Loren Coleman, May 4, 2014

[Han]

Very interesting show, on a personal level I like MR Colemans manner even if I do not agree with some of his conclusions. (especially about the Patterson Gimlin film).

I am sorry but I fail to understand why certain parties take umbrage at at MR Coleman expressing his honest opinion, after all I thought that freedom of speech was as important if not more so than the right to bare arms?
I also think it is unfair to imply that: MR Coleman did anything other than: respond to a question that he was asked, regarding research he has done. (about school mass murders)

 

[Burnt State]

Very interesting show, on a personal level I like MR Colemans manner even if I do not agree with some of his conclusions. (especially about the Patterson Gimlin film).

I'm sure this film, and the related iconic image of the big hairy guy/gal turning to look back at the camera before lumbering off into the bush, is what launched a multitude of paracast forum members into paranormal pursuits when they were much younger. I remember as a teen being eternally fascinated with that classic bigfoot film still, the equally impressive Nessie shot and some classic ghost pics that routinely were examined during those wonderful, In Search Of episodes.

I look back at these many decades later and my young curiosity of these highly intriguing photos and know they catapulted me into UFO lore, which is where I still reside. Unfortunately, I've been made much more skeptical over the years and all those early benchmark photos & film have had more than just doubt cast upon these classic images.

The Gimlin film has far too much 'luck' attached to the entire scenario of heading off into the woods to find Sasquatch and, what do you know - there he is boys, get that camera rolling. There's also the story of the dude who claimed to be the actor in the suit who got paid a paltry sum for his convincing portrayal of the monster.

What's your take on it, Han? How about others - is the Gimlin film that lottery winning impossible moment or is it just a construction?

 

[Han]

My opinion is that the Patterson/Gimlin film has about as much verisimilitude* as the Piltdown man.

*you learn something new everyday
(just for clarity I had never used or heard of the word "verisimilitude" before today)

 

[LeBombette]

The fella who claimed to be the "guy in the suit" was Bob Heironomus. His story has been promoted by Kal Korff...who's one of those shady "researchers" claiming to have been a CIA agent, a ninja and a professor (okay I made the last two up). Anyways, Bob's story at first seems to have some weight, but there are many holes. I won't go into everything here, but you can read a good debunking of the debunking on the BFRO website and you can get a more skeptical read on the Wikipedia page (of all places) concerning the Patterson-Gimlin film. And just for giggles take a look at Mr. KK...pretty funny stuff.
Yes, it does seem like crazy luck that these two happened upon exactly what they were looking for, yet no one has ever been able to conclusively prove the film a fake.
Here's my reasons for leaning to the side of the film being genuine:
1. Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz's analysis of the film from the standpoint of biomechanics. The movement of Pattie suggests a flat-footed stride which is what a heavy bodied creature would need for upright movement. When Gimlin filmed this that was not a well-known theory as it is today.
2. Gimlin and Patterson were not just pulled off at a rest-stop - they were in BFE...the middle of nowhere. They could've faked it anywhere and at anytime...why go so deep into the forest and stay a few days...to add credibility to the story, maybe? Seems like a lot of work and why was Heironimus not spotted heading in or out and how'd he get there?
3. I believe Gimlin. I think Mr. Gimlin is not the sort of man that would participate in such a hoax. There is always the remote possibility that Gimlin was fooled by Patterson as well. Researchers from John Green, Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum hold Mr. Gimlin in the highest regard and believe his account. John Green and Grover Krantz investigated the case shortly after and always held to their support of the story.
4. The muscle movement - there is muscle movement and structure clearly visible. With the technology that existed at the time it was not impossible to create it, but certainly incredibly difficult. There have been several attempts at recreating the muscle movement and the biomechanics and all have had poor results.

There are some videos of Jeff Meldrum's analysis on youtube that are quite good and I would suggest to anyone with even a passing interest in Bigfoot to take a look.

Perhaps the P&G film is to Bigfoot research as Roswell is to UFOs?

 

[Han]

Regarding the P&G film, my position is this: it could be genuine footage of a Bigfoot, however the absence of any supporting physical evidence of Bigfoot (discovered since or before) suggests to me that it is a hoax.

My understanding of what MR Coleman was suggesting is that: Bigfoot(s) are super intelligent and telepathic meaning they are able to avoid detection. If the film is genuine: was the Bigfoot having an off day? I mean how come they Patterson/Gimlin were able to photograph her/him? unless the Bigfoot allowed them to? and if so why?

In a nutshell, on my personal scales, the reasons for the footage being genuine are far outweighed by the reasons for it being not.

not all that glisters is gold!

 

[Jeff Davis]

I also don't subscribe to the Bigfoot alien connection as those stories tend to produce very large waves of doubt in my mind. However, there is a very long history of UFO's and the paranormal, specifically poltergeist activity. When you look deeply into the fied you consistently run up against this specific issue of attendant phenomenon suggesting some type of paranormal/extraterrestrial connection. Even Hynek and Vallée explored these ideas together. Keel of course, as Coleman reminds us, was a proud demonologist. Like Hynek, who felt at the end of his life UFO's were 'elementals' or some type of earth bound spirits, Keel identifed that ET was actually demonic in nature as far as he was concerned.
Coleman writing with Jerome Clark in the early years also explored the UFO through more complicated and surreal lenses.

Also of interest are those folk who once touched by the UFO appear to mentally destabilize, and in some cases feel like the thing they are looking deeply into is starting to look back at them. I wonder how much of this paranormal connection is linked to the powers of the mind where these attendant phenomena are springing from a more human well-source as if something latent in us is somehow sparked? But these ideas are purely speculative.

A good article on the UFO and the poltergeist: The Big Study: Poltergeists AND UFOS?: Hard to find.

Denying observed reality, for which no other salient points you observe or maintain as legitimate do, produces even larger waves of doubt in the rational minds of those like myself.

 

[Wade]

Regarding the P&G film, my position is this: it could be genuine footage of a Bigfoot, however the absence of any supporting physical evidence of Bigfoot (discovered since or before) suggests to me that it is a hoax.

My understanding of what MR Coleman was suggesting is that: Bigfoot(s) are super intelligent and telepathic meaning they are able to avoid detection. If the film is genuine: was the Bigfoot having an off day? I mean how come they Patterson/Gimlin were able to photograph her/him? unless the Bigfoot allowed them to? and if so why?

In a nutshell, on my personal scales, the reasons for the footage being genuine are far outweighed by the reasons for it being not.

not all that glisters is gold!

Those are good points and something that I have wrestled with myself at times. In many Bigfoot encounter reports you hear of that omnipresent feeling of dread...not sure if it is a artificially manifested feeling or natural human "instinct"...and rock or stone throwing, some kind of outright hostility or attempt to avoid human contact which I would gather is in itself fear based or a sign of intimidation, yet the one in the Patterson film just sauntered away from men on horseback in an area that looks like it would offer little in the way of preventing the humans from getting closer. Granted I haven't closely scruntinized the film but I do think I can see the muscle movement that was mentioned above and elsewhere leaving me with a conundrum. If painted into a corner would I tend to believe that someone could come up with a near perfect hoax that is arguably better done than the CGI-laden videos you see today, OR was the bigfoot having an "off-day" as you so cleverly put it. I guess I would tend towards to the latter, although I'm at a loss at what would make the BF act so casual. My first thought would be it was such a confident Alpha male...or female (? ) it wouldn't have to bother with any histronics.

 

[Burnt State]

Denying observed reality, for which no other salient points you observe or maintain as legitimate do, produces even larger waves of doubt in the rational minds of those like myself.

Just because someone claims an observed reality doesn't make it reality. Consequently, I'd have to question the rationality of believing everything that you're told. Besides, all of this is mostly inquiry, supposition and well reasoned hunches.

Does any story I tell automatically become fact? Maybe if you read all that I write, observe what I have done and do for large periods of time - sure, credibility can be established in such a manner. Can Bigfoot really be controlled by aliens who carry little black remote control consoles? It sounds rather unlikely. I'm sure the only reason that Nessie wasn't invited to the party is that there wasn't a loch nearby. There's little by way of legitimacy to any such tale.

The improbability of capturing Bigfoot on film the day you decide to go look for Bigfoot on film is right up there with aliens in a field making Bigfoot drop to the ground with a touch of the button. Don't get me wrong; I love extraterrestrial weirdness and the more surreal the better, but if I had to side with Gimlin or that ultra weirdo, Korff, it would be a toss up.

Elsewhere on the forum a wiser person wrote, I don't think you'll ever be able to take a picture of an alien, and time has shown Bigfoot to be as elusive. Where does that leave the film and it's legitimacy as Han points out? Experts on both sides claim victory. Solid corroboration of Patty though appears to be in short supply.

Ironically, if I had to put money on either ghosts, aliens, chupacabra, Geller, remote viewing, Nessie or Bigfoot, I'd bet the whole lot on the hairy, stinky hominid of the Northwest - seems the most probable of the lot.

I'm at a loss at what would make the BF act so casual. My first thought would be it was such a confident Alpha male...or female (? ) it wouldn't have to bother with any histronics.

It's a good observation - where's all the territorial screaming, chest beating, tall tree bending and rock hurtling we always hear about? This Gimlin Bigfoot behaves like an indifferent manatee. Something's just not quite right here.