Questions (and observations) about the PG-Film.
01. Why was the creature walking hunched over?
Being bent forward at the waist is an inefficient way to walk, taxing the back muscles. Animals (mammals) are usually very efficient. Inefficient creatures just don't survive based on calorie intake vs output. More an observation than a question.
02. Why did the creature merely walk off the scene?
One of the biggest criticisms of the film is the creature walks off (at least superficially) like a man-in-a-suit. Why not choreograph -some- ape or animal-like moves? More an observation than a question.
03. Why did the creature not make any vocalizations?
Many mammals make a noise when startled. According to P&G the creature was silent. They make a call to alert others to danger, for instance.
04. Why did the creature not bare the teeth?
This is pretty common and would be expected during the half-turn. More an observation than a question.
05. Why did the creature lift the trailing foot so high, exposing the bottom of the foot, lifting it well off the ground?
Again, it is very inefficient, lifting the whole foot, unless it's evidence of 'striding out' to make longer strides.
06. Why did the creature not seek immediate cover?
Most mammals seek cover first, i.e. deer. Though there's no answer, it is not exactly normal behavior for man, nor beast.
07. Why was it important to say that his horse reared and knocked him off? Is it significant that Gimlin disputes this?
This is pretty odd. If you consider the time needed to recover, get the camera from the saddle bag underneath the horse, it doesn't leave enough time to film.
08. Why did P or G not shoot the creature?
They might have been early conservationists, but they let a half-million dollar prize just walk away. Is it credible they had this pre-arrangement not to shoot? Did anyone ever read anything where they stated this prior to the filming to anyone?
09. Is it reasonable that in the 60s, with the popularity of big game hunting, that two guys would go out on horses to 'film' a creature and not shoot it?
I'd say no, it's not reasonable they wouldn't shoot it. The idea of going out to 'shoot' big game with a camera instead of a gun didn't start up until the 80s or 90s. Is there any evidence that Patterson or Gimlin 're-armed' with heavier weapons after the sighting when they went out. Didn't one say he wasn't sure he could have killed it with a regular rifle bullet. I'd expect this if they really saw a 7ft tall, half-ton creature. ('We're gonna need a bigger gun' theory, haha).
10. After seeing any of his initial filming why did Patterson consider this camera adequate for filming a distant creature?
Some say the camera was too good, showed too much. But for a wildlife camera at 100 yd distances, it wasn't very sharp.
11. Why did Patterson not return to Bluff Creek and set up some kind of blind, tree stand, or semi-permanent viewing area.
To me this is almost a deal-breaker on believability. Roger -knew- there was one (or more) creatures here. Why spend money going to Tibet. IMO, this shows he knows there was no creature in Bluff Creek (for whatever reason).
12. Riding on horseback, why did Bob Gimlin not catch up with the creature?
Would have been extremely easy to catch up with it, get a real good look, and even be safe enough. IMO, most cowboys would have ridden past and herded it back towards their first position to keep it from getting away. (As long as the horse would do it, you're really safe on horseback in the NW USA, even from bear, cougar. Only real danger is snakes)
13. How long does it take to retrieve and wind up(?), remove the lens cap and start filming?
Are there any forum members with a camera like this who could time it? In fact I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to do a complete timed reproduction to see if Patterson shut off the camera at any point or if time is missing.
14. If you're out planning to film a BF, why have the camera stowed?
Many people with cameras, when startled, even when holding the camera forget they have it. Patterson showed -incredible- presence of mind. Very few wildlife photographers ever get a shot if the action starts happening and then they have to unstow and acquire their camera. Is there any camera shake during the steady parts of the filming. I'd expect that even from a pro on a hand-held camera. I don't see any. Why was Patterson so calm? How did he normally carry the camera and film when getting scenery shots. Did he not film from horseback? If so, why not here - why dismount before getting closer? You're more vulnerable off the horse. Maybe he made the claim of being bucked off to explain his 'dismounting'?
15. Why would Patterson not have Gimlin go stand near an object after he changed the film and re-filmed to get an idea of size?
Pretty dumb not to go get control scene shots.
16. Why (if so) choreograph the half-turn?
(Note a quarter turn i.e. a quick head check to see if anything was to the creature's right would have given a profile shot, which is enough of a 'money shot'. No need to do a full half turn and risk losing balance, or to show the front of the suit (assuming for the moment).
17. Was the half-turn done too early?
Again, many, if not most mammals would seek cover. I'd expect the creature not to turn until it reached the tree line. It could still see through the trees, though we could not see much when it turned. So, iow, turn just right for a 'money shot', too soon for survival reasons.
18. Why don't we see any shots of Bob Gimlin riding past Patterson, chasing the creature?
The story says he probably got closer on horseback, but Patterson films until it's almost out of sight. We should see Gimlin riding into frame from the right.
19. Why didn't they find any other trace at the site?
Locard's exchange principle says that there had to be hair somewhere along the track or at the creek side. In a real sighting, you'd crawl along the track way on hands and knees to find hair and other trace, which can be analyzed. It's potentially definitive. No 'footprint casting' will -ever- prove something but scat or hair will. (though less definitive in 1960s, hair is still more valuable than plaster tracks).
20. After he made some money, why didn't Patterson return to the area and film a control scene and/or make a documentary.
Most people who have a real sighting and are able to return to the area (IOW, don't suffer from PTSD) would do so and repeatedly. You'd think he'd get the very best camera he could rent, with sound and go back and recreate the scene in detail. This only adds value to the film, and in fact, adds additional footage. With this footage they could have made a longer documentary, increasing the sale value. It's -very- odd they didn't do this and a least get a HQ control footage reenactment. One would almost expect a compulsion to do so, especially if there were doubters.
Additional Questions.
Why don't researchers ask experiencers if they've seen the PG-film and how closely the creature they saw compares?
I'd almost expect this to be a top question. If nothing else, it could help validate the PG-film (or invalidate it if there was a big difference).
Has anyone (Bill Munn?) ever questioned Patterson's wife, Patty?
Has she either confirmed or denied anything about the film? Won't talk about it? I'd find it hard to believe that Roger wouldn't have let her in on it - most people telling stories have to tell someone. (If she wasn’t told it adds credibility to the sighting being real, imo.)
Is it even -remotely- possible that if staged, that Bob Gimlin was -not- in on it.
I don't see how you could manage this logistics nightmare. Get the whole thing in one take, and have a naive witness. No 'mime' would agree to this, bringing along a guy with a rifle.
Rather than pre-judge my position on this by my questions, bear in mind I'm completely undecided on this. Some questions would prove and some might disprove the reality of the sighting. IOW, just brainstorming, not judging.
Full Version: Twenty Questions on the PG-film
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Film, Video, Photo & Audio Discussion > Patterson / Gimlin Film
QUOTE(BJohnson @ Sep 15 2009, 11:53 PM) 
Questions (and observations) about the PG-Film.
C'mon, guys, let's get some discussion on these, especially questions 10-15. No need to be shy, like a scaredy-cat Bigfoot.
The question of the film's creature's authenticity is still open. The more we discuss and figure it out, the closer we are to understanding the phenomenon.
I've read through this forum and though we've touched on some of these questions, but it's still fun, if not informative.
What is the biggest 'deal breaker' for -you- on the creature being authentic in this film (again, that's not a comment on the big question of BF, just this film)?
What is the strongest 'convincer' for you on this film?
Don't make me beg.
01. Why was the creature walking hunched over?
Why not? We shouldn't confuse any other animal with an unknown or undocumented cryptid. If the PG creature is in fact not a hoax, why would we immediately assume it's young or healthy, or that this is not a natural stature for such a creature?
Being bent forward at the waist is an inefficient way to walk for a creature known to inhabit flat terrain, but for a creature that spends a great deal of time climbing steep hillsides or mountains, it may be perfectly natural.
02. Why did the creature merely walk off the scene?
When I surprise a feral cat, more often than not, they will not run away, but will walk away rapidly. In the case of the cat, they will often stop to look back and then continue rather than turn and look back. Dogs will often turn to look back while moving away. Unfortunately, I haven't surprised any bigfeet, so I can't tell you if the behavior is normal. I do know most deer will merely walk away if they don't believe they've been spotted. If they feel they've been spotted, they normally flag and trot at the very least.
0.3 Why no vocalizations?
I think you'd get vocalizations only if a creature has to stand and fight, or if it is calling out to others. Some creatures...many birds for instance, will make noises to draw your attention to them, so that you will follow them away from their nest. Since bigfoot...if it exists, is closer to man than to bird, I would expect that unless it had a reason to make noise, it would simply beat feet. When I'm moving away from danger, I do it quietly.
04. Why did the creature not bare the teeth?
If the creature was going to stand and fight, or posture, I'd expect it to bear its teeth. If not, it seems pointless. None of the creatures behavior is consistent with an animal desiring to posture or threaten. In fact, 99% of witness accounts indicate the creature if it exists, is secretive and if not timid, then certainly more interested in escape than taunting.
05. Why did the creature lift the trailing foot so high, exposing the bottom of the foot, lifting it well off the ground?
You are not a hunter are you? You walk differently in the forest and field than you do in the "concrete" jungle. If you walk the same way in the boonies that you do in town, you are going to trip frequently! The exaggerated stride mimics that of the hunter trying to move quietly through uneven ground with many potential ground level obstacles. Bigfeet don't spend a lot of time in town. So the adaptation that allows bipedal movement in the most silent and efficient manner is that which you are seeing.
06. Why did the creature not seek immediate cover?
What makes you think that the path the creature took wasn't the quickest path to safety, given the obstacles present in the scene? Keep in mind, animals - including humans - are creatures of habit. We know where we want to go and we try to take the shortest route to that destination. Wondering why the animal in the film didn't take a different path simply ignores the possibility that this was the path the animal intended to take from the beginning, and being surprised only sped up the decision to depart the area. We can surmise that some animals are less inclined to be afraid of man to the point of blind panic. Even bears act differently with different encounters. If we could predict how bears would react to our suddenly arriving on scene, we'd have fewer maulings.
07. Why was it important to say that his horse reared and knocked him off? Is it significant that Gimlin disputes this?
Is it significant that the hunter often has an excuse for poor performance? Is it significant that the fisherman's tale of the one that got away changes over time and others in the boat may remember it differently? Is it possible that Patterson simply reacted poorly and needed to offer an excuse for less than superman calm in the presence of something he was simply not prepared for?
08. Why did P or G not shoot the creature?
Again, you're not a hunter are you? The question may seem like a slight, but truthfully, it's not. I grew up in a place and time where the deer hunter's license included the option to shoot a bear. One day that opportunity arrived, and I didn't even shoulder my weapon. Why? Because I wasn't hunting bear! Had the bear tried to eat me, we would have had to decide. If you're confused about anything I've written, I'll be glad to explain it, but true hunters and woodsmen do not "shoot" something that they are not hunting, or is not hunting them. I find their behavior consistent with the circumstances.
09. Is it reasonable that in the 60s, with the popularity of big game hunting, that two guys would go out on horses to 'film' a creature and not shoot it?
You answered your own question. Bigfoot is not "big game." Your contention is unreasonable. Or rather, not based on sound reason. People have been taking photographs of animals since the introduction of the camera. Hunters as well. I've taken far more photographs of animals, than I've ever shot, including animals that are considered game, and animals that are not.
10. After seeing any of his initial filming why did Patterson consider this camera adequate for filming a distant creature?
Be honest with yourself for a second. There are hundreds of people, literally dozens on this site alone who actually go looking for bigfoot. I dare say, It's doubtful all of them carry professional camera gear. Some do perhaps. Most, make do with their Cannon or Olympus...or Kodak (God forbid)
11. Why did Patterson not return to Bluff Creek and set up some kind of blind, tree stand, or semi-permanent viewing area.
You have a point...but only to a point. Think about each and every account of a bigfoot spotting. Why - if your logic is correct, don't people just set up blinds at the spot of the last sighting? You seem to believe that a bigfoot has a few acres carved out of the wilderness as his personal ground and if you wait long enough, he's gonna come back. Your logic may work for deer or bear, but it doesn't work for mountain lion or leopard. It doesn't work for elephant or bear (unless baited). It doesn't work for quail or partridge. It doesn't work for rattle snakes and on and on. Are you catching on?
12. Riding on horseback, why did Bob Gimlin not catch up with the creature?
Why do horsemen and women not chase grizzly bears when they encounter them?
If a man is not disposed to shoot a creature on sight, why would that person provoke a confrontation in which shooting that creature might become necessary?
Not chasing, was consistent with not shooting.
I don't know from where your opinion that one is "safe" on horseback from bear and cougar comes from. It does NOT come from reality.
13. How long does it take to retrieve and wind up(?), remove the lens cap and start filming?
I don't know. I don't use that style of camera.
14. If you're out planning to film a BF, why have the camera stowed?
If you are out hunting animals, why have your rifle slung over your shoulder?
It's because you really don't think the next moment will be crucial! Even on a date, you don't take the condom out of the wrapper during dinner.
15. Why would Patterson not have Gimlin go stand near an object after he changed the film and re-filmed to get an idea of size?
Probably because he never considered the fact that some 30 years later, someone would compare his behavior with what they would do in hindsite. As a retired criminal investigator, I can tell you that people with the same training I have, will do things that defy logic at crime scenes resulting in many missed clues or contaminated pieces of evidence. Why would you expect perfection? That is unreasonable.
16. Why (if so) choreograph the half-turn?
(Note a quarter turn i.e. a quick head check to see if anything was to the creature's right would have given a profile shot, which is enough of a 'money shot'. No need to do a full half turn and risk losing balance, or to show the front of the suit (assuming for the moment).
Well, if there was a zipper in the front, you'd expect that they wouldn't have done the turn, right? I don't get your point. I do know that I was at the zoo with my daughter the other day and it was interesting that the huge male gorilla did not seem to have the neck flexibility to do a 150 degree head turn without shifting his shoulders to look back. 90 to 100 degrees looked to be the limit.
17. Was the half-turn done too early?
Yes...it was done too early. The director simply had no artistic ability. I would have had the fetching creature come down the hill to get a better view of the breasts... Sort of like the Baywatch babes!
18. Why don't we see any shots of Bob Gimlin riding past Patterson, chasing the creature?
I'm skipping this one because it's more of the same pointless pondering.
19. Why didn't they find any other trace at the site?
"Locard's exchange principle says that there had to be hair somewhere along the track or at the creek side. In a real sighting, you'd crawl along the track way on hands and knees to find hair and other trace, which can be analyzed. It's potentially definitive. No 'footprint casting' will -ever- prove something but scat or hair will. (though less definitive in 1960s, hair is still more valuable than plaster tracks)."
This was about the time the Boston Strangler was killing women. I've studied the crimes in depth. What you are suggesting Patterson do in the mountains of California, wasn't commonplace even among police agencies of the time. If you read "Where Death Delights," you will see that even after the 60s, true professional medical examiners were more rare than honest congressmen! You are suggesting behavior that simply would not occur to the average joe. I submit that the luxury of hindsite might be interfering with common sense.
20. After he made some money, why didn't Patterson return to the area and film a control scene and/or make a documentary.
Don't know. Perhaps a seyance is in order.
Additional Questions.
Why don't researchers ask experiencers if they've seen the PG-film and how closely the creature they saw compares?
Supposedly, there are those who frequent this site who have had encounters. Why don't you ask them?
If it was staged, I find it ludicrous that Bob wasn't in on it. I wouldn't put someone in a suit and not tell the only person with a rifle.
K
Why not? We shouldn't confuse any other animal with an unknown or undocumented cryptid. If the PG creature is in fact not a hoax, why would we immediately assume it's young or healthy, or that this is not a natural stature for such a creature?
Being bent forward at the waist is an inefficient way to walk for a creature known to inhabit flat terrain, but for a creature that spends a great deal of time climbing steep hillsides or mountains, it may be perfectly natural.
02. Why did the creature merely walk off the scene?
When I surprise a feral cat, more often than not, they will not run away, but will walk away rapidly. In the case of the cat, they will often stop to look back and then continue rather than turn and look back. Dogs will often turn to look back while moving away. Unfortunately, I haven't surprised any bigfeet, so I can't tell you if the behavior is normal. I do know most deer will merely walk away if they don't believe they've been spotted. If they feel they've been spotted, they normally flag and trot at the very least.
0.3 Why no vocalizations?
I think you'd get vocalizations only if a creature has to stand and fight, or if it is calling out to others. Some creatures...many birds for instance, will make noises to draw your attention to them, so that you will follow them away from their nest. Since bigfoot...if it exists, is closer to man than to bird, I would expect that unless it had a reason to make noise, it would simply beat feet. When I'm moving away from danger, I do it quietly.
04. Why did the creature not bare the teeth?
If the creature was going to stand and fight, or posture, I'd expect it to bear its teeth. If not, it seems pointless. None of the creatures behavior is consistent with an animal desiring to posture or threaten. In fact, 99% of witness accounts indicate the creature if it exists, is secretive and if not timid, then certainly more interested in escape than taunting.
05. Why did the creature lift the trailing foot so high, exposing the bottom of the foot, lifting it well off the ground?
You are not a hunter are you? You walk differently in the forest and field than you do in the "concrete" jungle. If you walk the same way in the boonies that you do in town, you are going to trip frequently! The exaggerated stride mimics that of the hunter trying to move quietly through uneven ground with many potential ground level obstacles. Bigfeet don't spend a lot of time in town. So the adaptation that allows bipedal movement in the most silent and efficient manner is that which you are seeing.
06. Why did the creature not seek immediate cover?
What makes you think that the path the creature took wasn't the quickest path to safety, given the obstacles present in the scene? Keep in mind, animals - including humans - are creatures of habit. We know where we want to go and we try to take the shortest route to that destination. Wondering why the animal in the film didn't take a different path simply ignores the possibility that this was the path the animal intended to take from the beginning, and being surprised only sped up the decision to depart the area. We can surmise that some animals are less inclined to be afraid of man to the point of blind panic. Even bears act differently with different encounters. If we could predict how bears would react to our suddenly arriving on scene, we'd have fewer maulings.
07. Why was it important to say that his horse reared and knocked him off? Is it significant that Gimlin disputes this?
Is it significant that the hunter often has an excuse for poor performance? Is it significant that the fisherman's tale of the one that got away changes over time and others in the boat may remember it differently? Is it possible that Patterson simply reacted poorly and needed to offer an excuse for less than superman calm in the presence of something he was simply not prepared for?
08. Why did P or G not shoot the creature?
Again, you're not a hunter are you? The question may seem like a slight, but truthfully, it's not. I grew up in a place and time where the deer hunter's license included the option to shoot a bear. One day that opportunity arrived, and I didn't even shoulder my weapon. Why? Because I wasn't hunting bear! Had the bear tried to eat me, we would have had to decide. If you're confused about anything I've written, I'll be glad to explain it, but true hunters and woodsmen do not "shoot" something that they are not hunting, or is not hunting them. I find their behavior consistent with the circumstances.
09. Is it reasonable that in the 60s, with the popularity of big game hunting, that two guys would go out on horses to 'film' a creature and not shoot it?
You answered your own question. Bigfoot is not "big game." Your contention is unreasonable. Or rather, not based on sound reason. People have been taking photographs of animals since the introduction of the camera. Hunters as well. I've taken far more photographs of animals, than I've ever shot, including animals that are considered game, and animals that are not.
10. After seeing any of his initial filming why did Patterson consider this camera adequate for filming a distant creature?
Be honest with yourself for a second. There are hundreds of people, literally dozens on this site alone who actually go looking for bigfoot. I dare say, It's doubtful all of them carry professional camera gear. Some do perhaps. Most, make do with their Cannon or Olympus...or Kodak (God forbid)
11. Why did Patterson not return to Bluff Creek and set up some kind of blind, tree stand, or semi-permanent viewing area.
You have a point...but only to a point. Think about each and every account of a bigfoot spotting. Why - if your logic is correct, don't people just set up blinds at the spot of the last sighting? You seem to believe that a bigfoot has a few acres carved out of the wilderness as his personal ground and if you wait long enough, he's gonna come back. Your logic may work for deer or bear, but it doesn't work for mountain lion or leopard. It doesn't work for elephant or bear (unless baited). It doesn't work for quail or partridge. It doesn't work for rattle snakes and on and on. Are you catching on?
12. Riding on horseback, why did Bob Gimlin not catch up with the creature?
Why do horsemen and women not chase grizzly bears when they encounter them?
If a man is not disposed to shoot a creature on sight, why would that person provoke a confrontation in which shooting that creature might become necessary?
Not chasing, was consistent with not shooting.
I don't know from where your opinion that one is "safe" on horseback from bear and cougar comes from. It does NOT come from reality.
13. How long does it take to retrieve and wind up(?), remove the lens cap and start filming?
I don't know. I don't use that style of camera.
14. If you're out planning to film a BF, why have the camera stowed?
If you are out hunting animals, why have your rifle slung over your shoulder?
It's because you really don't think the next moment will be crucial! Even on a date, you don't take the condom out of the wrapper during dinner.
15. Why would Patterson not have Gimlin go stand near an object after he changed the film and re-filmed to get an idea of size?
Probably because he never considered the fact that some 30 years later, someone would compare his behavior with what they would do in hindsite. As a retired criminal investigator, I can tell you that people with the same training I have, will do things that defy logic at crime scenes resulting in many missed clues or contaminated pieces of evidence. Why would you expect perfection? That is unreasonable.
16. Why (if so) choreograph the half-turn?
(Note a quarter turn i.e. a quick head check to see if anything was to the creature's right would have given a profile shot, which is enough of a 'money shot'. No need to do a full half turn and risk losing balance, or to show the front of the suit (assuming for the moment).
Well, if there was a zipper in the front, you'd expect that they wouldn't have done the turn, right? I don't get your point. I do know that I was at the zoo with my daughter the other day and it was interesting that the huge male gorilla did not seem to have the neck flexibility to do a 150 degree head turn without shifting his shoulders to look back. 90 to 100 degrees looked to be the limit.
17. Was the half-turn done too early?
Yes...it was done too early. The director simply had no artistic ability. I would have had the fetching creature come down the hill to get a better view of the breasts... Sort of like the Baywatch babes!
18. Why don't we see any shots of Bob Gimlin riding past Patterson, chasing the creature?
I'm skipping this one because it's more of the same pointless pondering.
19. Why didn't they find any other trace at the site?
"Locard's exchange principle says that there had to be hair somewhere along the track or at the creek side. In a real sighting, you'd crawl along the track way on hands and knees to find hair and other trace, which can be analyzed. It's potentially definitive. No 'footprint casting' will -ever- prove something but scat or hair will. (though less definitive in 1960s, hair is still more valuable than plaster tracks)."
This was about the time the Boston Strangler was killing women. I've studied the crimes in depth. What you are suggesting Patterson do in the mountains of California, wasn't commonplace even among police agencies of the time. If you read "Where Death Delights," you will see that even after the 60s, true professional medical examiners were more rare than honest congressmen! You are suggesting behavior that simply would not occur to the average joe. I submit that the luxury of hindsite might be interfering with common sense.
20. After he made some money, why didn't Patterson return to the area and film a control scene and/or make a documentary.
Don't know. Perhaps a seyance is in order.
Additional Questions.
Why don't researchers ask experiencers if they've seen the PG-film and how closely the creature they saw compares?
Supposedly, there are those who frequent this site who have had encounters. Why don't you ask them?
If it was staged, I find it ludicrous that Bob wasn't in on it. I wouldn't put someone in a suit and not tell the only person with a rifle.
K
First, thanks for posting. However, you seemed to miss the whole point of the questions. I don't understand why you answered them as an 'us vs them' response. I do appreciate your input.
However, allow me to re-explain a couple.
I'd only ask you to go outside and walk a quarter of a mile, nay, an eighth of a mile, lifting your REAR foot up about 4-5 inches from the ground with each step so that the shin of the trailing leg is parallel with the ground. Then come back and re-answer this question. It's a HIGHLY unusual method of perambulating. Why insult me over this? When you have uneven ground you lift your FRONT foot, you do NOT lift your rear foot completely off the ground by several inches unless you are running or going over hurdles. PERIOD.
Why did you not see this as a reasonable question? It is you know. Animals when surprised, seek cover. This one (apparently) did not.
Again, I thought this a fair question, deserving a thoughtful reply. But you gave a rebuttal. Why so antagonistic? Why not consider it as a possible 'glitch'. It's a known fact that Patterson said his horse fell, the saddlebag was underneath, still, he got thrown, got the saddle bag open from underneath the horse, got the lens cap off and still filmed the 'creature'. But his companion, Bob Gimlin, said the horse did not rear and he was not thrown off. Why start 'lying' to cover up his poor performance? If what you surmise is true, then I say 'one lie, it's all a lie'. (not that I'm saying this, just that it's likely if one lies at the very start, no matter what the reason. A circumspect person becomes at least mildly suspicious). But if you think this is the case, I'll stipulate. Patterson lied about the horse rearing and falling on its side, to save face OK.
You're out to get a creature. You see one. It's worth $250,000 in 1960 dollars. You need costly medical treatment. You let the creature walk away. Is this normal. Again, you're rebutting, not considering or pondering this question. OF COURSE it's strange behavior for the 1960s era when people were shooting things with guns and the idea of hunting with a camera was unknown (except for birdwatchers). I understand your comment about needing a license. Still, a thoughtful person would find this at least mildly puzzling.
Well, rebut me if you insist, but this was a near one-of-a-kind creature. You see it and KNOW it's in the area, you set up a blind and you know you at least have a chance to see it again. Normal behavior to leave the area where the only known in-person sighting was done, take your money from the film and go ELSEWHERE?? That's not normal. He (apparently) threw away his one chance for a repeat sighting.
Men on horseback with rifles might chase grizzlies if they want to bag one. Normally, you'd do a stake out. One is safer on horseback with a gun than a man on the ground.
My point was lost in your rebuttal. I'm saying if you want to film an elusive creature, your camera is always ready, and even always running if possible (nowdays, as in a handlebar cam with a 4 gig card). Almost NO ONE gets an elusive creature with a camera stowed that they then have to retrieve and make ready. He should have gotten it out as he neared his destination, i.e. Bluff Creek. Still having it stowed, approaching the area he EXPECTED to see one, seems odd to me.
Here, you're using MOCKING my question as another rebuttal. IMO, it's crucial that a person get a control picture. I'm only asking why not do it. Gimlin did other control procedures, allegedly jumping off a tree stump with his boots on. Ask yourself who would NOT get a control picture? Maybe someone who wanted the true height of the creature to be somewhat obscured?
The point here is that you have to build a much more robust suit if your plan is to get front and back filmed. It doesn't prove anything, but, to me, it's unnecessary. You can still get a 'money shot' with a quarter turn (to see the profile). Maybe you missed it but seeing a full half-turn, bolsters the idea that it's not a 'mime-in-a-suit', but a real creature.
Mocking again? OK, fine. The point is, normally wild animals will seek cover before turning and looking. In two more steps, the creature would be behind the first of a group of trees. I contend he'd have waited. The turn in the open seems odd for a real creature.
Uh, insults and dismissals? Sure, go ahead. But Gimlin says he chased the creature and Roger says Gimlin got closer than he did. It's NOT pointless, it's based on the testimony.
Bigfoot researchers, even back then knew they have THREE and only three possible trace evidence. Hair, Scat and Footprints. You see a REAL sasquatch and fail to look for hair? That's ludicrous. I'd be crawling on my hands and knees looking for hairs, which HAD to be there, if I KNEW a real sasquatch had just walked through the area. There's only ONE reason you would not comb the area for other trace, hair and scat and it's pretty obvious what that reason is. Everyone says Patterson was a wily and clever man. He would have looked for hair. He didn't even mentioning doing so. Puzzling or not?
OK, I can see this is pointless. I spend time and effort to put up honest questions and you mock them rather than answer them. You don't seem to be a serious and thoughtful researcher, merely an apologist.
Thanks anyway.
However, allow me to re-explain a couple.
QUOTE
05. Why did the creature lift the trailing foot so high, exposing the bottom of the foot, lifting it well off the ground?
You are not a hunter are you? You walk differently in the forest and field than you do in the "concrete" jungle. If you walk the same way in the boonies that you do in town, you are going to trip frequently! The exaggerated stride mimics that of the hunter trying to move quietly through uneven ground with many potential ground level obstacles. Bigfeet don't spend a lot of time in town. So the adaptation that allows bipedal movement in the most silent and efficient manner is that which you are seeing.
You are not a hunter are you? You walk differently in the forest and field than you do in the "concrete" jungle. If you walk the same way in the boonies that you do in town, you are going to trip frequently! The exaggerated stride mimics that of the hunter trying to move quietly through uneven ground with many potential ground level obstacles. Bigfeet don't spend a lot of time in town. So the adaptation that allows bipedal movement in the most silent and efficient manner is that which you are seeing.
I'd only ask you to go outside and walk a quarter of a mile, nay, an eighth of a mile, lifting your REAR foot up about 4-5 inches from the ground with each step so that the shin of the trailing leg is parallel with the ground. Then come back and re-answer this question. It's a HIGHLY unusual method of perambulating. Why insult me over this? When you have uneven ground you lift your FRONT foot, you do NOT lift your rear foot completely off the ground by several inches unless you are running or going over hurdles. PERIOD.
QUOTE
06. Why did the creature not seek immediate cover?
What makes you think that the path the creature took wasn't the quickest path to safety, given the obstacles present in the scene? Keep in mind, animals - including humans - are creatures of habit. We know where we want to go and we try to take the shortest route to that destination. Wondering why the animal in the film didn't take a different path simply ignores the possibility that this was the path the animal intended to take from the beginning, and being surprised only sped up the decision to depart the area. We can surmise that some animals are less inclined to be afraid of man to the point of blind panic. Even bears act differently with different encounters. If we could predict how bears would react to our suddenly arriving on scene, we'd have fewer maulings.
What makes you think that the path the creature took wasn't the quickest path to safety, given the obstacles present in the scene? Keep in mind, animals - including humans - are creatures of habit. We know where we want to go and we try to take the shortest route to that destination. Wondering why the animal in the film didn't take a different path simply ignores the possibility that this was the path the animal intended to take from the beginning, and being surprised only sped up the decision to depart the area. We can surmise that some animals are less inclined to be afraid of man to the point of blind panic. Even bears act differently with different encounters. If we could predict how bears would react to our suddenly arriving on scene, we'd have fewer maulings.
Why did you not see this as a reasonable question? It is you know. Animals when surprised, seek cover. This one (apparently) did not.
QUOTE
07. Why was it important to say that his horse reared and knocked him off? Is it significant that Gimlin disputes this?
Is it significant that the hunter often has an excuse for poor performance? Is it significant that the fisherman's tale of the one that got away changes over time and others in the boat may remember it differently? Is it possible that Patterson simply reacted poorly and needed to offer an excuse for less than superman calm in the presence of something he was simply not prepared for?
Is it significant that the hunter often has an excuse for poor performance? Is it significant that the fisherman's tale of the one that got away changes over time and others in the boat may remember it differently? Is it possible that Patterson simply reacted poorly and needed to offer an excuse for less than superman calm in the presence of something he was simply not prepared for?
Again, I thought this a fair question, deserving a thoughtful reply. But you gave a rebuttal. Why so antagonistic? Why not consider it as a possible 'glitch'. It's a known fact that Patterson said his horse fell, the saddlebag was underneath, still, he got thrown, got the saddle bag open from underneath the horse, got the lens cap off and still filmed the 'creature'. But his companion, Bob Gimlin, said the horse did not rear and he was not thrown off. Why start 'lying' to cover up his poor performance? If what you surmise is true, then I say 'one lie, it's all a lie'. (not that I'm saying this, just that it's likely if one lies at the very start, no matter what the reason. A circumspect person becomes at least mildly suspicious). But if you think this is the case, I'll stipulate. Patterson lied about the horse rearing and falling on its side, to save face OK.
QUOTE
08. Why did P or G not shoot the creature?
Again, you're not a hunter are you? The question may seem like a slight, but truthfully, it's not. I grew up in a place and time where the deer hunter's license included the option to shoot a bear. One day that opportunity arrived, and I didn't even shoulder my weapon. Why? Because I wasn't hunting bear! Had the bear tried to eat me, we would have had to decide. If you're confused about anything I've written, I'll be glad to explain it, but true hunters and woodsmen do not "shoot" something that they are not hunting, or is not hunting them. I find their behavior consistent with the circumstances.
Again, you're not a hunter are you? The question may seem like a slight, but truthfully, it's not. I grew up in a place and time where the deer hunter's license included the option to shoot a bear. One day that opportunity arrived, and I didn't even shoulder my weapon. Why? Because I wasn't hunting bear! Had the bear tried to eat me, we would have had to decide. If you're confused about anything I've written, I'll be glad to explain it, but true hunters and woodsmen do not "shoot" something that they are not hunting, or is not hunting them. I find their behavior consistent with the circumstances.
You're out to get a creature. You see one. It's worth $250,000 in 1960 dollars. You need costly medical treatment. You let the creature walk away. Is this normal. Again, you're rebutting, not considering or pondering this question. OF COURSE it's strange behavior for the 1960s era when people were shooting things with guns and the idea of hunting with a camera was unknown (except for birdwatchers). I understand your comment about needing a license. Still, a thoughtful person would find this at least mildly puzzling.
QUOTE
11. Why did Patterson not return to Bluff Creek and set up some kind of blind, tree stand, or semi-permanent viewing area.
You have a point...but only to a point. Think about each and every account of a bigfoot spotting. Why - if your logic is correct, don't people just set up blinds at the spot of the last sighting? You seem to believe that a bigfoot has a few acres carved out of the wilderness as his personal ground and if you wait long enough, he's gonna come back. Your logic may work for deer or bear, but it doesn't work for mountain lion or leopard. It doesn't work for elephant or bear (unless baited). It doesn't work for quail or partridge. It doesn't work for rattle snakes and on and on. Are you catching on?
You have a point...but only to a point. Think about each and every account of a bigfoot spotting. Why - if your logic is correct, don't people just set up blinds at the spot of the last sighting? You seem to believe that a bigfoot has a few acres carved out of the wilderness as his personal ground and if you wait long enough, he's gonna come back. Your logic may work for deer or bear, but it doesn't work for mountain lion or leopard. It doesn't work for elephant or bear (unless baited). It doesn't work for quail or partridge. It doesn't work for rattle snakes and on and on. Are you catching on?
Well, rebut me if you insist, but this was a near one-of-a-kind creature. You see it and KNOW it's in the area, you set up a blind and you know you at least have a chance to see it again. Normal behavior to leave the area where the only known in-person sighting was done, take your money from the film and go ELSEWHERE?? That's not normal. He (apparently) threw away his one chance for a repeat sighting.
QUOTE
12. Riding on horseback, why did Bob Gimlin not catch up with the creature?
Why do horsemen and women not chase grizzly bears when they encounter them?
If a man is not disposed to shoot a creature on sight, why would that person provoke a confrontation in which shooting that creature might become necessary?
Not chasing, was consistent with not shooting. I don't know from where your opinion that one is "safe" on horseback from bear and cougar comes from. It does NOT come from reality.
Why do horsemen and women not chase grizzly bears when they encounter them?
If a man is not disposed to shoot a creature on sight, why would that person provoke a confrontation in which shooting that creature might become necessary?
Not chasing, was consistent with not shooting. I don't know from where your opinion that one is "safe" on horseback from bear and cougar comes from. It does NOT come from reality.
Men on horseback with rifles might chase grizzlies if they want to bag one. Normally, you'd do a stake out. One is safer on horseback with a gun than a man on the ground.
QUOTE
14. If you're out planning to film a BF, why have the camera stowed?
If you are out hunting animals, why have your rifle slung over your shoulder?
It's because you really don't think the next moment will be crucial! Even on a date, you don't take the condom out of the wrapper during dinner.
If you are out hunting animals, why have your rifle slung over your shoulder?
It's because you really don't think the next moment will be crucial! Even on a date, you don't take the condom out of the wrapper during dinner.
My point was lost in your rebuttal. I'm saying if you want to film an elusive creature, your camera is always ready, and even always running if possible (nowdays, as in a handlebar cam with a 4 gig card). Almost NO ONE gets an elusive creature with a camera stowed that they then have to retrieve and make ready. He should have gotten it out as he neared his destination, i.e. Bluff Creek. Still having it stowed, approaching the area he EXPECTED to see one, seems odd to me.
QUOTE
15. Why would Patterson not have Gimlin go stand near an object after he changed the film and re-filmed to get an idea of size?
Probably because he never considered the fact that some 30 years later, someone would compare his behavior with what they would do in hindsite. As a retired criminal investigator, I can tell you that people with the same training I have, will do things that defy logic at crime scenes resulting in many missed clues or contaminated pieces of evidence. Why would you expect perfection? That is unreasonable.
Probably because he never considered the fact that some 30 years later, someone would compare his behavior with what they would do in hindsite. As a retired criminal investigator, I can tell you that people with the same training I have, will do things that defy logic at crime scenes resulting in many missed clues or contaminated pieces of evidence. Why would you expect perfection? That is unreasonable.
Here, you're using MOCKING my question as another rebuttal. IMO, it's crucial that a person get a control picture. I'm only asking why not do it. Gimlin did other control procedures, allegedly jumping off a tree stump with his boots on. Ask yourself who would NOT get a control picture? Maybe someone who wanted the true height of the creature to be somewhat obscured?
QUOTE
16. Why (if so) choreograph the half-turn?
(Note a quarter turn i.e. a quick head check to see if anything was to the creature's right would have given a profile shot, which is enough of a 'money shot'. No need to do a full half turn and risk losing balance, or to show the front of the suit (assuming for the moment).
Well, if there was a zipper in the front, you'd expect that they wouldn't have done the turn, right? I don't get your point. I do know that I was at the zoo with my daughter the other day and it was interesting that the huge male gorilla did not seem to have the neck flexibility to do a 150 degree head turn without shifting his shoulders to look back. 90 to 100 degrees looked to be the limit.
(Note a quarter turn i.e. a quick head check to see if anything was to the creature's right would have given a profile shot, which is enough of a 'money shot'. No need to do a full half turn and risk losing balance, or to show the front of the suit (assuming for the moment).
Well, if there was a zipper in the front, you'd expect that they wouldn't have done the turn, right? I don't get your point. I do know that I was at the zoo with my daughter the other day and it was interesting that the huge male gorilla did not seem to have the neck flexibility to do a 150 degree head turn without shifting his shoulders to look back. 90 to 100 degrees looked to be the limit.
The point here is that you have to build a much more robust suit if your plan is to get front and back filmed. It doesn't prove anything, but, to me, it's unnecessary. You can still get a 'money shot' with a quarter turn (to see the profile). Maybe you missed it but seeing a full half-turn, bolsters the idea that it's not a 'mime-in-a-suit', but a real creature.
QUOTE
17. Was the half-turn done too early?
Yes...it was done too early. The director simply had no artistic ability. I would have had the fetching creature come down the hill to get a better view of the breasts... Sort of like the Baywatch babes!
Yes...it was done too early. The director simply had no artistic ability. I would have had the fetching creature come down the hill to get a better view of the breasts... Sort of like the Baywatch babes!
Mocking again? OK, fine. The point is, normally wild animals will seek cover before turning and looking. In two more steps, the creature would be behind the first of a group of trees. I contend he'd have waited. The turn in the open seems odd for a real creature.
QUOTE
18. Why don't we see any shots of Bob Gimlin riding past Patterson, chasing the creature?
I'm skipping this one because it's more of the same pointless pondering.
I'm skipping this one because it's more of the same pointless pondering.
Uh, insults and dismissals? Sure, go ahead. But Gimlin says he chased the creature and Roger says Gimlin got closer than he did. It's NOT pointless, it's based on the testimony.
QUOTE
19. Why didn't they find any other trace at the site?
"Locard's exchange principle says that there had to be hair somewhere along the track or at the creek side. In a real sighting, you'd crawl along the track way on hands and knees to find hair and other trace, which can be analyzed. It's potentially definitive. No 'footprint casting' will -ever- prove something but scat or hair will. (though less definitive in 1960s, hair is still more valuable than plaster tracks)."
This was about the time the Boston Strangler was killing women. I've studied the crimes in depth. What you are suggesting Patterson do in the mountains of California, wasn't commonplace even among police agencies of the time. If you read "Where Death Delights," you will see that even after the 60s, true professional medical examiners were more rare than honest congressmen! You are suggesting behavior that simply would not occur to the average joe. I submit that the luxury of hindsite might be interfering with common sense.
"Locard's exchange principle says that there had to be hair somewhere along the track or at the creek side. In a real sighting, you'd crawl along the track way on hands and knees to find hair and other trace, which can be analyzed. It's potentially definitive. No 'footprint casting' will -ever- prove something but scat or hair will. (though less definitive in 1960s, hair is still more valuable than plaster tracks)."
This was about the time the Boston Strangler was killing women. I've studied the crimes in depth. What you are suggesting Patterson do in the mountains of California, wasn't commonplace even among police agencies of the time. If you read "Where Death Delights," you will see that even after the 60s, true professional medical examiners were more rare than honest congressmen! You are suggesting behavior that simply would not occur to the average joe. I submit that the luxury of hindsite might be interfering with common sense.
Bigfoot researchers, even back then knew they have THREE and only three possible trace evidence. Hair, Scat and Footprints. You see a REAL sasquatch and fail to look for hair? That's ludicrous. I'd be crawling on my hands and knees looking for hairs, which HAD to be there, if I KNEW a real sasquatch had just walked through the area. There's only ONE reason you would not comb the area for other trace, hair and scat and it's pretty obvious what that reason is. Everyone says Patterson was a wily and clever man. He would have looked for hair. He didn't even mentioning doing so. Puzzling or not?
QUOTE
20. After he made some money, why didn't Patterson return to the area and film a control scene and/or make a documentary.
Don't know. Perhaps a seyance is in order.
Don't know. Perhaps a seyance is in order.
OK, I can see this is pointless. I spend time and effort to put up honest questions and you mock them rather than answer them. You don't seem to be a serious and thoughtful researcher, merely an apologist.
Thanks anyway.
I've read through every response you've made. It takes way too long responding to your line of questioning to justify. I don't believe in bigfoot. I just believe questions should be pondered before they are put to print. Saves time and effort.
K
K
lets hope there not 10000 questions about the p/g film 
ty bill g
ty bill g
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Sep 17 2009, 07:11 PM)
lets hope there not 10000 questions about the p/g film ty bill g
ty bill gWhen in fact there is only one that matters.
This is precisely what I mean:
Quote: "I'd only ask you to go outside and walk a quarter of a mile, nay, an eighth of a mile, lifting your REAR foot up about 4-5 inches from the ground with each step so that the shin of the trailing leg is parallel with the ground. Then come back and re-answer this question. It's a HIGHLY unusual method of perambulating. Why insult me over this? When you have uneven ground you lift your FRONT foot, you do NOT lift your rear foot completely off the ground by several inches unless you are running or going over hurdles. PERIOD."
Spend a few moments thinking about what you are asking! Just a few moments is all that's necessary to see the question doesn't need to be asked in the first place.
When you have uneven ground you lift both your front and trailing legs. 99% of trips don't occur with the leading foot, because the area to be stepped into is within normal vision. But the trailing foot, if not lifted high enough for low lying obstructions causes the trip! I've yet to see a runner trip with the leading foot. I knew you weren't a woodsman from the first sentence.
A highly unusual method of ambulation? Perhaps for a city-dweller. At the same time, why do we look at Patty and examine her mode of stride from our own perspective? Sure it's a difficult stride to duplicate and maintain. But hell, try walking like an ape for several hundred yards from a human perspective. That would be difficult too, but that's the way apes walk! Since it's different from our mode of ambulation, we should simply say it's artifice? It's natural adaptation. "IF" there is such an animal as bigfoot, why on Earth should we be arrogant enough to suggest it should walk the way "we" do for ease of maintaining the mode over long distances?
What you should be asking yourself, is if it's a human in a suit, why does the stride - despite its seemingly alien nature when compared to human ambulation - appear so pure and remarkably graceful for its surroundings?
There are only two reasons for lifting the trailing leg so high. #1. The feet are artificial and as such the person wearing them does not have the necessary positional awareness of their length to guarantee not dragging the toes and tripping...or #2. The creature has adapted to walking on ground that is filled with tripping hazards rather than paved walking trails and has developed a gait that guarantess the trailing foot does not get hung up on objects that have passed behind the field of view yet pose a danger.
Why does a horse trot the same way, whether on even or uneven ground? What position are the hooves in when the trailing legs are moving forward?
This is the thing about so many skeptics. Only about 2% ask well thought out quesitions.
K
Quote: "I'd only ask you to go outside and walk a quarter of a mile, nay, an eighth of a mile, lifting your REAR foot up about 4-5 inches from the ground with each step so that the shin of the trailing leg is parallel with the ground. Then come back and re-answer this question. It's a HIGHLY unusual method of perambulating. Why insult me over this? When you have uneven ground you lift your FRONT foot, you do NOT lift your rear foot completely off the ground by several inches unless you are running or going over hurdles. PERIOD."
Spend a few moments thinking about what you are asking! Just a few moments is all that's necessary to see the question doesn't need to be asked in the first place.
When you have uneven ground you lift both your front and trailing legs. 99% of trips don't occur with the leading foot, because the area to be stepped into is within normal vision. But the trailing foot, if not lifted high enough for low lying obstructions causes the trip! I've yet to see a runner trip with the leading foot. I knew you weren't a woodsman from the first sentence.
A highly unusual method of ambulation? Perhaps for a city-dweller. At the same time, why do we look at Patty and examine her mode of stride from our own perspective? Sure it's a difficult stride to duplicate and maintain. But hell, try walking like an ape for several hundred yards from a human perspective. That would be difficult too, but that's the way apes walk! Since it's different from our mode of ambulation, we should simply say it's artifice? It's natural adaptation. "IF" there is such an animal as bigfoot, why on Earth should we be arrogant enough to suggest it should walk the way "we" do for ease of maintaining the mode over long distances?
What you should be asking yourself, is if it's a human in a suit, why does the stride - despite its seemingly alien nature when compared to human ambulation - appear so pure and remarkably graceful for its surroundings?
There are only two reasons for lifting the trailing leg so high. #1. The feet are artificial and as such the person wearing them does not have the necessary positional awareness of their length to guarantee not dragging the toes and tripping...or #2. The creature has adapted to walking on ground that is filled with tripping hazards rather than paved walking trails and has developed a gait that guarantess the trailing foot does not get hung up on objects that have passed behind the field of view yet pose a danger.
Why does a horse trot the same way, whether on even or uneven ground? What position are the hooves in when the trailing legs are moving forward?
This is the thing about so many skeptics. Only about 2% ask well thought out quesitions.
K
QUOTE(Killain @ Sep 19 2009, 08:11 AM)
This is the thing about so many skeptics. Only about 2% ask well thought out quesitions.
K
K
2% !! You are being generous! The skeptics in my pool of family and friends (100% by the way) have yet to come up with a good question.
One question that I would like to add though!!
If the film was hoaxed why didn’t they try again?
Bob
BJohnson
First and foremost Patterson and Gimlin were not scientists. Its unreasonable to attach a scientific modality to nonscientists. As for the stowage of the camera why not keep it stowed safely. I carry my camera in a case at all times and only remove it for use. Patterson didn't own the K-100 so any abnormal wear or damage would have cost him money. Riding on horseback through wilderness country is hardly going to be conducive to keeping unprotected equipment pristine. By the standards of the day P & G did a credible job at documentation for laymen. Its pointless to speculate 40+ years on after the millions of words written on the subject concerning cudda, wolulda, shoulda.
As for not shooting the creature would you risk shooting a humanesque being? For all they knew it was somebody out to hoax them! But that aside the creature is rare, very rare and they understood that. Would you shoot a California Condor?
The issue of locomotion and its efficiency is invalid comparing it to humans. It is generally considered that early human type forms were less upright than we are. The high lift of the foot showing the sole of the foot is strange. What is stranger though is why would Patterson instruct a mime to lift the foot that way? Could you have maintained that posture and locomotion for the length of time of the film and do it perfectly while wearing a heavy suit in rough country? Nobody has to date and many have tried.
First and foremost Patterson and Gimlin were not scientists. Its unreasonable to attach a scientific modality to nonscientists. As for the stowage of the camera why not keep it stowed safely. I carry my camera in a case at all times and only remove it for use. Patterson didn't own the K-100 so any abnormal wear or damage would have cost him money. Riding on horseback through wilderness country is hardly going to be conducive to keeping unprotected equipment pristine. By the standards of the day P & G did a credible job at documentation for laymen. Its pointless to speculate 40+ years on after the millions of words written on the subject concerning cudda, wolulda, shoulda.
As for not shooting the creature would you risk shooting a humanesque being? For all they knew it was somebody out to hoax them! But that aside the creature is rare, very rare and they understood that. Would you shoot a California Condor?
The issue of locomotion and its efficiency is invalid comparing it to humans. It is generally considered that early human type forms were less upright than we are. The high lift of the foot showing the sole of the foot is strange. What is stranger though is why would Patterson instruct a mime to lift the foot that way? Could you have maintained that posture and locomotion for the length of time of the film and do it perfectly while wearing a heavy suit in rough country? Nobody has to date and many have tried.
Patterson did state that he and Gimlin had an agreement not to shoot one of these creatures unless is was necessary.
You're asking very large and loaded questions, and inserting way too much assumption.
You wanted the bigfoot to act like other typical animals? Why?
If it's so large, it isn't used to reacting to threats. Why would a giant ape run from a human? It seemed to be in a hurry to get away from them - probably why it was bent forward. Something as large as an adult bigfoot can only move so quickly. Why waste energy trying to move faster if there doesn't appear to be a threat present? That, you see, is truly inefficient, as per your observation.
Why would it call out loud, if it was alone? Why should it have made noises, even if there were another bigfoot nearby? You can't just assume what it should or shouldn't have been doing. Not all dogs bark inside their yards. Not all deer move at breakneck speeds to get away from man.
The hunter witnesses that I have read accounts from have all said that it felt too human beyond their gun sights. They couldn't pull the trigger. You'll just have to wait for a hunter with a more murderous streak to get your dead body.
As far as a blind or viewing area, you have no idea if it's going to come the same way again. Ever. Maybe it was making a move, permanently to another territory. Maybe it was checking the area out, and wasn't satisfied. Maybe the fact that it encountered man so closely would force it to never return. Either way, you can't expect to see it again under circumstances like these. Maybe you will, sure. But I'd hate to be the guy being up there, and wondering if maybe I'm wasting my time waiting for something that won't come back.
I think it's real for one simple reason: it would be easy to remake a believable film.
People have tried, and it's pretty obvious. We have a lot of fantastic technologies today, including film editing and great costumes/makeup. Us simpleton believers should be troubled by the amount of believable bigfoot films circulating out there, posing as truth.
You wanted the bigfoot to act like other typical animals? Why?
If it's so large, it isn't used to reacting to threats. Why would a giant ape run from a human? It seemed to be in a hurry to get away from them - probably why it was bent forward. Something as large as an adult bigfoot can only move so quickly. Why waste energy trying to move faster if there doesn't appear to be a threat present? That, you see, is truly inefficient, as per your observation.
Why would it call out loud, if it was alone? Why should it have made noises, even if there were another bigfoot nearby? You can't just assume what it should or shouldn't have been doing. Not all dogs bark inside their yards. Not all deer move at breakneck speeds to get away from man.
The hunter witnesses that I have read accounts from have all said that it felt too human beyond their gun sights. They couldn't pull the trigger. You'll just have to wait for a hunter with a more murderous streak to get your dead body.
As far as a blind or viewing area, you have no idea if it's going to come the same way again. Ever. Maybe it was making a move, permanently to another territory. Maybe it was checking the area out, and wasn't satisfied. Maybe the fact that it encountered man so closely would force it to never return. Either way, you can't expect to see it again under circumstances like these. Maybe you will, sure. But I'd hate to be the guy being up there, and wondering if maybe I'm wasting my time waiting for something that won't come back.
I think it's real for one simple reason: it would be easy to remake a believable film.
People have tried, and it's pretty obvious. We have a lot of fantastic technologies today, including film editing and great costumes/makeup. Us simpleton believers should be troubled by the amount of believable bigfoot films circulating out there, posing as truth.
QUOTE(Bob @ Sep 19 2009, 09:32 AM)
If the film was hoaxed why didn’t they try again?
Why would you expect them to try again? That would increase suspicion of a hoax.
From a skeptic's point of view, sure.
You could say See?!? Look at all these bigfoot videos! I told you it was faked! This is obviously a film of a standing bear eating berries from a tree. And that was a cyanocitta cristata that flew by the camera, by the way.
I thought the point in producing at least something similar to the Patterson film was obvious.
To decrease suspicion of a hoax.
You could say See?!? Look at all these bigfoot videos! I told you it was faked! This is obviously a film of a standing bear eating berries from a tree. And that was a cyanocitta cristata that flew by the camera, by the way.
I thought the point in producing at least something similar to the Patterson film was obvious.
To decrease suspicion of a hoax.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.