Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Lu, the hurt foot is only a footnote.

The important thing is that GF found something in the film that suggests to him that Roger stopped filming during the Patty walk. But Roger said he didn't stop filming. That means that if GF is right (about this point), then Roger was wrong. Note that GF does not entertain the possibility that part of the Patty walk met the cutting room floor, and that's why it looks like Roger stopped filming and then started again.
Click to expand...

Why should he? The original was examined by lab technicians at Canawest Films and was found not to have been tampered with. It was an original, not the product of any fakery in a lab and was a strip of film exposed in a camera and showing something that had walked in front of the lens (The Apes Among Us, pg.129).

Roger may not have been aware of it if he did stop filming. The whole episode took only a few minutes.

I've done Step Forward through the whole LMS version, and I see nothing, even in the blurry frames, that indicates anything like a break.

There may be an error somewhere, but someone with some math expertise will have to check it out. Math is not my long suit.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Why should he? The original was examined by a Kodak lab and was found not to have been tampered with.
Click to expand...

We keep hearing that ..

We have no idea what reel of film they claim was not tampered with ..
There is nothing documented by the examiners, about what this " untampered with " piece of film contained .. It could have been any reel of film that they were provided with ...

It is a totally meaningless mantra, and proves nothing...
 
kitakaze said:
Pardon the basic question but is there nothing written on and were there no attempts to later backtrack and discern where Patty came from?
Click to expand...

Pg. 121, The Apes Among Us, from a letter to John Green from Bob Titmus:

"I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from from where his (sic) tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar. It was not difficult to find the exact spot where Roger was standing when he was taking his pictures and he was in an excellent position."
 
kitakaze said:
Thanks for the for the response, Leo113. Again, very interesting and some salient points. BTW, if you missed it elsewhere my earlier comment was that I'm a lousy typist but nevermind that.

It seems to be the case from the anecdotes you're providing that you are a homicide detective. If that's the case, I'm sure many here would find your opinions on various matters even more welcome. Forgive my bluntness but is this true? Obviously I'm asking for no further details than a simple yes/no.

Though I agree with Diogenes concise reply, I'd just like establish that before I address the rest of your post. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Kitakaze,
I am not a homicide detective. Homicide divisions are typically found in bigger cities with somewhat consistent murder rates. My city has a population of about 20,000. Where bigger departments have more specialized divisions, smaller departments (we have about 30 guys and gals) typically require a broader diversity of knowledge among their officers. (thus the reason I was sent to the homicide scene training.) We get our paws into a little bit of everything. My city hasn't had a murder in 25 years (fingers crossed for that to hold out another 25 or more), though we just had an attempted murder a couple of days ago. My coworker who worked the missing female case transferred to our dept. from a city of about 65,000, and he was a homicide detective for a few years. That city averaged approx. 8 murders a year. I have no intention of going toe-to-toe with any CSI buffs. (not pointing a finger at you Kitakaze, or anyone for that matter) I've worked hundreds, maybe thousands, of criminal and incidental cases, and have interviewed thousands of people with an intent to try and find the truth of a matter. I am still a fallible human. Again, I have no illusions that my experience will make a lick of a difference. I'm not even sure it should. Anyway, I am a "woo" here.
 
Diogenes said:
The difference in your story and the supposed evidence for bigfoot, is that there was an actual person who was confirmed to exist before she disappeared..
So in the context of my question, you did have a warm body to tie the evidence to.


Thanks for responding..
Click to expand...

You're welcome. Yes, I caught your drift before posting the response. Hopefully you caught my drift as well.
 
BTW, I thought a significant event for the proponents in 2006, was Dfoot's failure to complete and film his bigfoot suit. For those who don't know, Dfoot was a Hollywood second unit director of action sequences that frequently involved special makeup effects. He worked on tv series such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and had worked with such notable f/x artists as Barney Burman and John Vulich. Not only did he have connections with top industry f/x artists, in trying to build a bigfoot suit comparable in quality and appearance to "Patty", he, at the least, got verbal assistance from Academy Award-winning makeup effects artist Chris Walas. I note that Barney Burman is son of f/x artist Tom Burman. Both Tom Burman and Walas worked for John Chambers, who is thought by some to have been involved in a scheme to cause the public to believe he was the maker of the Patterson/ Gimlin bigfoot "suit". Before his death, Chambers denied having anything to do with the suit, saying he was "good, but not that good."

After approx. a year of working on his suit, with unknown amounts of time and money spent on it, Dfoot inadvertently demonstrated just how hard it was to make a convincing suit, and in fact, never completed it at last check.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Leo113 wrote:

In addition to the bag and shovel indicating a possibility of a gravesite, they indicated a probability...some odds...of it. Like Leo said...they were WEAK evidence, indicating a small chance of there being a gravesite...but indicating some "degree of probability" nonetheless.
And even if NO gravesite was ever found...the "bag and shovel" were still legitimate EVIDENCE of a gravesite, simply because they indicated a chance..some odds...of it's existence. No VERIFICATION...and no ACTUAL gravesite was required.

