Cryptomundo » John Green on Patterson-Gimlin Footage

John Green on Patterson-Gimlin Footage

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 5th, 2006

Ostman Green

John Green (right) interviews Albert Ostman about Ostman’s 1924 Sasquatch abduction incident in British Columbia.

As a newspaper man from Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia, John Green began investigating Sasquatch reports in 1957, at the age of 30, interviewing witnesses and conducting on-site inquiries. He published several monographs and then a book on the subject, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us in 1975.

Today, turning 80 years old in 2007, John Green is one of North America’s foremost Bigfoot researchers and enjoying the new reprint of his bible of the field, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. This recent printing of his book sports a colorful new cover, with the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot proudly there on the front (see below).

Green's Book

Green writes to me on December 5, 2006, so I can pass on his reflections on M. K. Davis’ recent statements (see What’s Being Said?) about the Roger Patterson-Bob Gimlin Bigfoot footage and the Sasquatch captured within that film.

Green notes that regarding the

…missing frames from the copy of the film used for LMS (Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science), I don’t see how there could be any. René [Dahinden] and I had the original film, from which a master copy was made directly and then work prints such as the one I loaned for LMS made directly from that, all on the same day.

As to the creature carrying a stick, nonsense! And as you point out it would mean nothing if it were, since other apes do the same.

For more on “Bigfoot With A Stick?,” please click here.

Chimp With Stick

For other recent postings on M. K. Davis’s statements and nearly two hundred interesting comments by Cryptomundo readers, see the following blogs: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 5th, 2006 at 6:19 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Forensic Science, Public Forum, Reviews, Sasquatch. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

24 Responses to “John Green on Patterson-Gimlin Footage”

Roboo8 responds: December 5th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Well it would seem to me that if anybody knows more about the Patterson film it would be Mr Green. If I had to choose sides between Mr Green or Mr Davis I would most differently go with Mr Green. As far as the stick theory goes, hasn’t somebody in the past, witnessed Bigfoot using a stick to dig for bugs or roots. Mr Davis is going to have to produce this human for the world to see, to make his case.
CRH responds: December 5th, 2006 at 9:27 am
I’m at a loss to understand any further ‘re-hashing’ of the Patterson-Gimlin film; does it provide quintessenial proof? No. Does it provide insight on the subject as a whole? Most definitely. But anyone who engages in yet more speculation about this film has to have their motives questioned simply due to the fact that even mentioning a ‘new take’ on the film generates yet another media cycle, which is especially beneficial if one is trying to promote a movie, documentary or book, as in this case. The film is a key conversation piece in the debate; every time a hoax photo or video comes forward, the film automatically gets dragged along on the ‘hoax express’ which is especially sad. Its usefulness as ‘evidence’ has long been weakened by decades of hidebound derision, or at best non-committal, by both science and the media that reports on it.
To those who feel compelled by the possibilities the film represents, it remains a treasure. To those who ‘can’t see the Sasquatch for the Fur Suits’, it will remain little more than some sort of zoological Zapruder film that has its best value in remaining open to wide interpretation.
At the end of it all, the Patterson-Gimlin film will remain special to those of us who seek an answer because its very existence begs so many.
daledrinnon responds: December 5th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I for one am plenty sick and tired of this M. K. Davis and his opinions. He has made no credible observations that can be independantly verified by checking against other copies of the film itself. I for one would defer to Grover Krantz’s statements on the film in preference to anybody else’s. John Green’s statements are in accord with Krantz and vice-versa: Krantz estimated the walking height as lower than Green did because Patty is walking with her knees bent. But the body plans they both see represented in the film and describe in their books is INHUMAN, as are its movements.

There is no blankety-blank stick in the film.
gridbug responds: December 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Despite his questionable theories, at least M. K. Davis hasn’t gone off the deep end a’la Jon-Erik Beckjord… yet.
Kelly responds: December 5th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
OK, can I accept this film as authentic or not? Stick or no stick, missing frames or no missing frames I have seen interviews with a man who claims he was in the suit and he walks just like the bigfoot in the film. That threw me for a loop as it seems more credible when applying Occum’s razor to the whole mystery. Now, observe pendulous mammalian protruberences on the P/G film and it seems as though NOBODY on earth would have created a suit so seemingly anatomically correct. I think the best evidence is the Playboy footage where something walks past the RV and seems to be in an excited state like many apes can be, except that the male organ is odd looking enough to seem real and not a Playboy fake. I know the circumstances of that video seem totally set up but coincidences happen. I just wish something would come thru soon that is undisputable.
kittenz responds: December 5th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I have grave doubts about the P/G film too. I do think it is a hoax. I consider it to be a cultural icon, and its main benefit has been in getting so many people interested in cryptozoology. But I believe that it is fiction, and maybe it has done as much harm as good by imprinting THAT IMAGE of Bigfoot into people’s minds, leaving scant room for any other.
jayman responds: December 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Those maintaining the PG film is a hoax need to put forward a reasonable explanation how it was done. People who visit this blog regularly have seen enough cheap monkey suits to know that if this was a costume, it was light-years beyond that. Who would have had the resources, expertise, and what did they hope to gain?
Sergio responds: December 5th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
A loud AMEN! to John Green’s comments!
Kelly responds: December 5th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Jayman,
Have you seen the interview with the guys who claim to have pulled off the prank? When you see the normal walk of the guy who supposedly wore the suit your jaw will drop. Years of belief will suddenly collect in your small intestine and slowly move southward. You will feel dirty and cheated. Part of you will say, “naw, it can’t be a fake, not after years of me believing”. The other part will say, “I’ve been rused, royally and thoroughly rused”. The good thing is that there is more than enough evidence to suggest it is very real nevertheless. Unfortunately, I am leaning toward the reality that it was a damn good hoax.
jayman responds: December 5th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
All I can say is it takes more than a John Cleese funny walk to disguise a baggy-a**ed fuzzy wuzzy costume. Also several men have claimed to be the “man in the suit” (plus one woman). They can’t all be telling the truth. All the person needs to do is produce the suit and duplicate the film.
kittenz responds: December 5th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
I can’t duplicate the P/G film…maybe no one could, except for those who created it in the first place. Art is not necessarily subject to duplication, and as the “Blair Witch Project” film of its day, the P/G film is a fine piece of artistic endeavor. That it is a film of a genuine hominid, I have no doubt. I think that it is
brilliantly constructed mock documentary film, and the hominid is a large, lanky, male modern human.

Believing that the P/G film is fiction does not lessen its value to me. It is one of the things that got me, and hundreds if not thousands of other people, thinking about the possibility that something like this could really exist.
sschaper responds: December 5th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Tegan, I hate racism, but I also hate tyranny, which is what PC is. Fairly idiotic tyranny at that.

I cannot conceive that Davis was thinking that bigfoot are Miwok. I assume he -must- have meant something like some form of hominid that the locals knew of and called ’stick Indians’ (though I still wonder if that is the right translations - the locals didn’t call themselves Indians)

As to culture: scientists refer to chimps as having culture, because some groups fish for termites with sticks, others crack nuts with rocks, and they pass this information down through learning, rather than instinct. I -assume- that is what Davis meant. I mean…
joppa responds: December 5th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
The film is fascinating and haunting whether real or fake. Assuming that the film is a real “thing”, is it human ? Is it a lost “Digger Indian” ? Is it carrying a stick ?

I would buy into the weird Indian/Human theory if Patty was carrying a lacross stick, anything less and she’s still an enigma.
ToddPartain responds: December 5th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
While shooting dramatization footage for a documentary film, I attempted to emulate the Patterson Footage with an actor and a suit of my own construction shot on vintage Super-8 motion picture film from the 1970’s. I was very pleased with the results, and used every viable frame of the film in my piece. But I failed to create what is seen in that iconic footage. Hats off to Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin. If it is a fake. It’s a hard one to recreate even in our time without a Hollywood budget! I for one, am more convinced of the authenticity after trying to do it myself.
ilexoak responds: December 5th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Even respectable people make “off the wall” comments to help force a conclusion perhaps.

With regards to “wood knocking”, I have discussed the possibility of it being “tongue clicking” instead, in some cases at least. A large Sas with its huge powerful jaws and tongue could easily generate a very powerful click with its tongue making quite the same sort of sound. Their use of whistling is commonly reported as we all know.
Kelly responds: December 6th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Dear Todd,
There is nothing that is remarkable about the effect of the P/G film. A huge Hollywood budget isn’t needed to recreate anything about it. Kitttenz nailed it when she discussed the reproducibility of art. I have an office at Universal Studios (a decent amount of experience in the field) and I can tell you with all due respect that the only aspect of a duplication you would need to make it look iconic and authentic would be to put the original monkey suit guy back in the suit. I have seen his “funny walk” and although it was not John Cleese I have no doubt that this was the fellow who donned the original get up. For years I refused to believe it was a fake until I saw that UNMISTAKABLE gait. Loren, chime in sir, surely you too have seen this interview and footage of the guy walking. They superimposed him into the shot and I am telling you it leaves no room for doubt. The film is the cryptozoological hoax of the last century.
Shamus responds: December 6th, 2006 at 1:45 am
Regarding “stick Indians”, the word “stick”, meaning “hard” (as opposed to soft) made its way into the Chinook jargon which was a trading language used along the Pacific coast from northern Cakifornia to halfway up Alaska. It”s probable that northern Californian native people would address those from a strange tribe (whites) in the jargon- this was all coastal peoples’ habit. It’s possible that “stick Indian” (actually “stick Siwash” in the jargon) was an attemp to convey a somewhat abstract description in their native language into the Chinook. I can’t otherwise imagine why they’d call bf “hard”. Just a thought.
Lyndon responds: December 6th, 2006 at 6:50 am
“But I believe that it is fiction, and maybe it has done as much harm as good by imprinting THAT IMAGE of Bigfoot into people’s minds, leaving scant room for any other.”

I disagree. I believe the image (particularly the face) of Harry from Bigfoot and the Hendersons is known to more people than the P/G subject.
kittenz responds: December 6th, 2006 at 7:22 am
I should have made my comment more specific. When I spoke of the P/G film imprinting an image of Bigfoot into people’s minds I wasn’t referring to the general public. I was referring to people who seriously consider Bigfoot’s existence and who search for evidence of it. The P/G film has, to a large degree, become the standard against which all other evidence, especially photographic evidence, is measured. If the P/G film if not an accurate depiction of the species, it could undermine the believability of other evidence because so many researchers believe that Bigfoot must look just like the creature in the P/G film.
sasquatch responds: December 6th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Yeah Kittenz, even Grover Krantz could imitate and showed how Patty walked, uh, but he thought it was real! I am 6′3” 250 pounds-basically a large NFL linebacker, and I could break Hieronimus in half, but if you put me in a sasquatch costume I’d look like a skinny little pip squeak next to Patty.

That thing weighs at least 500 lbs. I am also a semi-pro special FX person having worked in stop motion animation and cell animation for television commercials and independent films. I also used to build monster masks and costumes etc. I can assure you that even IF “you can’t reproduce art” you sure can get very close. One of the outfits I worked for had the contract to make the Raid Bugspray commercials for a while and we made those bugs look just like all the other commercials before we won the contract.

I also as a teenager could make a very respectable planet of the apes face. But no one has ever come even close to PG so I’d back off of the skepticism because it’s based on nothing but your feelings really.
Vortigern99 responds: December 6th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
My comments are twofold (and BTW, this is my first post):

1. As others have noted — and as the photo above attests — even if the Patterson cryptid can be conclusively shown to be carrying a stick, this by no means proves its/her humanity, for the simple reason that chimpanzees — four-legged animals of a distinct genus and species from us — are know to employ sticks to extract termites from mounds.

2. Bipedal locomotion among primates (Order: Primata) is unique to hominids (Family: Hominidae). In other words, there is NO ape, monkey or prosimian that walks on two legs. (The Great Apes are knuckle-walkers, a quadrupedal form of locomotion.) However, all of our pre-human ancestors, dating back to about 4 million BC, were bipedal. Therefore, “Patty”, if it/she exists, must be at least classified as a hominid. In this regard, MK Davis may be using the term “human” as a synonym for “hominid”. Not an egregiously broad use of the word, but still not quite within the accepted anthropological definition.
mystery_man responds: December 7th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Seeing a guy who can mimic the walk of the subject in the PG film does not sell it as a hoax to me. Someone with a real mind to disprove this film could study and practice and get the walk down pat if one were so inclined. I don’t personally feel that the ability to copy the walk alone would make me forget about all the other odd things about the film and declare it to be a hoax. I am not going to say without a doubt that it is real, but bottom line is nobody has been able to reproduce what a couple less than wealthy cowboys were able to pull off decades ago. The creature is amazingly anatomically correct which was a risk on the part of possible hoaxers because it could have detracted from the realism if done wrong. The creature in the film is fairly huge. I’m 6′3″, 220 pounds myself and this thing could eat me for breakfast. Gimlin has always denied that it was a hoax despite rumors to the contrary. Alot of the attempts to discredit the film have turned out to be false or lead to dead ends. I won’t babble away too much here, but the list of compelling things about the fim goes on and on. These things and many others make me seriously consider this film as perhaps being real, however I do not feel that it will ultimately be proven or disproven without a doubt.
kittenz responds: December 7th, 2006 at 10:40 am
sasquatch Says:

“…I’d back off of the skepticism because it’s based on nothing but your feelings really.”

No, my skepticism is based on my observation of the P/G film, both the original and the “stabilized” version, and also from researching both sides of the “is it real/is it fake” argument. The stabilized version of the film makes it even more obvious that the creature is a made-up man, not a natural creature. I could go on and on with examples of why my observations tell me that the P/G film is not genuine, but that has been done to death and would serve no real purpose. Suffice it to say that my skepticism is based NOT on ‘feelings’ but on observation and interpretation.
Kelly responds: December 8th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Kittenz- I agree with you. No signs of flexing buttock muscles as claimed by some, indeed no muscles flex at all. Even the breasts don’t seem as pendulous after viewing the stabilized video. Again I go back to the gait of the perp who claims to have donned the suit and there is little doubt. I don’t think anyone can say what this guy weighs from this film let alone his height. I have seen estimates of 6′3″ from those that have traveled there and have the skill sets to figure out those logistics. One curious aspect of Mr. Bigfoot here is his long arms. They go down to his knee. The gent I saw in the interview has that exact wingspan. It isn’t normal and therefore is very telling. I still believe it exists but not on that film on that day.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

24 Responses to “John Green on Patterson-Gimlin Footage”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills

viagra how it works

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills

viagra anxiety!

viagra andnot generic

taking viagra woman

taking viagra woman

viagra andnot generic

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman

taking viagra woman

cheap gerneric viagra

viagra anxiety!

taking viagra woman

taking viagra after the expiration date

taking viagra woman

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman

taking viagra woman

snorting viagra health

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman