whatever he's obviously left unsaid.

I remain open to other scenarios and theories, and I've accumulated multiple alternative interpretations.

The reason I characterized the above interpretation as my "favorite working theory" is because (a) it's the one that provides the best fit with this case's odd collection of facts and reasonably acceptable claims and (b) it's the hypothesis that remains front and center on my figurative workbench rather than a firm final conclusion.

Just for the record ... I'm actually still agnostic about the possible existence of relict hominids, etc. It's the thin circumstantial evidence base, shaky reasoning, and self-serving promoters I've always targeted, not necessarily the creature per se.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
Regardless of how occupied DeAtley was over the next circa 36 hours in getting any film developed, he was definitely busy notifying known Bigfoot aficionados (Green, Dahinden, and McClarin) and inviting them to see some film. This viewing happened on Sunday - without Gimlin, and only after DeAtley and Patterson had privately reviewed the film being screened and engaged in a long private conversation. Gimlin's absence (exclusion?) ensured Patterson would be the only witness the assembled audience could interrogate.
IIRC, Gimlin had to go back to work and that was why he wasn't there and had very little to do with any subsequent publicity. No cover up or exclusion, he just couldn't do it.

And of course they 'engaged in a long private conversation', who wouldn't under the circumstances? Doesn't add to any kind of conspiracy IMO.

Just for the record ... I'm actually still agnostic about the possible existence of relict hominids, etc. It's the thin circumstantial evidence base, shaky reasoning, and self-serving promoters I've always targeted, not necessarily the creature per se.
Totally agree with you here, in case anyone thought I was a rabid 'Squatcher'. To me, it's all about the P+G film and how it can be viewed in diametrical opposite ways depending on who you ask.
On the face of it, I'd say it was bunkum but there are some things in it that still make me wonder.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
IIRC, Gimlin had to go back to work and that was why he wasn't there and had very little to do with any subsequent publicity. No cover up or exclusion, he just couldn't do it. ... .
Over the long term, that appears to have been the case.

With regard to the Sunday screening, though ... Gimlin did all the driving on the trip. It was his truck, and multiple sources have quoted or cited him as being critical, if not scared, of Patterson's driving.

They arrived back in Yakima sometime Saturday evening. The accounts that mention the return home consistently state that following all the trials of the trip Gimlin simply crashed (went to bed exhausted) for a long time. For all I know he wasn't even awake while the screening session was occurring.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
So there is a new stabilized version of the film just released.
To me, it adds information that can lead to misinterpretation. I don't know that you can squeeze any more info out of this footage without extending past the original data. But I don't know what the enhancements may have done.

Possibly the most interesting aspect is how two people can look at the same clip with one saying that it "totally" looks legit while the other person says it "totally" is a guy in a suit. This is what is truly amazing.
At the beginning of the film when she begins to turn toward viewer, you can clearly see the Gluteus Medius flexing; It's attached to the Iliac Crest of the larger female pelvis of the creature (It's part of the deep structure, and the surface landmarks of the iliac crest are used in figure drawing). I don't see a way that could be achieved; it would be very difficult even today. I don't think it's a suit.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
Not to be a pest...but no one commented on why the film ended...did they run out...were scared to follow...or what..?
It seems that in many of these 'paranormal videos' they end far too soon.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Not to be a pest...but no one commented on why the film ended...did they run out...were scared to follow...or what..?
It seems that in many of these 'paranormal videos' they end far too soon.
The Patty encounter supposedly wasn't the first footage Patterson had shot that day. Some accounts claim he'd filmed some general scene-setting footage (the forest; him and Gimlin riding their horses) prior to the encounter.

The first reel was therefore exhausted shortly after the encounter. I'm not sure whether the physical end of the roll was reached or Patterson noticed a low / final reading on the camera's footage indicator. My bet's on the former, based on comments Patterson wasn't all that skilled a camera operator.

In any case ... The other reason the film (as presented) stops as it does is because the original reels and the additional footage they contained went MIA a long time ago.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
The Patty encounter supposedly wasn't the first footage Patterson had shot that day. Some accounts claim he'd filmed some general scene-setting footage (the forest; him and Gimlin riding their horses) prior to the encounter.

The first reel was therefore exhausted shortly after the encounter. I'm not sure whether the physical end of the roll was reached or Patterson noticed a low / final reading on the camera's footage indicator. My bet's on the former, based on comments Patterson wasn't all that skilled a camera operator.

In any case ... The other reason the film (as presented) stops as it does is because the original reels and the additional footage they contained went MIA a long time ago.
Thanks for explaining that....I always wondered why they didn't follow the 'creature'.
 

MrRING

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
5,021
Likes
1,171
Points
234
Not to be a pest...but no one commented on why the film ended...did they run out...were scared to follow...or what..?
One of the standard types of film reel for 16mm was roughly 3-5 minutes of footage, and that was a standard type of reel that would go in news or cheaper hobby cameras. You'd need an external reel holder to put in more than that.

To change the film out of the camera, you'd have to put the whole camera in a film-changing bag, open the body of the camera, pull out the film and put it back in a protective box, then take it out. I couldn't do a complete switcheroo any faster than about 10 minutes, because you'd have to do the same thing to load the film, including threading the @#$%! thing by feel - though I think that it can be done faster with practice, but not a ton faster. If I had just seen Bigfoot, it would be hard to get back set up with a new reel in any time.

Now, if they has an external mount holding more film ready to go, you can get the used one off and the fresh one on in a minute or two.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
One of the standard types of film reel for 16mm was roughly 3-5 minutes of footage, and that was a standard type of reel that would go in news or cheaper hobby cameras. You'd need an external reel holder to put in more than that.

To change the film out of the camera, you'd have to put the whole camera in a film-changing bag, open the body of the camera, pull out the film and put it back in a protective box, then take it out. I couldn't do a complete switcheroo any faster than about 10 minutes, because you'd have to do the same thing to load the film, including threading the @#$%! thing by feel - though I think that it can be done faster with practice, but not a ton faster. If I had just seen Bigfoot, it would be hard to get back set up with a new reel in any time.

Now, if they has an external mount holding more film ready to go, you can get the used one off and the fresh one on in a minute or two.
Ok..that explains the time factor..I guess. It seems to me they could have followed to get more video or whatever. But if the film ran out..so be it.
It always seems in these paranormal films that they never last very long....even in the modern ones.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
My bet's on the former, based on comments Patterson wasn't all that skilled a camera operator.
I know that 'Astonishing Legends' aren't very well regarded by some here, but one of the things I gleaned from their podcast was that Patterson had been making amateur films since around the early 60's. I thought it was well established that he had run out of film when he did and that the prior part of the reel was taken up with stock footage.

The 'Bigfoot' section of the film was actually five or six short bursts of the camera being turned on and off as Patterson rushed about to get a better view (this is according to Bill Munns). One burst of film was only a second or so long. He says it looks like the actions of someone panicking and certainly not what you might expect from a hoaxer.


The project wasn't going well, owing to insufficient funding and a surprising lack of diligence in doing the requisite planning, coordination, and filming.
And yet despite all this... A suit that has confounded experts for fifty years, bought on 'insufficient funding'. That a lack of diligence in planning, coordination and filming led to a hoax so grand must have been the greatest stroke of luck ever.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Thanks for explaining that....I always wondered why they didn't follow the 'creature'.
They did set out to follow Patty once Patterson reloaded the camera and they got their horses settled.

Both P and G claimed they tracked Patty for some distance, but their accounts were vague or conflicting regarding how far they tracked the creature, whether there'd been additional visual contact, if and where they lost its trail versus simply giving up, and why they broke off the pursuit.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
They did set out to follow Patty once Patterson reloaded the camera and they got their horses settled.

Both P and G claimed they tracked Patty for some distance, but their accounts were vague or conflicting regarding how far they tracked the creature, whether there'd been additional visual contact, if and where they lost its trail versus simply giving up, and why they broke off the pursuit.
I guess that makes some sense....but why did they go that area...did someone see a bigfoot there before...so they went in hopes of seeing one...or were they just out having a ride..? The fact that he was into Bigfoot and conveniently saw one..is suspicious to some degree.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
I guess that makes some sense....but why did they go that area...did someone see a bigfoot there before...so they went in hopes of seeing one...or were they just out having a ride..? The fact that he was into Bigfoot and conveniently saw one..is suspicious to some degree.
Bigfoot sightings and tracks had been reported for decades in remote areas located from northernmost California to British Columbia.

This (Willow Creek; Orleans) area was one of the locales for prior such reports.

More specifically ... There'd been a report of tracks found in the Bluff Creek area in August 1967 (roughly 2 months before the Patty incident).

Gimlin has repeatedly stated that Patterson bugged him to undertake an expedition there based on the August reports.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
Bigfoot sightings and tracks had been reported for decades in remote areas located from northernmost California to British Columbia.

This (Willow Creek; Orleans) area was one of the locales for prior such reports.

More specifically ... There'd been a report of tracks found in the Bluff Creek area in August 1967 (roughly 2 months before the Patty incident).

Gimlin has repeatedly stated that Patterson bugged him to undertake an expedition there based on the August reports.
Thanks for the info........,For decades?, that would mean the late 40's and 50's...into the 60's..I never even heard of Bigfoot until some years after the Patterson film.
So who and where were people reporting 'Bigfoot' to back then..?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,476
Likes
14,055
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Thanks for the info........,For decades?, that would mean the late 40's and 50's...into the 60's..I never even heard of Bigfoot until some years after the Patterson film.
So who and where were people reporting 'Bigfoot' to back then..?
No offense intended, but ... At this point I have to recommend you do some background research on the Bigfoot / Sasquatch phenomenon. Stories of a humanoid creature go back to pre-20th century folklore, and sensational encounter stories from the Pacific Northwest date back at least as far as the 1920's.

Unless you followed or read about cryptozoological stories prior to the P&G film you might have simply missed mention of it. Until the P&G film popularized Bigfoot nationally and even internationally it was effectively a regional (Pacific Northwest) bit of lore.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
No offense intended, but ... At this point I have to recommend you do some background research on the Bigfoot / Sasquatch phenomenon. Stories of a humanoid creature go back to pre-20th century folklore, and sensational encounter stories from the Pacific Northwest date back at least as far as the 1920's.

Unless you followed or read about cryptozoological stories prior to the P&G film you might have simply missed mention of it. Until the P&G film popularized Bigfoot nationally and even internationally it was effectively a regional (Pacific Northwest) bit of lore.
Oh..I am very aware that tales have been around for a long time...including those of the Yeti also which was probably better known ..(I'm 67 yrs old so I go back a long ways..)....but I meant that most people were not aware of Bigfoot tales until it was popularized after the film became known. I don't think it was common knowledge to most people that such a being was in the folklore in the states. As you said...regional lore.
 
Top