Likewise, with Bigfoot...no ACTUAL Bigfoot is required for there to be some "degree of likeliness" of it's existence...as indicated by the large amount of sighting reports and footprints, along with other pieces of evidence....which definitely do exist.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me. Like the proponents have pointed out, if you had the bigfoot to compare the evidence to, what the hell would you need the evidence for?
 
Diogenes said:
The exact spot where Roger was standing ? ?

Pictures ?

:confused:
Click to expand...

What didfference would pictures make to YOU. We already have footage of the creature plus pictures and casts of the tracks....and still you poo poo it. I fail to see what relevance some pictures taken by Bob Titmus would be to you.
 
William Parcher said:
What I can't understand is why Roger didn't film the 3.5 mile tracking by horseback. That would have made it a better documentary, right? Roger did have a new roll of film in his camera when they followed her trail.
Click to expand...

They didn't know if there was anything on the first film. If that hadn't turned out they were planning to stay and try again. Why shoot up all the rest at that point? There wasn't any 3.5 mile trackway to follow and photograph. They found a wet print indicating where she crossed the stream.

Correction: Frame 72. The ratio can be calculated here:

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp
 
Last edited:
carcharodon said:
What didfference would pictures make to YOU. We already have footage of the creature plus pictures and casts of the tracks....and still you poo poo it. I fail to see what relevance some pictures taken by Bob Titmus would be to you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, somebody said somebody said Titmus went to Yakima and faked photos in Patterson's back yard. Wasn't that in Long's book somewhere? Somebody said somebody said it was.....or should have been. ;)
 
Leo113 said:
Sounds about right to me. Like the proponents have pointed out, if you had the bigfoot to compare the evidence to, what the hell would you need the evidence for?
Click to expand...

LMAO. I may have to put that in a sig line someday.
 
Leo113 said:
BTW, I thought a significant event for the proponents in 2006, was Dfoot's failure to complete and film his bigfoot suit. .
Click to expand...

We still have plenty of popcorn icons. He put up a spirited defense of the PGF against Chris Wallace. He was doing well until he started writing fiction novels about Patterson's Hollywood connections. He even claimed Janos Prohaska was involved because he "knew" how many hours it would take to glue on the hair.

Janos was considered the best by many. Why is it Planet of the Apes gets mentioned a lot but not the movies Janos was in? Look at the point on the head on the anthropoid ape. Morris himself couldn't have done a better job.;)

100px-AnthropoidApe.jpg


http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Janos_Prohaska
 
Last edited:
Leo113 wrote:
Sounds about right to me. Like the proponents have pointed out, if you had the bigfoot to compare the evidence to, what the hell would you need the evidence for?
Click to expand...
Very true.
The skeptics have it bass ackwards....

They want PROOF of Bigfoot first, so that we'll have EVIDENCE of it later :boggled: ...

While proponents...some of whom are open-minded, intelligent people...look at the EVIDENCE for Bigfoot first...and hope to get PROOF later.
 
Leo113 wrote:
After approx. a year of working on his suit, with unknown amounts of time and money spent on it, Dfoot inadvertently demonstrated just how hard it was to make a convincing suit, and in fact, never completed it at last check.
Click to expand...

I don't remember whether or not I actually posted it on the BFF...but back then when Dfoot started his suit, I was fully expecting that he would only end-up helping the proponent's cause....by showing just how difficult it is to reproduce Patty's MIGHTY FINE "SUIT".

He did well.
 
Leo113 said:
Kitakaze,
I am not a homicide detective.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, as a police officer your input is surely welcome. Again not asking for specific details but do you live in area proximate to where BF sightings have been reported? Sounds as though your spare time is limited but as a BF proponent maybe you could become involved in say cataloguing reports and interviewing people claiming encounters. Your skills as a police officer would doubtless be of great benefit.

BTW, IMO a person who is a proponent of the existence of BF is not necessarily a 'woo' though certainly many of the former are so because they are the latter. Certainly in lieu of definitive proof for BF even on a board such as this a wide range of perspectives can be accomodated and indeed encouraged on the matter. I would have unsubscribed my membership long ago if every BF thread was comprised of only people mocking the idea of BF. I agree with you that the PGF looks like a real animal as opposed to a man in a suit but I'm constrained to acknowledge that it is a matter of perspective and the fallibility of my own.

May I suggest that instead of immediately labelling yourself as a woo and supposing you will be promptly attacked and disregarded as such that for the time being you withhold judgement? There's a lot of people on this board who have unique and desirable experience to offer the conversation not excluding yourself and you may find yourself in agreement with someone who may not exactly fit the scoftic denialist mold.

Cheers and again, welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom