I quote myself (once again) from the Patty At Fifty article. There are only four possibilities.A more probable variation on this `mixed scenario` is simply that Gimlin was/is sincere and was not in on the hoax that had been set up by Patterson. Gimlin is by all accounts a quiet spoken credible man, quite apart from the his more shady associate, and has only recently has crept into the limelight. There is at least one written interview with him - damned if I can find it now - where he does concede the possibility that he himself has been the unwitting stooge of a prank all these years.
If it's fake:
..was Gimlin complicit? If he was, then it's perfectly possible that there were multiple takes of a man in a suit, with all day to get it right, the only risk being someone else catching them at it (or indeed a real, short-sighted randy male bigfoot..) In fact - do we even see Gimlin in the film? How do we know it's not him in the suit? He wouldn't be then lying if he said he was there..
..or, if Gimlin wasn't complicit, it would have involved a lot of set up, an actor in a suit sitting around for hours on his tod (a suit at least good enough to be convincing to the naked eye of an experienced woodsman, so probably intricate to get into and certainly difficult to don alone), located in a remote area, just waiting for Patterson and Gimlin to come ambling round the corner. Not impossible, but a one-take deal.
..or, maybe neither were complicit, and both were pranked by a third party - but see above for the logistical likelihood of that (see also long lines of prints found in snow miles from where anyone could be guaranteed to see them before they melted - hoaxing relies entirely on reaction from an innocent party otherwise it's utterly pointless.)
Or - it's real.
Occam's Razor, on the other hand, is very useful when applied correctly. See above.I am not an Occulms Razor kind of a guy (you could have never predicted Quantum mechnics, for example with Occulms razor) but there are times when it has its uses - and this is one of them!
Whoa! That may have been an offhand joke - but I do believe that Analogue Boy may just have provided a valid explanation of why Patty is female - despite the silliness of doing it that way and the extra expense it would have incurred. The femaleness of Patty has long bothered me - and I believe it still constitutes a major reason as to why so many sane people still insist on the picture showing the real deal.
Think about it in local and contemporary cultural terms.Had Patty been male then it woulkd have needed the correct appendages to be believable to zoologists - which would have meant a visible, and probabaly quite large, penis. Now in 1967 such a thing would have been quite `ooer missis` and would have lead to the the circulation of the film being restricted(it would not have been showable to minors, for example, and would never have been broadcast on TV). The only way round the censorhip and restricted viewership that a male bigfoot would have been subjected to would be to make the creature a female of the species. All very shrewd - and perfectly understandable withtin the cultural context of its time.
Lovely smile, though. Are chimps and orangs along similar lines (I'm not Googling it)?A fully grown adult gorilla has an erect penis length of 1.25cm
Lovely smile, though. Are chimps and orangs along similar lines (I'm not Googling it)?
Today, the average erect gorilla penis is 3cm (1.25 inches)long, the average chimp or bonobo penis comes in at around 8cm and the average human penis stands at around 13cm. Most primates, including chimpanzees, have a penis bone and achieve erections through muscle contraction.2 The human penis has evolved the unusual system of vasocongestion to achieve erection, making the erect organ far more flexible than that of other primate species.
This unique adaptation is thought to have been selected through female mate choice, and by the time Homo erectus arrived on the scene, the hominid penis was significantly longer, fatter and more bendy than our ape cousins'. It has even been theorised that bipedalism evolved in humans to allow the fashionably new, larger, flexible penis to be displayed to discerning females.3
1) If it was a hoax and all participants were in on it, why did they go so far into the wilderness to film it?
1) If it was a hoax and all participants were in on it, why did they go so far into the wilderness to film it? ...
3) For those who dismiss the PG film because Roger Patterson was a bit dodgy, to paraphrase Jerome Clarke's comment on the Desverger UFO Case, possibly this was a Cryptozooligist's worst nightmare, a real event that happened to an unreliable individual
I have found my Gillette Razor has proven most handy nearly every day of my adult life. And I’m ever careful to apply it correctly, especially now it comes with three blades.Occam's Razor, on the other hand, is very useful when applied correctly. See above.
The scene (Bluff Creek) wasn't arbitrarily chosen by Pattersion from 'out of the blue.' He selected it based on the most recent (late August) report of a sighting from a fellow Bigfoot fan in California. He indicated to Gimlin that the October trip was motivated by a desire to check the latest sighting scene ASAP.
There remains a pesky problem with timelines. At various times over the decades there have been allusions to Patterson's having visited and filmed in the same area earlier. It's known without question that Patterson had visited, scouted and filmed in the very same area the previous summer. Even Gimlin (years ago) was unclear about both (a) how long they'd been there prior to the alleged encounter and (b) whether they'd visited the same area some weeks earlier (possibly as early as late August, immediately following the most recent sighting).
Given a decently robust vehicle (like Patterson's VW van or Gimlin's larger truck) they weren't all that far into wilderness. They drove in via logging roads. The reason for the long difficult evacuation the day following the filming was because rains had swollen the creek to the point they couldn't ford it on their inbound route, and they'd had to take a longer and more arduous high road / high water route to get back to the main highways.
Patterson's dodginess may have helped motivate the October trip and filming in the first place. He was already long overdue in returning the movie camera he'd rented months earlier. He supposedly first learned the cops were looking for him when he phoned DeAtley from California, but he had plenty of reason to suspect he was in trouble prior to that.
The bigger issue of dodginess relates to the issue of whether Patterson was playing some or all the folks in California and certain fellow Bigfoot fans as fools.
As discussed in detail earlier in this thread, there's never been a coherent explanation for how Kodachrome film exposed in the California backcountry Friday afternoon, and not dispatched back to Yakima until Friday night, could have been developed and available for viewing back in Yakima 48 hours later when people assembled to see it at DeAtley's place. The only defensible explanation (based on evidence to date) is that the Bigfoot footage presented on Sunday wasn't shot as recently as two days earlier, and it may have been in DeAtley's (or Patterson's) possession prior to the October trip.
This suggests (a) the famous footage presented later wasn't filmed on Friday and viewed on Sunday (i.e., it was a separate film) and / or (b) the footage shown on Sunday had already been available but never advertised with all the ballyhoo Patterson generated 2 days earlier (and may have simply been an outtake from his film project rather than an un-staged sighting).
If the October 20 sighting and filming was "real", the audience at DeAtley's place couldn't have seen the result on the 22nd. If the audience was told the film they were being shown on Sunday was shot only 2 days earlier somebody was deceiving someone.
This still leaves room for the October 20th sighting and footage to be authentic, but for some reason(s) Patterson and DeAtley seem to have already been pursuing a plan to convince interested parties they'd finally captured the proof everyone had been seeking. If Patterson had unexpectedly obtained such proof one must ask why they didn't defer the Yakima showing until the film had been developed. What would have motivated them to show their audience fake (documentary) footage knowing they had the real thing in process?
IMHO there's a stink on all this, and it can't be eliminated until and unless DeAtley comes clean about what was really going on in October 1967.
It's not just that though, it's the physical logistics. As Enola says, short of helicopter use the timings are incredibly marginal, let alone anybody being given a back-hander to process it (again, how much? Patterson was broke.)This is addressed in the Astonishing Legends podcast, I forget the details but I think the implication was that someone was paid "off the books" to process it on the Saturday or overnight Friday. I don't know how realistic that is.
For me this is one of the most niggling features. There was absolutely no need to lie about it. This was 1967, so no time stamps, no embedded meta-data. A couple of days expansion in the sequence of events would have made no perceptive difference to the narrative and most of these issues wouldn't even arise. So - why complicate it? Unless of course that it's the truth, however illogically inconvenient it may be.If they are lying about filming on Friday, then why, especially if it makes the story less believable? Did they think the footage being "newer" made it seem more authentic or something?
This is addressed in the Astonishing Legends podcast, I forget the details but I think the implication was that someone was paid "off the books" to process it on the Saturday or overnight Friday. I don't know how realistic that is.
If they are lying about filming on Friday, then why, especially if it makes the story less believable? Did they think the footage being "newer" made it seem more authentic or something?
Yakima is also the site of the Kenneth Arnold "flying saucer" UFO sighting a dozen years before.to travel to Yakima that weekend?
I have found my Gillette Razor has proven most handy nearly every day of my adult life. And I’m ever careful to apply it correctly, especially now it comes with three blades.
I keep seeing this argument, but it entirely presupposes that the area is still a frequent traffic area. It could well be somewhere almost-never transited now, or even only rarely back then - an equivalent could be setting up a trail cam on the corner of 112 & Pine on Long Island on the basis that I walked past it fairly regularly for a while 28 years ago. You could go as far as setting up a trail cam on the corner of many roads in my own present neighbourhood without ever catching me walking past simply because I have no reason to be there.If you think the PG film is a real Bigfoot, surely you would want to blanket the area where it was taken with trail cameras?
While that is true, if you believe it's a real film then this area has the only proven video of one. While you may not walk down Main Street regularly, if I have video of you walking down Main Street then a trail camera there has a better chance than on 112 and Pine where someone says they saw you, I would know for a fact you walked down Main Street at least once, while 112 and Pine is hearsay and the witness could have seen someone they thought was you but wasn't. You don't have to walk down Main Street every day, I only need one clear video so I can just patiently wait for the trail cameras to get you.I keep seeing this argument, but it entirely presupposes that the area is still a frequent traffic area. It could well be somewhere almost-never transited now, or even only rarely back then - an equivalent could be setting up a trail cam on the corner of 112 & Pine on Long Island on the basis that I walked past it fairly regularly for a while 28 years ago. You could go as far as setting up a trail cam on the corner of many roads in my own present neighbourhood without ever catching me walking past simply because I have no reason to be there.
That required range and difficulty maintaining a breeding size population is specifically is why I don't believe in Bigfoot. Also, apex predators generally dont hide, since they are, after all, the apex predators in an area and not challenged by anything.If Bigfeet are omnivorous apex predators, they could have a range of dozens or even hundreds of square miles, with a central nexus that could be twenty or thirty miles from where they're chance-encountered. This is an observation that can be considered quite apart from the authenticity or otherwise of the PG film.
So does this mean that anomalien’s other posts on UFOs, fungal aliens, alien tombs on Mars and the thoughts of Uri Geller are equally viable?What the sceptics can't explain. https://anomalien.com/the-patterson...GEO6zlO3mZ4hRTQV6vQTuirM3YtO4i1CtnrVU5j12KdDE
I see the legs moving but the bum isn’t convincing at all.If it was a suit...it wasnt a cheap one.
I thought Patty had a great ass!I see the legs moving but the bum isn’t convincing at all.
God no! But he makes valid points here.So does this mean that anomalien’s other posts on UFOs, fungal aliens, alien tombs on Mars and the thoughts of Uri Geller are equally viable?