The Blevins "Patty" suit--about as realistic as our own
childhood wolfman get-up. They love it at JREF, though!
HERE IS THE LEROY BLEVINS YOUTUBE SITE:
Theory That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Here is some other "stuff" we found in your Gimlin image. Are
they all real? They are just as obvious and clear as your "Bob."
Blevins says he sees Bob Gimlin hiding in the bushes behind
"Patty" in the P-G Film. It is just an illusion, like our "man" here.
Actually, Patterson rode a smaller pony most of the time, and it appears that he is on Gimlin's larger horse in that woods footage. And it appears that Gimlin is riding Patterson's horse in that other footage.
I don't know what to make of what Gimlin said about the filming. In other places he has said that he filmed Patterson making the track casts, and in the woods a few times. I really don't know. He is like 79 or so now, so his memory of things long ago is obviously going to be spotty at times. Also, it is hard for me to refer to a radio interview. Are you speaking of the Larry Battson show one? I guess I should listen to it again.
I say, just don't jump to conclusions when there is not enough evidence to show things one way or the other.
Steve, Bigfoot Books
LEROY BLEVINS: I don't mind doing a interview. But may I ask a question if you don't mind.
The reason I said this is what doe's it matter. As you know I send you what I found in the film but all you can do and even other people come up this excuses on what I found. Like the saddlebag I send you still photos that shows Patterson on his horse with no saddlebag on his horse. But you said it was Bob Gimlin horse or this part of the film no one knows when it was filmed. Instead of looking at it and say something like you do show there was no saddlbag on his horse now how did Patterson get his camera out of a saddlebag when the film shows him with no saddlebag. Now if you was there then I can say ok it was Bob Gimlin horse or this part of the film was shot days before. But you was not there just like me I was not there. Now if Bob Gimlin seen this interview and see you made your claim it was his horse or it was film another day then if someone ask Bob Gimlin about this photo that shows Patterson horse with no saddlebag then he can say the same thing you said in your claim. Now is this right on finding the truth? So you see this is why I said WHY.
Just like I can point out somethings that a lot of people and even researchers said it can not be done even you said the same thing. Like the timeline they told of that weekend. Filming the Bigfoot and making cast prints and going into town to mail out the film then get the film developed and show all 3 reels on Sunday and again on Monday. When I know by making calls to places that developed this type of film and they told me it take about 2 or 3 days to developed all 3 reels and they all close at noon on Saturday. So like I said there is no way they did this on this 1 weekend. But today Bob Gimlin still telling this same story and we know that is a lie. So just this alone shows Bob Gimlin lying.
Here's our quick PhotoShop hack job to show the "other guy
sitting on Blevins' "Gimlin's" knee. Which one is "real"???
Patterson used another man as a standin for Bob Gimlin and claim he was Bob Gimlin.
Patterson is lying on both times.
So you see just in these two things here you can see that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin both lied. So how can you stand up for them and how can anyone believe these two men when they both was caught lying.
I like to point out something again. Bob Gimlin claim in the interview on Nov 5 2009 that when he was at home he had a friend that seen Patterson and the Bob Gimlin standin and he said his friend stand up and yelled out that is not Bob Gimlin I know Bob Gimlin and that not him and then he was kicked out. But in the interview when Bob Gimlin first told the story he said his friend called him after the show and said that Patterson was useing some other man in his place and claim he was Bob Gimlin. But his friend did not said nothing for he did not like to start a riot so he said nothing and keeped quiet. So you see again from Oct he tells the story to a man on Oct 20 and just 15 days latter he changed the story. And I know you will say he is old but still Bob Gimlin changed his story again. So you see it does not matter what I say or show you are someone else will make up a excuses for Bob Gimlin or Patterson. When what you need to do is find Bob Gimlin and ask him these questions and let him come up with the answers.
Ask Bob Gimlin to answer why there is no saddlebag on Patterson horse.
Ask Bob Gimlin why does one photo shows him standing behind the brush.
Ask Bob Gimlin why is there other images of men found in the film and why they took them out.
Ask Bob Gimlin why the film shows more men there with him and Patterson.
Ask Bob Gimlin why is Bob Heironimus and Jerry Merritt on reel 2 with Patterson makeing the cast prints and holding the cast prints in his hand on this same reel.
Ask Bob Gimlin why the Bigfoot stop 9 times in the film and stand upright.
Ask Bob Gimlin why are there two different feet on the Bigfoot and why don't the cast prints match the feet on this Bigfoot.
Ask Bob Gimlin when was the film shot and when did they get the film developed.
You see only Bob can asnwer these question not you or me only Bob Gimlin. I show what I found in the film and still photos but Bob Gimlin is the only one that can asnwer the question. Like in that interview he was on Nov 5 2009 in that interview Bob Gimlin claim he was at Bluff Creek the last week of September or the first of October. Then Larry said you mean Oct 20 and he said ya that right. Just like Bob Gimlin for years claim the Bigfoot was just a little over 6' but after he seen the Munns report now he claim the Bigfoot was 7'4". Come on Bob Gimlin is getting words put into his mouth and he is only telling the same story they tell him to say. So now do you get my point. And the reason I said why.
What I show is there no matter what anyone say I show what I found and the only man that can asnwer the question is Bob Gimlin and you and I know Bob Gimlin will never answer these claim or questions.
So you see you answer any of the things I show you are not giveing Bob Gimlin the time to come up with the answer for he is use to people telling him the answers to the questions. You can see this in all of the interviews he was in. Like in a interview with Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin said the arms of the Bigfoot was way down past it's knee then Patterson said no the arms did not go past the knees like that and Bob Gimlin said ya thats right. So you see Bob Gimlin is given the answers to the questions and he is not coming up with the answers on his own.
Now like right in front of Bob Gimlin Patterson claim his horse fell on him but Bob Gimlin did not say nothing. Now both of the things I just said are told in 1 interview Now if Bob Gimlin tells the truth as people claim why did Bob Gimlin stop Patterson and said now the horse did not fall on you like when Patterson stop Bob Gimlin on the claim of the arms below the knees. Now Patterson stop Bob so why Bob did not stop Patterson.
So you think about this first and let me know what you think on what I said. Thank you God Bless, Leroy
The thing is, you take inconsistencies in the stories as lies, but they are not necessarily so. You can say they are lies, but they may just be differences in how things were remembered.
Also, it really is NOT proven when those first images were taken, so you cannot necessarily presume that the non-saddlebagged horse is the same horse at the same time that Patterson was riding when they saw the Creature. You just can't, and it cannot be proven from the scant evidence that we have.
Gimlin and Patterson had different memories, or they didn't get their stories straight, or they forgot things over time. That seems clear.
Blevins' "Gimlin." Do you see him? Wait, how could he be riding a horse if he
was actually hiding in the bushes? Also, Blevins does not realize those trees
are at perhaps 45 feet or more away from the Bigfoot. His "Gimlin" is a giant!
The point of doing an interview with you is that we could go through these things systematically, and try to analyze them together. The matters with Bob Gimlin need to be taken up with him, but obviously you'd have to ask him. I am not his "good friend" or anything, though I have met him a few times; and in any case he would surely resent your accusations, or would be very tired of this kind of questioning. He has told his story, and that is where he stands. He isn't changing it at this point.
LEROY BLEVINS: Ok Steve, Let us do this but first let us go over everything and not just part ok. And let us also start at the beginning and not in the middle or end let us go over everything so they can see it from both side with nothing add to the story and not hear say from others. Plus we need to look at the answers they give and not the answers he say or give. And we also will go over my findings and talk about them points by points so people can see what I am talking about plus we are talking about my research on the film and not the researchers research that was done on the film. But when can use some of there research to prove our points in this interview so people can read for them self to understand.
Ok now lets do this.
Or Maybe You Believe BOB?
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claim they was at Bluff Creek Ca. They claim to have seen and film a Bigfoot at Bluff Creek on Oct 20, 1967. They road their horse to in the woods and up some roads and a around a bend and they came up on the Bigfoot. They claim the horse gone wild and Roger Patterson claim that him and his horse fell to the ground then he got up really fast and got the camera out of his saddle bag and started to film the Bigfoot. Now as he was filming the Bigfoot he was running up on it as Bob Gimlin road his horse across the creek bed and took out his rifle to cover Patterson. Now as Patterson was filming the Bigfoot The Bigfoot it self just walked away very comely and just looked back and contenu to just walk away as these two men was running up on it with things in their hands but the Bigfoot just walked away. After the Bigfoot was gone Patterson reloaded his camera with new film and they started to film some more of the tracks the Bigfoot left behind and also they made cast prints of the tracks. After they was done they road their horses back to the camp site and got into the truck and drove 17 miles into town so Roger Patterson can mail out 3 reels of film they shot to his brother in-law Al DeAtley. Now Patterson send it to the airport in Seattle Washington. This was all done on Friday Oct 20, 1967.
Now Saturday Patterson brother in-law (Al DeAtley) recessive the film at the Seattle Washington Airport at 10 AM Saturday morning. He then took the all 3 reels and got them developed and gone back to his home in Yakima Washington. This was all done on Saturday Oct 21, 1967. Now on Sunday Patterson and Gimlin gone back to Yakima Washington however Bob Gimlin gone straight home as Patterson gone to his brother in-laws (Al DeAtley) house to look over the 3 reels of film. When Patterson got to his brother in-laws (Al DeAtley) house they gone into his basement to look over the 3 reels of film. At that time there was two other men upstairs waiting to see the film too. Now as soon as Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) seen all 3 reels they told the other two men they can see the film. Now this was all done on Sunday Oct 22, 1967. Now the next day Roger Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) gone to Canada to show the film to some researchers there. They shown the film to the researchers but they only shown 2 of the 3 reels. After they shown the reel 1 and reel 2 two of the researchers asked can they have a copy of reel 2 so they can look over the tracks of the Bigfoot and the tracks left by the horses. Roger Patterson told them they will have a copy of reel 2 by Friday. Note: However they never got a copy of reel 2 and no one has never seen reel 3 only Roger Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley). Now all of this was done on Monday Oct 23,1967.
Or Maybe You Believe Roger?
The reason for the question can this be done in the time frame they tell in the story.
Friday Oct 20, 1967 They filmed and made cast prints and film some more then road all over the place in trucks and horse and mail out the film.
Saturday Oct 21,1967 Patterson brother in-law (Al DeAtley) drove to Seattle got the film at 10 AM and got all 3 reels developed and drove back to Yakima.
Sunday Oct 22, 1967 Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) viewed all 3 reels at his house in Yakima Washington and even two other men.
Monday Oct 23, 1967 Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) shown the film to researchers in Canada.
As you see just in this timeline alone there are questions that needed answers too and where is the proof to back this story up they tell. So I did some research on this story to find if what they told is true or not and to find if the time frames can line up to the story. First I made some calls to places in Seattle Washington that develops this type of film and was open back in 1967. I found 11 companies in Washington that develope this type of film and was open in 1967. All of them claim they did not develope the film for Patterson or anyone else but they did tell me that there was no way that 3 reels of film of this type can be develope in one day even on a Saturday for all of them close at noon on Saturday. This gives 2hr for Al DeAtley to get the film and find a place to develope the film. However I did talk to one company that did developed the film for Al DeAtley and they was 3 reels but they claim it was droped off on Tuesday Oct 10, 1967 and was picked up on Friday Oct 13, 1967. So I asked did they have any recordes of this and they said no. So it was back to hear say. But they did also told me that it takes 2 or 3 days to develope this type of film and to do all 3 reels and they too also close at noon on a Saturday. So looking at this so far by the time to develope this film don't fits the story they told.
Or Maybe You Just Believe Patty?
Patterson with Casts, Bluff Creek
BIGFOOT BOOKS: Leroy, We'd have to start from the start, with me asking you a question, and the points and discussion following. You know, I can't address all of that information at once, and it won't introduce you to the reader. We'd have to do some fact checking along the way, too--can you cite sources for all of your information?
The first question should be...
BIGFOOT BOOKS: Mr. Blevins, could you tell us a bit about yourself, your background, and how you became interested in Bigfoot and the Patterson-Gimlin film?
LEROY BLEVINS: I am 43 years old I have a wife and 5 kids. I am retired from construction of 30 years, I have always had a passion for history,I started to do research at the age of 14 looking for the true history of man. On my spare time I study the Bible, Egyptian, Native American History, American History, Hunting, Tracking, Filming and Photo Analyzing. After I retire I started to do my research full time. I did research on Noah's ark, Garden of Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah, The ark of the covenant, and other stories told in the Bible looking for the true stories that are told.In my research I have found the true story of Noah and the flood and I also found the location of Noah's ark at rest on Mt Ararat, I also found the location of The Garden of Eden. I also did research on the Zodiac Killer and found away to read the letters he wrote. I became interested in Bigfoot 9 years ago when I seen one as I was going home from work. It was in the middle of the summer and we just got done with a roof job in Indiana I lived in Ohio. So we gone throw Kentucky and as we was going throw Kentucky on the highway it was around 4PM now I know this, is everyday from 4:01 or 4:02 this radio station always played Another Brick in the Wall by Pick Floyd. Now as we was going down the highway my nephew point to the side of the road and said is that a monkey and as I looked it stood up and I said no that not a monkey we was only about 20 ft away from this creature. We stop to look at it and it just stood there for about 4 min's just looking at us. I can see the face and the whole body it was a male he stood upright he was around 7'1" he had brown fur but the front of the torso was more of a lighter color. The face looked like a big man face with a beard and long hair and you can smell this bad odor. Then it just turn around and step over this 4ft fence and walked away into the woods. That same night when I got home I took off of work for the next 3 days to go over books and research by others just to find the start of this hair man. I have heard of Bigfoot by my research on the Native American and also when I first seen the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film back in 1976.
Patterson on Horse in Bluff Creek.
Do YOU See the Saddlebags?
Can you give the Biblical references you have used, for our readers? It would seem you fall definitely on the side of "Bigfoot as Human." But how is it that, if they once lived in cities and alongside of us, they now are so hidden and elusive, animal-like, living wild and leaving absolutely no evidence of technology, building, cities or societal organization? What happened to them?
Gimlin with Packhorse in Bluff Creek.
Can you tell us what version of the film you are using for analysis? And also, have you found this "hat" in other copies of the film to confirm that it is there on the original and not a film defect in one of the copies?
To me it does kind of look like a hat, but is so obscure in form and cartoonish in shape that I can't really take it as being a real hat. Besides, it looks sort of like one of those large, tall, dress cowboy hats worn by dudes and town dandies, and not a practical horseman's outdoors hat such as the one worn by Bob Gimlin in that image. How can you explain that it appears so fleetingly? I mean, it is only in two frames, and that would be about 1/8th of a second for a camera running at 16 frames per second. That is really beyond the speed of normal human or animal movement, I'd think, especially for a back-and-forth motion. Also, the bill of the "hat" looks kind of oddly shaped. Have you found a real make of hat that matches both the shape of the top and the bill, for comparison?
LEROY BLEVINS: This is one reason I agreed to do research on the PG film is to find the proof to back the film and show it, so people well know this creature did in fact exist. and I have gone out on expeditions in the past and plan on going out again this weekend.
Part of the Bible I found the start of this kind of man.
Genesis Chapter 25 V21
A Scene of "Edomite Bigfoot" in the Hell of Michelangelo's Last Judgment.
Green Showing His Copy of the PG Film on X-Creatures.
The Blevins "Hat," with Gimlin in Foreground.
Your voice recording observations are interesting. However, to me they are quite vague. And besides, why would these Bigfoot creatures speak to one another in English, and how could they possibly speak so quickly that their voice would have to be slowed down many times over to make it sound that way. This reminds me of playing Led Zeppelin records backward. I did indeed hear those "Satan Messages" in there. So I tried it on The Doors. I heard Satan there, too. I even tried it on the Cookie Monster album, and lo, there were lots of cool phrases in there, too. I find this kind of observation highly dubious and subjective, just like looking at blobs and blurs and shadows in a photo or still of a film and then finding all kinds of mysterious "hidden" content.
Your version of the film, as I recall, was copied from YouTube. Isn't it? I'm sure you know that the compression on that site removes pixels and frames (as far as I understand it), and presents a generally very low quality image. If that is the copy you are using then I would say all of your conclusions are suspect and questionable. Also, that "hat" part: it was NOT on the other copies of the PGF, but so far as I know it has appeared in the public arena only from John Green's copy. So, you cannot say that it is there in all the copies because people only copied the Bigfoot part, so far as we know. If not, where in the world did you find your footage from the earlier part of Reel 1, other than Green's copy?
Regarding Gimlin being in the bushes behind the Creature.... Well, the dimensions of the film site and the placement of the trackway were well documented at the time. What "test" did you do? Why would your test be more credible than the records of several researchers who were there on the ground at the REAL film site and took REAL physical measurements? Look at Rene Dahinden's measurements, as well as his photo taken from above on the hillside above the film site. You will see that the creature is very small on the sandbar, and is moving quite away from the trees, even though it does not look that way due to the optical illusion of the film perspective. Three-dimensional things look flat in a two-dimensional plane. It is well known that you cannot easily measure distance solely from looking at film frames. HENCE, if Gimlin were in those bushes he would have to be a literal GIANT to appear at essentially the same size as the creature. Please see the photos I am attaching for a true view of the film site. Your early frames under question here would have been at the far left side of the photo image. From such a distinct blur I have no idea how you could really calculate the "man's" height, and looking at your images trying to prove the color of his "shirt" I see so much color distortion and pixelation that I can't tell if any of it is correct to the original setting and objects.
You mention that one foot does not have any toes... but can't you see that there is a very distinct blur line right at that spot in the image you are using. This looks like original camera blur made even worse by a very poor and pixelated digitization of the thing. Why on earth, if the suit were faked, would he not put toes on the foot? Your shape-size comparisons with the footprints, too, are terribly wrong because of the differing angles of view between the two.
Blevins claiming that these Yakima-area docudrama images
taken by Patterson's film project were shot in Bluff Creek and
were part of "roll two." NOPE.
Please see, also, my image of your "Bob Gimlin" in the bushes, with my own discoveries circled. I see a crazy deer head, a dancing tiny bigfoot, and so many other strange things that look just as real as your Gimlin. Also, your Gimlin is so blurry that it might as well have been Elvis hiding in those trees.
OK, sorry, but I had to answer your points. Let's try to narrow it down somewhat for the next round. That way we can proceed logically and do some fact-checking and real analysis of your ideas and images. I'll let you reply to the above before asking a next question. If you want to propose a new point at the end to move on with just do so. Thanks!
The 1971 Dahinden "Aerial" Photo, with Camera Position and Subject
LEROY BLEVINS: If you look at the location and you look at the photo of Bob Gimlin behind the brush you can see that the location can not be found in the location photo. So you can not use this to make a point when the location of Bob Gimlin behind the brush can not be seen in the location photo.
Christopher Murphy Diagram
LEROY BLEVINS: I think you are loosing it. I don't see none of the stuff you are seeing. You are just pointing out shadows and saying things that are not there. are you ok?
BIGFOOT BOOKS: Leroy, I think that is what YOU have been doing with this Gimlin thing. Hence, yes, I am OK. I was joking. I do "see" those things--with my imagination, just like you do. Look closer. The things will emerge.
LEROY BLEVINS: Are you OK?
BIGFOOT BOOKS: Ok? Yes. Completely. Are you? I look forward to your answer.
What I found and what I show is not my imagination. What I found and what I show is a real face behind the brush and the face that match the face behind the brush is that of Bob Gimlin. You are not doing what I am doing you are pointing out shadows and claiming this is this or that. But the photo shows Bob Gimlin.
I like to know why you did not answer my question I ask you last night about Bob Gimlin lying.
Steve, Before I answer any more question I like to ask you something. Your questions you ask you are using someone else research to answer my research but none of it is your research. Then you point out things in the photo and say this or that when in fact you are just trying to come up with reason for Bob Gimlin or Patterson. When all I show is what can be seen in the film I think you need to ask the questions to Bob Gimlin and not me. You like to think with logic but this is not logic. Or even in reason. You siad we will go over this from the start but you are jumping around from my research on the Edomites to the film. At first I thought we was only going over my research on the PG film and not my research on the Edomites and recordings. When you can say that sound good but let us talk only about the PG film for now and then maybe latter we can do a interview on the Edomites and the recording. But you are talking about the PG film and my research on Edomites and even my research on recording when we need to say with the PG film and not jump around like you are doing. Like before you can say this person is lying or that person is lying you have to look at the facts at hand. Let me show you.
Christopher Murphy's Film Site Model, Showing Distance from Trees
Also, that aerial image was taken something on the order of four years later than the PGF!
Can we stick to the interview process, do you think? We need to get this down so I can make sense of it for the readers.
Christopher Murphy's Film Site Model, Showing How Perspective Deceives
Why do you think your stuff is "Real" and mine is not? What EVIDENCE do you have for that? Just because it kind of looks like Gimlin? That is not enough. It is too murky, and not in the right proportion to have really been a man sitting there, as I'd said in my response.
Maybe try to put this stuff, which is good debate, into your INTERVIEW response. Otherwise I will have a very hard time keeping track of this in a linear way that can be published. OK?
WHICH QUESTION, now, did you ask, about Gimlin lying? You have said so much all at once that there is no way to respond to it all. I don't mind discussing that, but lets do it within the interview process.
My research is real research, too, Leroy. I am a scholar. I have two MA degrees, and know how to work with books. I do look at the film and study it, but I am not a film expert; I don't think you are a professional film expert either, are you? I study the books, the historical record, the skeptical as well as the believer views, AND I have been to the actual, real film site many times. I have talked with real human beings who lived here at the time and were involved in Bigfoot in some way or other. I can only try to find the truth, but I will not just jump to conclusions because of some blur I see in the film, or some little inconsistency in the stories. These are human stories told at the time and over the years since the film was made, and so they have human flaws. Whether or not anyone is lying is still a question. You should look at your conclusions: could they HOLD UP IN COURT? If not, then what is lacking? Your "evidence" would not convict OJ Simpson, let alone Bob Gimlin. I think Gimlin is "innocent" of your claims; but that does not mean I am not willing to consider other viewpoints. Go ahead and speak your mind, and please cite sources when you can. Just because Bob H. or the costume maker say something, long after the fact, does not make it so--especially if it is they who are lying for ulterior motives.
LEROY BLEVINS: [At this point the "Interview" stalled out, and Leroy disappeared for a while. He claimed it was because he was so busy on his latest line of research, THE JFK ASSASSINATION. When he came back it was with all sorts of similar blurry images in which he claimed to see the true assassins, which no one else had ever noticed in all these 47 years.]
Here is the image compilation Leroy made and sent out to various researchers.