• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

HarryHenderson said:
That, Google Maps™, works just, fine, thank, you very, much. :D
Click to expand...

Hey, that's a great point.

I prefer google earth for my own ends, although here in Alaska there isn't enough coverage to do what I can do on my own.

But in the Philippines, and in the lower '48 it is just stunning what it can do. The distance calculator, for example, puts the lie to claims made with regularity about how remote their little "Area X's" are.

I apparently left the site marked on my own google earth. The first thing that stands out to me is the logging rotation. Not one inch of ground untouched, but its like mowing the grass in sections. I can see at least five distinct ages of clear-cut patterns, probably more. But you are not a cable-length from a log yarder anywhere in the entire region.
 
Patterson involved himself in several track finds before 1967 (Walla Walla, Erion Ranch, Laird Meadows). They were all variants of his final Bluff Creek 1967 version. I have not looked closely at them but it would be an interesting exercise to see if they correlate with the shape feedback given to him by the camera store operator in Yakima (documented in The Making of Bigfoot.).
 
DennyT said:
Patterson involved himself in several track finds before 1967 (Walla Walla, Erion Ranch, Laird Meadows). They were all variants of his final Bluff Creek 1967 version. I have not looked closely at them but it would be an interesting exercise to see if they correlate with the shape feedback given to him by the camera store operator in Yakima (documented in The Making of Bigfoot.).
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I thought the conclusion of the interaction with the owner resulted in a pair that indeed did so. Did the camera guy see two versions? I think so.

I loaned my book out, so I can't re-read that section. I got three grand in overdue book fees stacked up so far though, it's going to take over my retirement account in 4.7 years.
 
jerrywayne said:
A little-mentioned part of the story: Patty's tracks were of a unique individual never seen in the area before or since the film subject's little stroll.
Click to expand...

Patty has narrower, more tightly set toes, because she's a girl and is used to wearing pointy shoes.
 
Could the Bigfoot in the Patterson Gimli film be a human woman suffering from Hypertr

People with that genetic disorder often stay out of sight especially if they are women. Hypertricosis.
 
I'll bite.

A female with a genetic problem chooses to live out in the deep woods near a logging camp, where hunters traipse through the woods half the year armed to the teeth.

Yet she leaves no scat, no evidence of food gathering nor shelter at all.

All that before the weather is figured in.

If she were to die a human skeleton might be found out there eventually, that hasn't been reported either.

Unless she was an actress for a day.
 
William Parcher said:
Here the sole appears to be square at the heel. It is generally regarded as an illusion.
[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/062b8a5a.jpg[/qimg]


Here the sole appears to be ovoid. It is generally regarded as an illusion
[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/f0cf8956.gif[/qimg]


Here the toes appear to be flexing upwards. It is generally regarded as not being an illusion. I think it needs to be further examined as being another illusion.
[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/kF6g_zpsbfc6880a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Woman with hypertrichosis?
 
Cainkane1 said:
People with that genetic disorder often stay out of sight especially if they are women. Hypertricosis.
Click to expand...

That would be more monumental than it being an actual Bigfoot, tbh. I'm still going for the classic bloke in suit explanation. Though, it is nice to see the PGF story being dug up from its grave, even for a moment.
 
This is confirmation that Pattys a hoax and Meldumbs either an idiot or a fraud.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 10
Cervelo said:
This is confirmation that Pattys a hoax and Meldumbs either an idiot or a fraud.
Click to expand...

I was actually just thinking about this the other day while talking to a person with no anthropological background. Because it was related to the conversation, I threw out that when the Laetoli footprints were first discovered, there was actually a debate for several years that resulted from the footprints not looking much like the feet of the archaeologists studying them; some were arguing that the hominin feet weren't anatomically modern at the point. That was, until someone did a study of the feet of individuals who have lived their entire lives without shoes - it turns out they looked pretty much the same, because shoes have that big of an impact on how feet develop.

As a physical anthropologist specializing in foot anatomy, I'm sure Meldrum must be familiar with that anecdote I hear in my first Intro to Anthropology course. Which, of course, makes it seem strange that (as far as I know), he's never once addressed the issue of why bigfoot tracks look stunningly like feet used to wearing shoes. In fact, now I'm wondering if more people were aware of that, how many would still even acknowledge tracks as being evidence? People go all in based on dermal ridges and mid-tarsal breaks, what if you were able to shatter that by telling them a foot that's spent its whole life walking on bare ground just doesn't look like that?
 
ArchSas said:
I was actually just thinking about this the other day while talking to a person with no anthropological background. Because it was related to the conversation, I threw out that when the Laetoli footprints were first discovered, there was actually a debate for several years that resulted from the footprints not looking much like the feet of the archaeologists studying them; some were arguing that the hominin feet weren't anatomically modern at the point. That was, until someone did a study of the feet of individuals who have lived their entire lives without shoes - it turns out they looked pretty much the same, because shoes have that big of an impact on how feet develop.

As a physical anthropologist specializing in foot anatomy, I'm sure Meldrum must be familiar with that anecdote I hear in my first Intro to Anthropology course. Which, of course, makes it seem strange that (as far as I know), he's never once addressed the issue of why bigfoot tracks look stunningly like feet used to wearing shoes. In fact, now I'm wondering if more people were aware of that, how many would still even acknowledge tracks as being evidence? People go all in based on dermal ridges and mid-tarsal breaks, what if you were able to shatter that by telling them a foot that's spent its whole life walking on bare ground just doesn't look like that?
Click to expand...

