Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film/Archive 2

points needing further discussion

This article seems comprehensive and fairly neutral, but there are remaining issues that need to be discussed. One of them is the fact that (according to one TV special) Patterson used a wide-angle lens, which is only hinted at in the article. The creature is much closer to the camera than it seems to be. This raises the question of why a sasquatch -- which is assumed to be a shy creature -- wouldn't have quickly run off when it saw humans -- especially as Patterson described its facial expression as one of "disgust". If the creature is a female, it would be especially anxious to avoid humans. Another issue is the sheer bulkiness/hairness of the creature -- it's too hairy for its mass. For a given body plan, the larger the animal, the lower the ratio of its surface area to mass, and the less hair it needs for insulation. Even bears aren't that hairy. Ignoring the fact that Patterson was remarkably lucky in finding what he set out to photograph, there is also the fact that he asked Gimlin to agree not to shoot it. I love animals (except for deer, which should be mown down with AK-47s at any and all opportunities), but I would have tried to wound it. This agreement strongly suggests the film is a fraud, with the unaware Gimlin schlepped along as an "honest" witness. I remain open-minded about the existance of crypto-hominids (which I would like to think exist -- ditto for alien spacecraft). But -- regardless of what the experts say -- the Patterson film shows a man walking in a suit. How do I know that? Because it looks like it. The motion is that of a human being swinging

his arms and taking long steps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 

WilliamSommerwerck (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22

June 2008 (UTC) 

Gimblin?? What's the deal with that? The headline clearly states the man's name is Gimlin.

Bob Heironimus text

Several things in the paragraphs about Bob Heironimus are not clear. I quote: "Bob Heironimus and Heironimus's relatives (mother Opal and nephew John Miller) claim to have seen an ape suit in Heironimus' car". It is incongruent that Bob Heironimus testifies that he saw an ape suit in his own car. So this name appears to be erroneous. I quote: "The relatives say they saw the suit two days after the film was shot (Long, 362). No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation" Who is Hammermeister? Was he the man that saw the ape suit in Bob's car? There is no introduction at all for that man. Dirk Bontes (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Dirk Bontes

It was Bob Hammermeister who saw the suit in the other Bob's car. That was originally how it read but someone "corrected" it in July 2007. I changed it back (but I agree Hammermeister should be better identified). Gr8white (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Further research reveals it was Bernard, not Bob, Hammermeister. Gr8white (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Grover Krantz "anthropologist" citation request

In the Analyses section, a "citation needed" tag has been attached to Grover Krantz's appelation of 'anthropologist.' Since the Wikipedia article on the man himself describes him as "a professor of physical anthropology" and provides a good deal of undisputed corroboratory information, this seems excessively zealous. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, so I removed it. Christopedia (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Heironimus

Bob Heironimus did NOT (and still doesn't) know exactly where the suit came from, whether it be from Phillip Morris or elsewhere, and has stated as much.

The claim that Bruce Mondor said that Patterson showed him how to fake tracks is false.

This article contains the statement, "In addition, Roger Patterson's own brother-in-law, Bruce Mondor, came forward and admitted that Roger showed him how he hoaxed bigfoot tracks."

Here is an e-mail I sent to reporter Jane Gargas of the Yakima Herald-Republic on June 7, 2007:

Untitled

In the July/August 2004 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Kal Korff’s book review of Greg Long’s Making of Bigfoot appeared. Almost halfway through it Korff wrote (addition: making a claim that is his lone, not one that is in Long's book):

“Additional eyewitness testimony that Patterson faked Bigfoot prints comes independently from Roger Patterson's brother-in-law Bruce Mondor: "Roger made the footprints, and he explained the whole damn thing to me. He showed me the big foot; it didn't have an arch in it. It had toes like it should have .... And I asked him ... 'What do you do, you pick this up and slam it down?' It had to weigh twenty-five or thirty pounds. He said, 'Yeah, that's what I do.' I said, 'Then what do you do there [in the impression on the ground]?' He said, 'I pour plaster of Paris in there.'"

I just spoke to Mondor and he tells me that he "knows nothing about" the Patterson film or any hoax involving it, and that has never made any statements that he has. Also that he's never spoken to Kal Korff or any interviewer.

I spoke to Mondor recently and he told me he'd be happy to confirm to you that he has disavowed this misquotation. If I in turn am able to state that you can confirm his disavowal (if necessary), this will make my statement more believable. I am going to be speaking in the fall at a Bigfoot conference, so I need backup.

Here’s Mondor’s contact information: Bruce Mondor / 509-966-0672 / 230 Ahtanum Road—North Fork / Tampico, WA 98903

Here's the response I received from her on July 9, 2007:

Hi Roger, You're right. I just talked to Bruce on the phone, and he confirmed that he never made those statements about the footprints. “I never said that,” he told me.

Here is the contact info. for reporter Jane Gargas: Yakima Herald-Republic 114 N. 4th Street Yakima, WA 98901-2707 509-577-7690 jgargas@yakima-herald.com

I also sent three e-mails to Skeptical Inquirer asking them to retract that statement of Korff's. They replied the first time by asking for Kal Korff's e-mail, which I gave them: kalkorff@kalkorff.com. I have heard nothing further from them, although I e-mailed them twice more, asking if they were taking action.

Subsequently I've spoken to Mondor on the phone twice more, and he's stuck to his story.

I've posted the above finding on Bigfootforums.com. (I may also have mentioned it in "Bigfoot Times," but I forget which or when.) So I guess this counts as "original research," but there should be some way of correcting this error. (I'll monitor this page for a month before I attempt to make a correction myself.)

I think that the offending sentence should not only be removed, but that a correction of this widely disseminated piece of misinformation should be made. Here's what I suggest:

"In the July/August 2004 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Kal Korff’s book review of Greg Long’s Making of Bigfoot contained a claim that "Patterson's brother-in-law Bruce Mondor [said]: "Roger made the footprints, and he explained the whole damn thing to me. [... etc.]'" However, when Mondor was contacted by Jane Gargas, a reporter for the Yakima Herald-Republic, he denied making any such statements."

Roger Knights (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)