Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film

message: This article is great and fun to read. Portillo (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I've tagged a few. These need to be clarified. There may well be others. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the ones from the lead as they are unnecessary. See WP:LEAD. -- œ™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: I am no wikipedia expert but this section only makes reference to Bill Munns' website and claims he has done the most extensive analysis of the film yet to date.  I am not sure if this would be original research and should be removed, or if it needs to be expanded further.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.213.199.43 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I don't think this belongs in here quite yet. For one thing, it reads awfully like self-promotion.  But what's more important is that I don't think your analysis of this video has yet made an impact in the world.  We shouldn't go ahead and mention it until it has been picked up by more notable investigators.  If you can offer up information showing that your work has made a significant impact on the scholarship relating to this film outside of your own website and posts on internet forums, please let me know and I can rereview the request. ThemFromSpace 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: It IS self-promotion.  Let's not forget that Bill Munns is a make up man with ZERO experience in 60's creature suits.  He claimed, for instance, that he had never seen a two-piece ape suit before.  That is pretty bad since ALL professional ape suits were (and still are) made in this fashion.  Jeff Pruitt pretty much embarassed him in the BFRO and JREF forums to the point that he never returned to the JREF. ~~just talk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.244 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ummm....you discredited yourself when you said that you had never seen a two-piece ape suit before.  It doesn't matter if who posted it is anonymous or not.  Just sayin'. ~~just talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.244 (talk) 01:29, January 27, 2011
Just following up to document why the unsigned remarks are not factually correct. The unsigned person claimed "Jeff Pruitt pretty much embarassed him in the BFRO and JREF forums to the point that he never returned to the JREF"
My most recent post to the JREF was July 18, 2010, (and jeff pruit had been long gone by then), Thread title: "Bigfoot PG Film The Munns Report", page 89, post #3549.
So i still do post there whenever I feel it's appropriate to add to a conversation.
BillMunns (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Mr. Munns, I seen your analysis of the film on the television show MonsterQuest. Is this parts of the same analysis that is on your website? -- œ™ 06:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Munns Analysis 

message: I just watched the show yesterday - they tested some myths and talked to many experts. They didnt prove that film really depicts Big Foot - but evidence shows that in 60' it would be almost impossible to hoax it.
I higly recommend this show - i was a skeptic myself but now i think this movie really shows some kind of big ape.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.59.120.17 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ladies... read the note at the top of the page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject". Let's keep discussion focused on article improvement. -- œ™ 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed, do any of you have any contributions to make to the article?MilkStraw532 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery 360 show on National Geographic 

message: There is a section of the article thankyou, that is titled "encounter", and within this section, it is claimed that 25 feet is the precise same as 8 meters/metres, even within the body of the article itself. This is an outright lie, as 25 feet is a full 38 centimeters/centimetres short of being 8 meters/meters, even to the point that it is 7.63 meters/metres.
This needs to be ficed I feel, and it may even appear elsewhere in the article, or god knows even elsewhere in the website, even on other articles. Wikipedia can it really be so inaccurate or to allow such flagrent inaccuracies? It may only be a case of 28 centimatres/centimeters, but it is not right that this should be allowed to continue unchallenged, even to the point that it is accepted as an article.
I shall change it forthwith. Thankyou for your time to read .Popping Corns 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. By giving the exact conversion, we might introduce false precision. I think it is clear from the context that the measure was an estimate, so an imperfect conversion is appropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be precise, as the initial distance is only an estimate. Such accuracy is not needed on this article, as it might be for instance if discussing a sport record.--Dmol (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsehoods, mistruths and lies within this article 

message: Oceania2000 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: heh - not "breasts" - ape suit defects 50.111.59.83 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the breasts thing sort of weirdly fascinating. If you were making a sasquatch costume, why would you give it breasts and make it a female? It would only make it more complicated and more dubious, and from the analysis, a bigfoot costume would have been already expensive and technically complicated, without doing that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Ape-Hominid 

message: Why does the article say "It was supposedly filmed on October 20, 1967." How do you "supposedly" film something? Hoax or real, this footage was filmed on that date, a fact that can be confirmed in numerous books and websites. Thor2000 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Various reasons" being what? i see five citations, all from offline sources, with the page numbers, but no further information. the reasons ought to be in the article. and, if the sources do not provide any explanation, then that should not be included in the article at all. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Date??

message: The latest research, in 2012, located the true location of the filmsite, something that had been in dispute until then. This discovery is corroborated by the presence of a configuration of trees that matches those in the background of the PG film, and by the identifying characteristics of some of the trees within it. (E.g., the Big Tree, the Ladder Tree, etc.) The location given for Patterson's estimated camera position is: 41.26.412 -143.42.115.
See the blog of one of the participants in the team that located (and mapped) this site for details and this coordinate claim, at: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/gps-coordinates-for-bluff-creek-pgf.html
A full issue of Bigfoot Times newsletter (August 2012, pages 1–4) was devoted to this. The team's claim is now generally accepted among Bigfooters. 
(The newsletter provides coordinates for a location "ten feet south of the big tree": 41 26 440N   123 42 103W )
The current coordinates are not accurate. According to a map (from google earth I think) e-mailed to me by the blog owner, Stephen Streufert, they point to a location about 100 yards east of the creek, in the woods. Anyone relying on these coordinates to get to the site would be led astray.  Streufert's email is bigfootbooks@gmail.com
RogerKni (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit the article and search for . Melonkelon (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I (or someone with editing privileges) revise the Coordinates data at the upper right of the first page? 

message: The pictrue here about a bigfood could be a human dressed up like an ape. It could be even something like a gorilla or .. But nobody can ever bring a prove if the pictures are in that bad quality. You can discuss and make other 1000 years theses and antytheses and never will come to an end or an aim. Just junk, spam or what? --2A02:1205:5009:C1F0:148B:C148:1A61:9F20 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right (it probably is a human), but in the wrong place. This page is for discussing improvements of the article, not for general discussion of the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam, junk n co 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Patterson–Gimlin film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521054015/http://www.redding.com/news/big-day-for-bigfoot-believers to http://www.redding.com/news/big-day-for-bigfoot-believers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was always led to believe the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot in Del Norte County.  I recently looked at the story on your site and it lists Humboldt County.  The lat long on your page clearly puts it inside Del Norte County.  Maybe the confusion is that you can access that part of Del Norte only by going in from Humboldt.  Anyway, just letting you guys know you have the wrong county.  Big fan of your site!
Bill Steven........  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.162 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patterson-Gimlin film/ You have the wrong county listed 

message: In the 1960s specifically the late 1960s I worked at the famous Malden Mills in Lawrence Mass where they manufactured a lot of this fake fur that was used in costumes. It is clear to me that the Bigfoot in the Paterson film was a man in a suit. That isn’t to say that I don’t believe that Bigfoot exists.    I do. But this particular film is a hoax and I think Bob Gimlin is a nice and honest man but was simply fooled by a very good fake. 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:3F13 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Gimlin was in on it. He's not an honest man either; just look at his arrest record. 75.8.102.122 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ever hear of Malden Mills? 

message: Since 2010 Wikipedia has used a fair-use file (:File:Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352.jpg) of this film, presumably under the assumption that the film is copyrighted. The film is not copyrighted, because American copyright law states that works published between 1964 and 1977 required a copyright notice or else they would enter the public domain (see this page for more info). The original Patterson-Gimlin film did not have a copyright notice. As such, I have WP:BOLDly replaced the file with one on Wikimedia Commons per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  File 

message: When the video is played bottom left you have a little dark spot at a specific frequency(allow better quality image).
On 1 min 51sec the start filming at 18 fps the dark spot is about 1,5X faster then before and images are unclear .
Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting.
at 1.51min he actually filmed off hes friends slowly filming treetops after 18 seconds he noticed bigfoot stating there was no haste, he already changed setting to make a more blur image
2A02:A03F:82E9:FB00:9DF0:CABA:1355:39C (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unedited film recored at 16fps after 1min 50sec the record at 18 fps 

message: It made the news back when the guy died that he confessed on his deathbed that his footage was a hoax; why is this not added? certainly if I heard about it back when, because it made the news, how come Wikipedia hasn't? Also just like vampires and the Tooth Fairy Bigfoot is the invention of someone writing fiction so why would anybody choose to believe this nonsense could possibly exist? same as Slender Man. 69.75.131.46 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "the guy", and what is the source for this? (I deleted a near-duplicate WP:FORUM post above. You do not need to say things twice here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is referring to a common misconception, myth or whatever you want to call it, that Roger Patterson made a confession on his deathbed that the film was faked. This never happened or at least has never been confirmed. See here and here for some comments on this alleged confession. Melonkelon (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I fyou have proof of that, you would need to post a reference. I'm sure if there was an obvious death bed confession, it would have been noted and added to the article years ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathbed confession