Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

.....
#2, the use of tranquilizers would require the expressed written permission of the government.....

Does one have to specify what they are going after in order to use tranquilizers ?
Any Bigfoot permits been issued lately ?

Do you think that someone who tranquilized a Bigfoot without permission would hesitate to bring it in for that reason ?

Can't you just leave goofy excuses like this alone.

It's as bad as " No paintballing allowed .. " at lake Chopaka ...

 

[carcharodon]

As a matter of fact...

I can't see a suit. I see a head and shoulders. Got the rest of the suit for me? The face looks good (though not how most close witnesses appear to describe what a sasquatch looks like) but then so did the face of Baker's Harry suit. It was the rest of the suit which let Harry down. See what I mean? Where is the shape definition to Harry's legs (they just go straight down), his arms, not to mention his torso? This, by the way, was built by THE top suit maker in the biz in the 1980s. Pretty poor isn't it? Looks like he is wearing trousers huh?

Also, the manner and locomotion of the actor in the Harry suit gave the game away completely. He walked like he was trying not to trip up in those big feet, particularly in the forest scenes

explain how you know this isn't a ' real ' Bigfoot, or why it doesn't look like one.

Ohhh lets see now.....small pigeon chest for a start (like Harry), head too big in proportion to the actor's shoulders which are of obvious human width spread. This is obviously to accomodate the human head inside the mask and it's out of proportion to the actors true bulk and body size. Turn the head on it's size and you will see the head looks almost as long as the shoulder spread is wide. LOL. I've never heard any witness suggest this is what a sasquatch appears like. Excessive amount of hair on the shoulders compared to the chest. This is likely to make the shoulder width appear larger than it is (as with Harry), but of course, this is not achieved and the small shoulder spread screams out 'man in suit'.

Come back to me when you can show me a suit with the OBVIOUS bulk that the P/G subject has. It would be nice to actually see somebody moving in it too, in a natural and fluid manner despite all this cumbersome padding.

Pst, I almost forgot, here is what the vaunted John Vulich and his Optic Nerve studio came up with:

And please, I do hope nobody comes out with the often used excuses such as "well they didn't really put much effort in...it was just an off the rail job"

Off the rail? So it was on the rail to begin with? Why was such a poor cheap looking suit in the Optic Nerve studios to begin with and why were they not embarrased about being linked to such a poor suit which would be shown in a BBC documentary that went worldwide? They must have thought it was pretty ok. It was, after all, actually built by Optic Nerve wasn't it? It was in THEIR studio wasn't it? Or do they have a sideline business where they rent out silly looking cheapo apeman suits for kid's Halloween parties?

 

[carcharodon]

carcharodon,
The above comments also apply to your reply. I will add that I find very strange that a single wildlife photgrapher was interested and that he never managed to get support for a better field trip?

But if he had already been on one trip and admitted his chances of filming a sasquatch were less than a million to one, that the real remote places in the PNW were really unfilmable and that it was pretty useless to go there considering the gloom and dampness in those woods, it stands to reason that a second trip was not deemed as a viable project. The wildlife cameraman (John Waters) seemed pretty impresed about the difficulties in filming in typical sasquatch habitat in the PNW and admitted he wasn't suprised how they can remain hidden.

Not only these folks work at places at least as difficult as PNW but also there are lots of sighting reports from backyards...

Well that's if we accept the 'backyard' reports. I dont think good backyard reports are commonplace. I wouldn't suggest a random backyard in the PNW would be a good place to set up a camera hoping to film a sasquatch.

 

[LAL]

Jimmy Chilcutt "flocked to Meldrum's door". He expected to find fakes and instead, became convinced himself.

Again, most wildlife photography is staged. With few exceptions, there is no funding to keep photographers in the field for months on end trying to get good shots even of known animals.

 

[LAL]

BTW, there were prints associated with the Manitoba film/sighting. The Cree excavated whole prints rather than just casting them.

The height of the figure was estimated at 9' (by measuring the depth of the water). I recently read another report from Manitoba where the animal sighted was apparently 9'. Hm.

 

[William Parcher]

William Parcher wrote: ...I'm still trying to understand this still frame and if it supports the account of events told by P&G. How does GF go about establishing what he says about the time of day that this was taken?

Gigantofootecus is one of the best posters at BFF (although I haven't seen any fresh postings by him in quite some time).

Searching his posts there and reading them would be a great education.

GF wrote: Bluff Creek runs West to East at the PGF site. Since it was shortly after noon, the shadows in the film are practically pointing North/South. Patty was travelling approximatly 15 degrees East of North. Roger Patterson was facing approximately 26 degrees West of North when he shot the film. Does this check out with Gimlin's story? The 2nd reel supposedly shows Roger casting a track that same day, filmed a few hours later. The weather was sunny and sunset was at about 4 o'clock. Does the 2nd reel show all this? Using the shadows in the frame showing Roger casting a track and the shadows in the PGF (1st reel), we can construct a sundial.

The track Roger's casting shows Patty's direction of travel, 15 deg NE. The shadows in the PGF at 12:00 PM are N/S, the shadows in the 2nd reel as Roger casts a track appear to be 2 to 3 hours later in the day. This is exactly what Gimlin claims.

It doesn't matter much who GF is. How can he accurately use that still frame to establish direction (compass) and time of day? He's using "approximations" and then suggests the casting was filmed at about 2-3pm. GF says "this is exactly what Gimlin claims". Is that what Gimlin claimed?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

BTW, there were prints associated with the Manitoba film/sighting. The Cree excavated whole prints rather than just casting them.

What was the result of the analysation of those prints ?


The height of the figure was estimated at 9' (by measuring the depth of the water). I recently read another report from Manitoba where the animal sighted was apparently 9'. Hm.

And you don't have a problem with a 9' tall hominid disappearing from the face of the Earth without a trace ?

Have you discussed this with Beckjord ?

 

[Mad Hom]

Well Carky disputing your post point by point is growing tiring sooo... suffice to say...you BLEEV Mike MacDonald mostly because you choose to....you BLEEV people would NOT shoot gorillas,bigfeet etc etc in a heartbeat mostly because you WANT to...and you BLEEV that Patty displays muscle movement and what not mostly because it fits your worldview....your long winded response imples that this is crystal clear.

As for this whole "your guessing" "I'm guessing" business. The guesses I've used were mostly sited as examples. I make guesses to show you what good they actually are....bupkis.

Also, Paul Freeman basically admitted to an ABC interviewer that he "faked" tracks...I apparently am LINK illiterate and am having trouble posting links but this article is at Bigfoot Encounters...it goes on to mention that Dahinden photgraphed a trackway that Freeman found (allegedly) which had a left,right,left,left sequence in it.

He also got busted trying to pass synthetic fiber off as "possible" Bigfeet fur.

Freeman claimed multiple encounters with Bigfeet as well as claiming to have filmed it twice...of which we have only seen one I believe. He also apparently found trackways with relative ease.

Freeman reeks to high heaven of hoaxer writ large...ok...deny it if you choose but...if Freeman touched it...it was probably bogus.

As for you Marx excuse.......come on Carky....he was there...dang near a cental figure in the whole event...and he is now known as a serial hoaxer...so go ahead and apologize and excuse to your hearts content....it's your fantasy after all.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
.....
#2, the use of tranquilizers would require the expressed written permission of the government.....

Does one have to specify what they are going after in order to use tranquilizers ?

Yes. In the state of Alaska a complete plan would be required to live capture any wildlife, and the use of tranquilizers would require qualifications (as well as the mere plan to capture an animal live). I can't find the link to show you, but from past experiences, I know this to be true.

Any Bigfoot permits been issued lately ?

None that I know of anywhere or at any time in the state of Alaska.

Do you think that someone who tranquilized a Bigfoot without permission would hesitate to bring it in for that reason ?

I don't believe there is anyone who is trying to or will be successful tranquilizing a Bigfoot. If they did try and got caught by Fish and Game in the woods with a tranquilizer gun and no permitting (whether or not they had a bigfoot in their possession) would be in deep doo doo; and I suspect it would be a felony. I know that several people who have removed calf moose from the woods (thinking they were "abandoned") were convicted of felonies.

Can't you just leave goofy excuses like this alone.

It's not a "goofy excuse". I've been involved in the live capture of bears, including supporting parties of biologists tranquilizing them.

Maybe if you knew what you were typing about, you would know that one cannot traipse about in the woods with a tranquilizer gun without the proper permits.

 

[LAL]

And you don't have a problem with a 9' tall hominid disappearing from the face of the Earth without a trace ?

Have you discussed this with Beckjord ?

And where did I say it disappeared? Ruehl and crew found a possible feeding area. The Cree found prints and there were more sightings.

What seems to have vanished is any more news.

 

[LAL]

"The Times, London

'Yeti's hair' defies DNA analysis, 2001

By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent


British scientists on the trail of the Yeti have found some of the best evidence yet for the existence of the mythical Himalayan creature — a sample of hair that has proved impossible to identify.

Genetic tests on the hair, which was gathered from a tree in Bhutan, have failed to match its DNA to that of another animal. The findings, which have surprised sceptical researchers, raise the strong possibility that the sample belongs to an as yet undiscovered species.
In Bhutan, an expedition team was led by an "official Yeti-hunter" to a forest in the eastern part of the country, where he was convinced that an animal was at large.

"He told us that he had found evidence of the Yeti in the hollow of a cedar tree," Rob McCall, a zoologist who was part of the expedition, said.

Dr McCall's team removed strands of hair from the tree and returned to Britain to have them analysed.

Dr. Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the Oxford Institute of Molecular Medicine, one of the world's leading experts on DNA analysis, thoroughly examined the hair and said:

"We found some DNA in it, but we don’t know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear nor anything else we have so far been able to identify. It's a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn’t recognize before."

The discovery of the mysterious hair sample was made by a team of scientists assembled by Channel 4 for a documentary in the To the Ends of the Earth series, which will be shown tonight.

Copyright © The Times Monday 2 April 2001"

This is what came up on a search, carky, old boy. Your post did too.

I suspect this is the "snippet" that impressed Jane Goodall.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And where did I say it disappeared? Rhuel and crew found a possible feeding area. The Cree found prints and there were more sightings.

What seems to have vanished is any more news.

Lets see.. No more news .. News about what ?
Follow up investigation ?
More photos ?
More film ?
The animal itself ?

Of course if it never existed, it didn't disappear , did it ?

Can you expound on the reasons we should even consider the possibility of the existence of a living 9' hominid anywhere on this planet, much less near Manitoba ?



Can you say " obtuse " ?


Where's the Squatch Lu ?

 

[William Parcher]

Can you expound on the reasons we should even consider the possibility of the existence of a living 9' hominid anywhere on this planet, much less near Manitoba?

Uh, because normal folks are certain that they are seeing them?

Listen again to the Jeff Meldrum interview on NPR "Science Friday". At 15:00 a caller in San Francisco named Greg recalls an encounter with a Bigfoot that was 9-12 feet tall. He sounds like a decent credible guy, and insists he clearly saw nothing other than a Bigfoot walking in daylight.

Up to 12 feet tall!!!

 

[Yeah_Right]

Lets see.. No more news .. News about what ?
Follow up investigation ?
More photos ?
More film ?
The animal itself ?

Of course if it never existed, it didn't disappear , did it ?

Can you expound on the reasons we should even consider the possibility of the existence of a living 9' hominid anywhere on this planet, much less near Manitoba ?



Can you say " obtuse " ?


Where's the Squatch Lu ?

Hey, dontcha get it? We're supposed to believe these stories without question or evidence. That's how them thar footers bleev.

 

[soarwing]

PGF musings.

The Patterson Film subject's head is probably too small for it's body if it was a man in a costume.

The human head inside the mask would need to be much smaller than Patty's apparent head in order to have a sloping forehead and a conical skull. Because the subject's scapula is clearly seen and clearly seen to move, it is highly unlikely that much padding was used. With Patty's head size being VERY small compared with say, Harry from Harry and the Hendersons, and the bigfoot head that "Diogenes" posted, it is clear to me that the PGF "suit" isn't a garden variety offering.

By the way, Dfoot's doctored Patty photos that he posted were so far removed from the images in the PGF, that it wasn't at all surprising that "believers" thought they were ridiculous. The notion that he somehow took any proponents to the woodshed or pulled a "fast one" is absurd. However, I should note that many on the forum, myself included, were interested in Dfoot's work - regardless of the outcome. The idea that he was mistreated or scoffed at because he was attacking the PGF is simply not true. His position was/is weak. His evidence was weak. He made suit claim after suit claim and didn't back up a single one of them with anything conclusive. He even claimed to know when people are lying and when they are telling the truth - without ever having talked to them.

Even Diogenes rightly and wisely distanced himself from Dfoot and his rambling assertions. Also, making the general statement that PGF "believers" don't need or really examine the evidence is arrogant and ignorant.

 

[William Parcher]

Oh dear lord. Sorewing is here on JREF.

 

[carcharodon]

Hey, dontcha get it? We're supposed to believe these stories without question or evidence. That's how them thar footers bleev.

Hey, no snappy comment on the UNIDENFIFIABLE DNA gathered at the scene of a Yeti sighting in Bhutan, which matches nothing else?? Dr Sykes ("one of the world's leading experts on DNA analysis") said he has NEVER before come across DNA he cannot identify.

Is that 'evidence' enough for you? Or do you choose to ignore it because your stubborn closed mind chooses not to 'bleev'?

Thanks for reproducing the artical LAL. The actual documentary was even more interesting. They were expecting the hair sample to turn out to be a bear or something else equally as mundane. It didn't. In this particular case we have a witness to a creature and a strong piece of evidence to go with it. It's a damn shame those samples Fahrenbach analysed in the U.S didn't also manage to generate any testable DNA.

 

[carcharodon]

Can you expound on the reasons we should even consider the possibility of the existence of a living 9' hominid anywhere on this planet, much less near Manitoba ?

Why shouldn't you? What is the big problem here? Is it so far fetched. Is it so unbelievable? Is it so impossible?

I suspect the biggest issue here is yours and other's closed minds and stubborn psychological refusals to accept anything outside your narrow minded views of life and this planet.

The idea of sasquatch or the yeti etc isn't the wackiest idea in the world. Not even close. We aren't talking about goblins or shape shifting werewolves here. There was once a hominid that apparantely most likely reached up to 9ft in height. We know that much. We aren't talking about entertaining the possibility of a 6 headed hydras or a flying griffins.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The idea of sasquatch or the yeti etc isn't the wackiest idea in the world. Not even close. We aren't talking about goblins or shape shifting werewolves here. There was once a hominid that apparantely most likely reached up to 9ft in height. We know that much. We aren't talking about entertaining the possibility of a 6 headed hydras or a flying griffins.

The idea of a sasquatch or yeti is EXACTLY like other wacky ideas such as goblins and warewolves. How in hell can anyone believe a 9 to 12 foot hominid could be roaming the planet and only get caught on film once. (By someone who went out with the sole purpose of fiming one and WOW, just happened to actually film one?? Yeah right.)

What are the odds that the MILLIONS of hikers/campers in the US alone haven't caught an actual hominid on film (Video/still/whatever)

And WHERE ARE THE FRIGGIN' BODIES OF DEAD HOMINIDS? Or is it that they live so long that one hasn't actually died yet? Or is it that their fellow hominids bury their dead like us Humanids?

Believing in Big Foot is very much akin to believing in Fairies, unicorns and elves.

How many sailors in years past actually believed they saw mermaids?? There have been many actual reports of mermaid sightings and there are men who spent years at sea who would swear on their mother's grave that they've seen a real, live mermaid. Does that make them any more real?? I wonder what a hominid/mermaid love child would look like??

 

[carcharodon]

The idea of a sasquatch or yeti is EXACTLY like other wacky ideas such as goblins and warewolves.

Really? How so. Please explain why it's EXACTLY like goblins and werewolves?

Are there any eminant scientists and biologists who give goblins and werewolves a fair crack of the whip?

How in hell can anyone believe a 9 to 12 foot hominid could be roaming the planet and only get caught on film once.

Well if the likes of biologists such as Jane Goodall and George Schaller are openmined enough to entertain the possibility then why not the likes of you? Are you more qualified to rule it out of hand than they?

By the way, you are stretching the size a bit now aren't you? The average report tends to describe a 7 to 8ft height. Some lower. Some higher. I wouldn't say they are 'roaming the planet' either. Haven't met any down my local pub yet.

What are the odds that the MILLIONS of hikers/campers in the US alone haven't caught an actual hominid on film (Video/still/whatever)

Who says they haven't?

And WHERE ARE THE FRIGGIN' BODIES OF DEAD HOMINIDS?

Already been answered a gazillion times.

Believing in Big Foot is very much akin to believing in Fairies, unicorns and elves.

I see. So there are plenty of scientists and biologists looking into elves and fairies are there?

How many sailors in years past actually believed they saw mermaids?? There have been many actual reports of mermaid sightings and there are men who spent years at sea who would swear on their mother's grave that they've seen a real, live mermaid. Does that make them any more real??

How many sailors TODAY believe they see mermaids? Hmmmmmmmmmm? How many reports of sailors seeing mermaids do you know from this year?

I wonder what a hominid/mermaid love child would look like??

I don't. Clearly you have plenty of time on your hand to wonder things like this.