Just as with Greg, I've done the samething at BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) it's entertaining to debate with fanatics but can be exhausting, the myriad of belief systems, disingenuous arguments and most likely lying attention seekers, rarely base their argument on logic or facts.

All it really takes is an Internet connection to easily understand why nothing over a couple of pounds has gone undiscovered on the continental U.S. or just spend enough time outdoors. I've experienced the majority of things attributed to Bigfoot and they are all easily explained.....no giant monkey man required.
 
Cervelo said:
Just as with Greg, I've done the samething at BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) it's entertaining to debate with fanatics but can be exhausting, the myriad of belief systems, disingenuous arguments and most likely lying attention seekers, rarely base their argument on logic or facts.

All it really takes is an Internet connection to easily understand why nothing over a couple of pounds has gone undiscovered on the continental U.S. or just spend enough time outdoors. I've experienced the majority of things attributed to Bigfoot and they are all easily explained.....no giant monkey man required.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm aware of what it's like over there. Several years ago, I used to be a fairly regular poster. Pretty much every interaction I had over there ended up with people insulting me for pointing out basic anthropological facts and disagreeing with nonsense. Like you said, it's exhausting. I eventually had to quit for the sake of my own sanity, although that place did help me learn a lot about fanaticism, echo chambers, and anti-intellectualism.

I think one of the biggest obstacles is just how insular those places are. For the most part, people that frequent places like the BFF are never exposed to rational approaches in a meaningful way. It all gets buried by the negativity. Probably my favorite example is the "cripplefoot" track still being held up as a gold standard for evidence, despite it obviously being made by Ivan Marx as a tie-in to that hilarious video of a bigfoot hopping around that he also made. Bigfooters don't know about that video or the history of the print; all they ever really hear is that Grover Krantz said it would be be impossible to fake and no one would have a reason to. Even the Wild Thing podcast recently talked about that track as serious evidence without even mentioning Marx, or the video the track was supposed to support.

I guess I was wondering about the unlikely proposition that a bigfoot believer would get exposed to a simple, daming piece of information in a way that doesn't immediately get shouted down. Maybe the backlash effect would still drive them, but maybe it would cause some wheels to start spinning.
 
Is anyone else aware that the (as far I'm aware) very popular podcast Astonishing Legends is in the middle of a 5-part series on the PGF right now? I thought it might be worth bringing it to the attention of the folks here.

I listen to a lot of fringe-oriented content as background noise at work, and so far, this series (and to be fair, the show in general - I usually give up during episodes because the hosts are always uninformed and demonstrate no critical thinking at all, at this point I'm probably done trying to give them a chance) might be one of the worst, most frustrating things I've ever listened to, especially for a format that constantly tries to present itself as skeptical. Annoyingly so, even; about every twenty minutes the hosts make some kind of claim to skepticism, despite admitting they think the film is genuine and dismissing any legitimate criticism they bother to bring up with the worst kind of credulity and handwaving. So far, their arguments have included gems like "well yeah, the timeline of the development doesn't make sense and the developers were closed, but it could have been a porn producer with his own equipment, so that argument isn't valid," "one guy claimed to have started hoaxing bigfoot tracks, but he couldn't have made all of them, so some are real," "Bob H. said Patterson was going to pay him $1000, but that was a lot of money and Patterson was broke and obviously wouldn't have promised that, so that story is probably a lie," and many others, with lots of (honestly pretty weird) Bob Gimlin hero worship. It's like listening to an audiobook version of the BFF that you know has a wide audience and dedicated fanbase.

Drewbot said:
ArchSas what was your call sign at BFF?
Click to expand...

I don't exactly remember. I think it was something like "blurryphotos." In any case, I was around 19 and still a fresh undergrad while I was posting there, so most of my history probably wouldn't be anything to be proud of, even if I was generally correct (for a while, I even used debunking arguments there as kind of a study guide - I would go through my notes and textbooks to look up exactly how posters were wrong about primatology/anatomy/whatever else I was learning).
 
Last edited:
Long time lurker, first time poster. Read through a lot of the prior pages and threads on this. Like many I once entertained the possibility of the PGF being real but that has eroded down to no confidence over time.

I have to say that the earlier days of these threads were more entertaining, with the believers here to debate things. They seemed to all whittle away over time. Even so I'm glad the discussion is ongoing.

One thing I wanted to know- is what was their end game for "tracking" Patty for the 1-3 miles after the film ran out? They claimed they chased after it but did anyone ever ask them what would they have done if they caught up to it?
 
Vulture said:
One thing I wanted to know- is what was their end game for "tracking" Patty for the 1-3 miles after the film ran out? They claimed they chased after it but did anyone ever ask them what would they have done if they caught up to it?
Click to expand...

I've seen even the most illustrious PGF skeptics fall into this fallacy. When it comes to the PGF, you have to separate the "story" from the film. IOW, Patterson didn't get bucked off of his horse. Gimlin didn't "cover" Patterson with his rifle. They didn't track Patty for X miles.... It was a guy in a suit. Didn't suprise them, wasn't going to attack them, didn't run away into the woods. Anything that isn't on the film was just part of the script in order to convince you it was real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom