Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Time to ask again:

Sweaty, allowing that we see bending fingers and toes in the subject of the film; how does that strengthen the position, that the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ?

[captain koolaid]

Originally Posted by LAL

Why don't we have mass hysteria over pink unicorns? Are they out of style?

Sometimes people who don't know each other report the same individual, and many of these sightings are backed up by physical sign. Isn't it just remotely possible they're accurately reporting what they saw?

Unicorns. Stuff and nonsense. Dinosaurs? You betcha. Forget Bigfoot. They've been devoured by Allosaurs.

Quote:

"Dinosaur" Sightings in Cortez Colorado?

It may sound almost beyond belief. Don't miss a Special Report Monday and Wednesday on KSL 5 Eyewitness News at 10 p.m. November 4, 2002
News Specialist John Hollenhorst reporting

It's astounding -- if it's true. But, is it true? Recently, reports have surfaced of several strange sightings of a bizarre "mystery lizard." Witnesses in Colorado, near the Utah border, say believe it or not, it looks like a small dinosaur! As we learned in the Washington, D.C. sniper investigation, eyewitness reports can be be problematic. Sometimes fraudulent. Often deeply mistaken. ALWAYS incomplete. But, you simply have to hear what witnesses around Cortez, Colorado are saying about the mystery lizard.

Is something out there? Is there something bizarre that shows itself only once in a while to a few astounded human beings?

"It was a Jurassic Park flashback. I mean I was -- I couldn't believe it," says Shannon Ystesund. Ystesund and a girlfriend were driving down this road the night of July 5. She says a creature ran in front of the headlights, a very big lizard, nearly vertical, running on its hind legs. "We were, you know, freaked out. Immediately we thought it was some kind of dinosaur or a huge lizard. So we came home," she says. "They just walked in and they were real excited and they said, 'we just saw a little dinosaur run across the road,'" says Ystesund's husband, Keith.

"Looked like the little dinosaurs in Jurassic Park that surrounded everybody in the tall grass fields," says Shannon. This lady gives only her first name, Bea, because she's been reluctant to go public with her story. "Yes, I have, because people think you're nuts," Bea says. "Like a miniature dinosaur, you know. That would be as close as I can come to describing it. And I've never seen anything like it."

Quote:

"Extending from the Northern Territory’s Arnhem Land east through the Gulf of Carpentaria to Queensland’s Cape York district is the story of ‘Burrunjor.’ The description is reminiscent of an Allosaurus, a smaller version of the well-known Tyrannosaurus. In 1950, cattlemen on the border between the Northern Territory and Queensland claimed losing stock to a strange beast which left mutilated, half-eaten corpses in its destructive wake. A part-Aboriginal tracker also claimed to have seen a bipedal reptile, 7–8 metres (25 feet) tall, moving through the scrub near Lagoon Creek on the Gulf Coast in 1961.

Some parts of northern Australia’s vastness are still little explored, and large areas of it are closed to public access. Perhaps some creatures unknown to science are still to be found there."

When those MABRC guys, smeared in bacon grease, turn up missing, don't go trying to blame it on some silly-ass "Bigfoot". They're Spino poop. You have been warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG0z6AODrUk

[LAL]

The interscye measure is an arc from armpit to armpit. The correct measure for comparison would be "chest breadth". That measurement in the 95th percentile of the German aviators is 34.5 cm-interscye is 49.6. The 99th percentile was 37.4 cm, still considerably less than Krantz' estimate of 46.5 chest breadth for the Patterson figure. Both used the scale of the foot. So, comparing an arc to a straight line measurement is apples and potatoes.(See Sasquatch by Jeff Meldrum -pg. 163)

McClarin was familiar with the path the creature took because he and Richard Henry had investigated the area on November 5 when the path was still very clear. The beginning was still visible as indistinct impressions (per McClarin on BFF) when he and John Green did the reenactment. John held the camera slightly lower at times, but the frames line up quite well with the PGF. The discrepancy would make the 180 lb. McClarin look taller but the discrepancy would be slight at that distance.

Steindorf tracked the joint centers through 116 frames. Foreshortening was addressed by "taking the maximal length of limb segments apparent when the limb lies parallel to the film plane". Meldrum didn't give a specific margin of error but wrote it would be negligible.

I keep giving sources in hopes you guys will look this stuff up and save me the trouble of typing it out; many of the questions have been answered by the people who did the work.

Correa, please give specifics on why you think LMS is "pseudoscience". You have seen it, haven't you?

If sasquatches are descended from Gigantopithecus blacki or is are in the human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, yes, there's a fossil record of similar animals.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Now, please go to MABRC forum discuss with BulletMaker. Remember to be open-minded when it comes to Noah, the universal flood, YEC, bigfoot at his backyard, etc.

They'll have to do it via PM. From the MABRC guidelines: "THREADS THAT ARE STRICTLY POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS WILL BE CLOSED AND MOVED FROM PUBLIC VIEW."

Quote:

The above must not to be interpreted as a declaration that everybody at MABRC is a BulletMaker-like type. Its just a reminder of one bigfootery aspects which contributes to keep it as a fringe subject.

Tell it to the MABRC atheists. You know zip about the organization, Correa. Don't try to sound like you do.

[Crowlogic]

Everyone check out this thread at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...2&#entry487792

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

GTCS - As soon as I saw the gif Sweaty posted, I knew you were going to jump in with #27. That wristband is just sitting right there, it alsmost looks like a gardening glove with hair glued to it.

Let me get this straight - the film is too blurry for facial features, bristling neck hairs and a thigh hernia, but it's clear enough for a wristband?

The three year, $75,000 study by NASI found no seams, no zippers, no indications of a suit. They must just have overlooked the wristband.

[LAL]

Marvelous suit (click to activate):

[bruto]

To-MAH-to:

Originally Posted by LAL

Let me get this straight - the film is too blurry for facial features, bristling neck hairs and a thigh hernia, but it's clear enough for a wristband?

To-MAY-to: The film is too blurry for facial features, bristling neck hairs and a thigh hernia, but even so the wristband shows up?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Kitakaze:

Thank you for your detailed comparison of my film background as compared to that of Chris Walas.

I have always admired Chris and his many fine accomplishments in film makeup.

That said, I simply choose to respond to your post by saying every person may judge me and those who wish to judge me fairly should look at my website which illustrates the sum of my accomplishments thus far.

Fair enough. As a person who is not a make up professional and student of the Patterson/Gimlin hoax I find it wisest to examine all facets of the film and its creation. Given that I'm not a make-up professional when I am looking into details regarding the fabrication of the suit I look for consensus among those who are professionals and the opinions of the most experienced and accomplished of that field. At this point in time both point in contradiction of your ideas regarding Patty. If the majority and best of the world's scientists tell us that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and a tiny minority (in your case a minority of one) says it never happened and the world is no older than 10,000 years and after the best examination of the evidence that I can conduct myself I find no merit to the latter position why should I give further consideration to it?

I hope you will spare me Galileo type references.

Quote:

But nothing in this ongoing debate of the film will be resolved until people rise above judging people and focus on judging the film, and studies in relation to it.

Bill

I agree with extremely accomplished Chris Walas and master creature maker Rick Baker's separate studies of the film finding it to be a hoax. I have the overwhelming support of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the film to further strengthen that opinion.

[Bill Munns]

Kitakaze:

For the record, I'm a devout believer in evolution, so your analogy was poorly chosen, but that aside, you cannot be faulted for siding with "the many" instead of "the one who disagrees with the many".

Bill

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Kitakaze:

For the record, I'm a devout believer in evolution, so your analogy was poorly chosen, but that aside, you cannot be faulted for siding with "the many" instead of "the one who disagrees with the many".

Bill

The analogy was not at all poorly chosen at all. As a person who has done paleontological reconstructions I have no doubt you have no qualms whatsoever with evolution as fact. The analogy is simply meant as an example when one is confronted with a conflict between a widely supported, well founded position and one that is fringe and has little to no support in a community of peers.

Personally, I find it to be not so much a matter of siding with the many against one who disagrees but siding with the many including those who are far more experienced than the one who disagrees. Pretty simple, really.

BTW, guy who says he saw a Patty-like suit at a mansion? You probably agree but sounds like hooey.

[Bill Munns]

Kitakazi:

"The analogy was not at all poorly chosen at all. "

wrong


"Pretty simple, really."

wrong

"BTW, guy who says he saw a Patty-like suit at a mansion? You probably agree "

wrong.

see a pattern here?

Bill

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Kitakazi:

"The analogy was not at all poorly chosen at all. "

wrong


"Pretty simple, really."

wrong

"BTW, guy who says he saw a Patty-like suit at a mansion? You probably agree "

wrong.

see a pattern here?

Bill

Yes, I do. Three uses of the word 'wrong' without any explanation of why whatsoever. It's kind of like shaking your head and saying "nuh uh!"

[Bill Munns]

Right

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Right

One could argue that another pattern that seems to be happening is for you to deteriorate into the above types of posts when things aren't going your way in a discussion.

I don't have any problem in substantiating my disagreement with your position. Here's an example:

You say that Chris Walas' description of the suit he saw caused you to "draw a blank," and that you couldn't imagine it. Yet here in a post by JohnWS we see Chris Cowan describing ape suits for the movie Congo being constructed in a very similar fashion:

Originally Posted by JohnWS

In view of LAL's comment re Chris Walas above, I re read Chris' posts that he made on BFF (You have to search for them, they aren't pinned ).

Here is his description of how such a suit would go together:

Quote:

The pants section goes on first. This may or may not be supported by elastic suspenders, belt or other fastener. The pants can be made out of the surface material (here it would be fur), or if there is padding to be done, it was often built up on cotton long johns.
The top went on next; and in this instance would have been built up on some "shirt" base such as a long sleeve cotton top. The top section would have fasteners at the crotch to hold front and back together, similar to some infant clothes. This would cover enough of the pants section to insure "underwear" wouldn't show through

Compare this to a description by Chris Cowan of some ape suits constructed for Congo at Stan Winston Studio:

Quote:

The bottom part of the muscle suit had the leg, gluteus and butt muscles, while the upper part went from the shoulders to the forearms and down to the crotch. The hair suit was also in two pieces. The pants, with the feet attached, slid on; then the torso section snapped along the upper thigh and under the crotch.

I think that sounds very similar though obviously the Congo suits appear much more sophisticated.

Cowan information from HERE

I think I can say in that case you were wrong. See how that works?

[Bill Munns]

Kitakaze:

here's what I wrote in my review of the first note set on fur:

"Returning to my Notes, Part One, in the section "Where the seams are", my opening remark was:

"I read in a post by Chris Walas that he described a suit structured with a "pants" section, and then a "shirt" section. I did that with Swamp Thing (both suits), but they were foam latex. For fur suits, everything I've ever done was a one piece jumpsuit, zipper up the back, plus headpiece, gloves, and boots."

This simple observation seems to have provoked a surprizing amount of discussion and argument. Since then, it has been brought to my attention that two piece fur suits were often made (although to this day, I can't figure out the advantage of such). But those defending or advocating that "Patty" was done by similar two piece fur suit design, they seem to have taken the idea of a two piece fur suit as if it were some magic or exhaulted design, above my comprehension, to keep the integrity of that theory above my criticisms. It has become almost comical, in a way, because there's nothing particularly special about how anybody sections a suit into one, two, three or more parts. It's just a design choice, an option. But it is funny how it has become a strong issue for some people when it's a total non-issue to me.

If it is an issue for you (the reader), you may want to read over the Notes, Part 12, on Hip Shadow Lines, because those who advocate a two piece fur suit design invariably rely on some of those shadow lines to make their point.

Bill

PS: I'm off for the night. I'll check back with you tomorrow.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Kitakaze:

here's what I wrote in my review of the first note set on fur:

"Returning to my Notes, Part One, in the section "Where the seams are", my opening remark was:

"I read in a post by Chris Walas that he described a suit structured with a "pants" section, and then a "shirt" section. I did that with Swamp Thing (both suits), but they were foam latex. For fur suits, everything I've ever done was a one piece jumpsuit, zipper up the back, plus headpiece, gloves, and boots."

This simple observation seems to have provoked a surprizing amount of discussion and argument. Since then, it has been brought to my attention that two piece fur suits were often made (although to this day, I can't figure out the advantage of such). But those defending or advocating that "Patty" was done by similar two piece fur suit design, they seem to have taken the idea of a two piece fur suit as if it were some magic or exhaulted design, above my comprehension, to keep the integrity of that theory above my criticisms. It has become almost comical, in a way, because there's nothing particularly special about how anybody sections a suit into one, two, three or more parts. It's just a design choice, an option. But it is funny how it has become a strong issue for some people when it's a total non-issue to me.

If it is an issue for you (the reader), you may want to read over the Notes, Part 12, on Hip Shadow Lines, because those who advocate a two piece fur suit design invariably rely on some of those shadow lines to make their point.

Bill

PS: I'm off for the night. I'll check back with you tomorrow.

This too is pretty simple. In your interview with Melissa Hovey you went on at length how a two piece fur suit doesn't make any sense to you and yet there we have examples of highly skilled professionals doing just that.

It would seem that one would have fair reason to question your particular professional observations regarding fur suits and more reason to feel confident in the finding of those more experienced individuals such as Chris Walas and Rick Baker who have proclaimed the PGF a hoax. It's nothing personal, just common sense.

[LAL]

JohnWS might have saved himself a lot of trouble if he'd looked at the first post in this record-setting thread. It contains a link to Walas on BFF.

Ah, the good old days when Dfoot challenged Walas in defense of the PGF before he began spinning his Roger-in-Hollywood tales and set you folks off on quests for the Chang/Post mystery mask and the real maker of the suit.

It was pointed out on the first page on BFF lines like that can be observed on gorillas, and, as I found out to my horror, in the mirror. In another thread soarwing posted photos of gorillas showing "suit lines" everywhere they'd been observed. From this we must conclude the zoos are full of gorillas wearing gorilla suits (they zip up the back).

In the interviews I've seen, there's no attempt to explain the proportions. It's just "walks like a man, guy in a bad hair suit, sorry" with the exception of Janos Prohaska. Of course, Dfoot decided Janos was in on it too because Janos knew how long it would take to glue the hair on. Baker apparently changed his mind (Chorvinsky article) so I guess he wasn't in on it.

Do you guys look at your own "circumstantial evidence"?

[Crowlogic]

So now we have Patty in the mansion in the hands of a wealthy collector. Five will get you ten that there is no Patty suit in that mansion if there is even a mansion at all. But assuming there is it is as difficult to accept how that could have stayed below the radar this long. Somebody should tip Bob H off and he can add the in the mansion somewhere to his story. Hmmm maybe that collector would like a replica of Bob too.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by LAL

JohnWS might have saved himself a lot of trouble if he'd looked at the first post in this record-setting thread. It contains a link to Walas on BFF.

Ah, the good old days when Dfoot challenged Walas in defense of the PGF before he began spinning his Roger-in-Hollywood tales and set you folks off on quests for the Chang/Post mystery mask and the real maker of the suit.

It was pointed out on the first page on BFF lines like that can be observed on gorillas, and, as I found out to my horror, in the mirror. In another thread soarwing posted photos of gorillas showing "suit lines" everywhere they'd been observed. From this we must conclude the zoos are full of gorillas wearing gorilla suits (they zip up the back).

In the interviews I've seen, there's no attempt to explain the proportions. It's just "walks like a man, guy in a bad hair suit, sorry" with the exception of Janos Prohaska. Of course, Dfoot decided Janos was in on it too because Janos knew how long it would take to glue the hair on. Baker apparently changed his mind (Chorvinsky article) so I guess he wasn't in on it.

Do you guys look at your own "circumstantial evidence"?

Perhaps there is no attempt to explain proportions because they didn't even consider it as an issue, or as large a one as footers claim (kind of like a dark spot that none of us considered important but some footers claim means something).

So yes, we look at 'our' own 'circumstantial evidence' and it still appears much more reliable.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Originally Posted by LAL

Ah, the good old days when Dfoot challenged Walas in defense of the PGF before he began spinning his Roger-in-Hollywood tales

Well, I recall that Roger's friend Jerry Merrit did confirm visiting Hollywood with Patterson, so it's not like Dfoot dreamed up the idea.

Quote:

It was pointed out on the first page on BFF lines like that can be observed on gorillas, and, as I found out to my horror, in the mirror.

Ah, but did they show them in motion? This is a common request whenever a skeptic points out a suit detail that can be found on Patty, so I don't see why the proponents shouldn't do the same.

Quote:

In the interviews I've seen, there's no attempt to explain the proportions.

Perhaps this is because they know costumes can disguise proportions?

Quote:

Of course, Dfoot decided Janos was in on it too because Janos knew how long it would take to glue the hair on.

Wrong. Although it's hilarious that he gave a time estimate for an "impossible" suit, that's not why Dfoot said he was in on it. It was largely because Janos' statements blatantly contradicted his work experience, such as his claim of not knowing where to find someone big enough to play Patty (despite working with such men on "Star Trek").

Quote:

Baker apparently changed his mind (Chorvinsky article) so I guess he wasn't in on it.

You might want to read that more carefully. He changed his mind that John Chambers made the suit, not that it was a hoax.

Thanks for the clip of one of the "Half Human" suits, though. It's a shame those costumes have long since rotted away, as I'd love to see if the fur would look as Patty-like as it does to me when filmed from the same distance as Patty was.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LAL

Ah, the good old days when Dfoot challenged Walas in defense of the PGF before he began spinning his Roger-in-Hollywood tales and set you folks off on quests for the Chang/Post mystery mask and the real maker of the suit.

Wow. Sounds like you are saying that Dfoot was being dishonest. Sounds like you are saying that Patterson did not make trips to Hollywood. You have factual information to support that implication I hope? We have not only Jerry Merritt's confirmation but Patterson himself writing in his own book about having business in LA to attend to.

Oops for you.

Patterson made trips to LA, had connections in Hollywood, had financing to rent a suit, and had a pretty good sob story to endear himself to the service and assistance of a Hollywood professional.

[tube]

Verne Langdon called me last night and we spoke at some length about various subjects. He was fairly polite about it on BFF, but he has no doubt at all that the Patterson film subject was a costume. I asked him what he thought it might be made of. He suggested bear hair, or even horse hair. Evidently some people cut horse's tails off and use them for various purposes. Langdon suggested it might take 20 tails to produce enough hair to create a full Bigfoot suit. The hair would be sewn on to a pre-existing suit and the whole thing dyed. He added though, that "a number of methods could be used".

The horse hair angle is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that Patterson was heavily involved with horses.

Langdon was adamant that John Chambers did not make the suit as "Patterson couldn't have afforded him".

Langdon didn't feel the mask was one created by Don Post studios.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by tube

Verne Langdon called me last night and we spoke at some length about various subjects. He was fairly polite about it on BFF, but he has no doubt at all that the Patterson film subject was a costume. I asked him what he thought it might be made of. He suggested bear hair, or even horse hair. Evidently some people cut horse's tails off and use them for various purposes. Langdon suggested it might take 20 tails to produce enough hair to create a full Bigfoot suit. The hair would be sewn on to a pre-existing suit and the whole thing dyed. He added though, that "a number of methods could be used".

The horse hair angle is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that Patterson was heavily involved with horses.

Langdon was adamant that John Chambers did not make the suit as "Patterson couldn't have afforded him".

Langdon didn't feel the mask was one created by Don Post studios.

Very cool. That must have been quite an interesting conversation. Was there any discussion of any other specific individuals and their possible involvement?

I'm thinking about an individual alleged to have done the hair work for the suit.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Wow. Sounds like you are saying that Dfoot was being dishonest. Sounds like you are saying that Patterson did not make trips to Hollywood. You have factual information to support that implication I hope? We have not only Jerry Merritt's confirmation but Patterson himself writing in his own book about having business in LA to attend to.

Oops for you.

Patterson made trips to LA, had connections in Hollywood, had financing to rent a suit, and had a pretty good sob story to endear himself to the service and assistance of a Hollywood professional.

Did I say he didn't go to Hollywood? It's what all he did there that's pure conjecture. He wrote a song, too. I suppose that means he had secret connections in Nashville.

If you've read Green you should remember he said Patterson made a trip to check on copyrights. It's not like other researchers didn't know that.

No oops there at all. You read something in in hopes of tripping me up, but I deftly jumped over your foot. Sorry about that.

[LONGTABBER PE]

[quote=captain koolaid;4029310]


Dfoot has demonstrated quite enough. At least to a rational observer. Is Longtabber uttering heresies?
Sounds like he is running the risk of becoming a "Suppressed Person". [quote]

Yes I am ( according to PM's and some posts)

I have a running battle over there and if anyone follows the thread ( and others on the subject)

ALL I have said is the film doesnt have the necessary information to measure it ACCURATELY ( and is doesnt) so all the trig, all the math, all the ratios et al are nothing more tha a GUESS based on estimated data. ( no matter how many times sweaty wants to argue in circles, as was stated in an old ST eposide- "his words are not important and we dont hear him") and I dont argue facts against denial ( its the never ending circle and I just dont have the time for it)

I realized I was posting against someone who has a working knowledge of the subject ( and i knew he knew he was misrepresenting the facts) and finally called him out and even he finally admitted the film couldnt be measured accurately ( big surprise there) but "relative measurements" could be made. ( despite the circular reasoning and back walking from original positions and "explaining it away" which I found rather entertaining)

relative measurements= educated guess= scientifically useless for any meaningful study ( thats how it works)

The question of X with a (+/-) added to it ( this "relative measurement") doesnt mean anything unless "X" is a known. ( and it isnt) ( try building a part to tolerance without knowing what the baseline measurement is)

all the kings horses, arguments, ignorance, denial, jabberwocky, talking around, quoting "pseudo experts" isnt going to change the MATERIAL FACT presented into evidence. It all boils down to this:

1) the film subject CANNOT be measured accurately with any degree of certainty ( the camera internals are not known, proper field measurements do not exist and enough images at necessary angles dont exist) Nothing is going to change that.

2) This "relative measurement" issue is a simple back door attempt to skirt 1 above. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the film subject of the PGF has a range between X and Y. ( plug in whatever number suits you at that point because they are all equally worthless) Theres your woo "relative measurement"

The proof is equally as simple- show the measurements and show how they were derived ( nothing else matters) You either have them and can validate how they were derived from field data or you dont. ( there aint a 3rd answer)

This talk about me "proving" it cant be measured is straw. I admit I cannot solve A+B+C=X in any meaningful manner and nobody else can either.

[mangler]

Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.


m

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

......
If you've read Green you should remember he said Patterson made a trip to check on copyrights. It's not like other researchers didn't know that.

Check on copyrights ?

Why would he have to go to Hollywood to do that ?


Or is this a case of " If Green said so, that's all I need .. " ?



( can someone quote me to see if Lu will respond to this )

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Check on copyrights ?

Why would he have to go to Hollywood to do that ?


Or is this a case of " If Green said so, that's all I need .. " ?



( can someone quote me to see if Lu will respond to this )

I was just about to get around to that. According to the interview with Merritt in Greg Long's book, Roger wanted to copyright the name "Bigfoot". Merritt had the connections, not Roger. Merritt said they had $700 (no, he didn't say anything about the Radfords), and were trying to find backers for the documentary. They tried to get $5000 from Newty Cohen, who made sequined suits for western stars (The Making of Bigfoot, pg. 110).

I don't know if Cohen ever made horsehair suits, but you guys might as well add him to the list of suspects. It seems he could sew.

[tyr_13]

Wait, he was trying to copyright the name "Bigfoot"? Why? Or was he trying to copyright it as the name of the film he was making?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by mangler

Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.


m

>>>Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

ALL I have tried to do is stand on facts and data and tell the truth as best as my knowledge,education and experience knows it- I dont know what else I can do and maintain my character and reputation.

>>>BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.

I presume you to be USN. ( know some SEAL types) and that comment means more to me than you may realize. Thank you- I have tried to do my best

[LAL]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

...... Patterson himself writing in his own book about having business in LA to attend to.

He didn't say what the business was, but he and Rod Thorton left a few weeks early and took a side trip to Happy Camp and then to Willow Creek. He met Pat Graves, the Forest Service timber cruiser, who'd found tracks on numerous occasions in remote locations, and Graves took him to "Leard Meadow".

You've read his description of the trackway?

He'd read the article in Argosy about the Crew tracks, but hadn't seen anything about it after that, not even a debunking. He had heard interesting things on the Yakima res but there was nothing new he could check out there.

[Spektator]

You cannot copyright a name, a single word, or even a title. Patterson wouldn't have had to go anywhere except his local library to learn that.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Wait, he was trying to copyright the name "Bigfoot"? Why? Or was he trying to copyright it as the name of the film he was making?

The Bigfoot name, not the film (pg. 105).

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Originally Posted by Spektator

You cannot copyright a name, a single word, or even a title. Patterson wouldn't have had to go anywhere except his local library to learn that.

Patterson probably got "copyright" mixed up with "trademark." Although it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to titles. The magazine/newsletter "Imagine" has a very informative article on the matter called "Protection of Titles" by Mark Litwak in their September 2006 issue.

Oh, and I should note that Merrit was referring to Nudie Cohn.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Spektator

You cannot copyright a name, a single word, or even a title. Patterson wouldn't have had to go anywhere except his local library to learn that.

This is according to Jerry Merritt, which you would know if you'd read the book. When Long pointed out the term had been used in 1958, Merritt said they were talking about the commercial name, Bigfoot. Merritt said he was suppose to get part of it, that he "set up the copyrights, the original copyrights". He was very clear it was DeAtely who took over and apparently cut out Roger's friends. Walter Hurst "did" the contracts.

The trip was also to try to get backing. According to Merritt Roger believed in his documentary and thought he could sell it to a big company. Merritt believed the PGF was real.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

Oh, and I should note that Merritt was referring to Nudie Cohn.

It's spelled "Newty Cohen" in the book. When asked how long it took him to say no, Merritt said, "About thirty minutes."

[LAL]

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

You might want to read that more carefully. He changed his mind that John Chambers made the suit, not that it was a hoax.

You might want to read my post more carefully. I didn't say anything about Baker changing his mind about a hoax. Evidently my sarcasm is too subtle for this board. Didn't Dfoot's assertion that Janos was in on it because he knew how long it takes to glue hair on strike you as slightly absurd?

I was living in the LA area in 1967, I've been to Hollywood. Has anyone suspected me yet? Heck, I've even owned horses.

Rumor had it John Landis started the rumor. I think Chorvinsky showed rumors go around Hollywood. Quelle surprise.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Originally Posted by LAL

You might want to read my post more carefully. I didn't say anything about Baker changing his mind about a hoax.

The statement in question (tacked onto some comments about Janos Prohaska):

Originally Posted by LAL

Baker apparently changed his mind (Chorvinsky article) so I guess he wasn't in on it.

Without a reference to Chambers, what would you expect people to interpret that as meaning?

Quote:

Didn't Dfoot's assertion that Janos was in on it because he knew how long it takes to glue hair on strike you as slightly absurd?

I repeat:

Quote:

Wrong. Although it's hilarious that he gave a time estimate for an "impossible" suit, that's not why Dfoot said he was in on it. It was largely because Janos' statements blatantly contradicted his work experience, such as his claim of not knowing where to find someone big enough to play Patty (despite working with such men on "Star Trek").

[LAL]

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

The statement in question (tacked onto some comments about Janos Prohaska):

Namely that Dfoot included Janos in the hoax because Janos knew how long it would take to glue on the hair. (Janos said ten hours.)

Quote:

Without a reference to Chambers, what would you expect people to interpret that as meaning?

I would expect them to understand I was being snide. It seems all it takes for someone to be a suspect in this great PGF costume conspiracy is being in fx in Hollywood at the time. Who's the latest now? The guy who cut John Chambers' hair?

I didn't bother to follow Dfoot's comments on this board. I read them on the old BFF thread where he began having these great unsubstantiated ideas. That's where he said it.