Comments on: John Green on Patterson-Gimlin Footage

By: Kelly

Kelly — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:30:36 +0000

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.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:40:29 +0000

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.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:19:12 +0000

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.

By: Vortigern99

Vortigern99 — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:49:12 +0000

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.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:46:04 +0000

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.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:22:08 +0000

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.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:50:07 +0000

“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.

By: Shamus

Shamus — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:45:04 +0000

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.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:46:24 +0000

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.

By: ilexoak

ilexoak — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:23:58 +0000

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.