• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
Supposedly those casts Roger is holding are still wet, meaning he recently made them, and supposedly one of them matches the mid-tarsal break print...
Click to expand...

Please qualify and reference that statement.

This situation is not so much about pummeling the PGF believers with obvious inconsistencies and impossible timelines - it is now a matter of giving skeptics the details of those known inconsistencies. Strong PGF believers are like living zombies or pod people. Skeptics want to know who claimed that those casts are "still wet" and the context of that claim. Thanks in advance.

Neither cast that Roger is holding can truly match the "famous" Laverty photo of the MTB footprint. Roger didn't cast that one.

"Famous" Laverty photo of a Patty track that was not cast by Patterson.
018.jpg


The date is wrong on the Laverty photo. He was supposidly there on the following day (Oct. 21).
20060909232540629_17_original.jpg
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Roger followed Patty "up into the real thick bush" with the camera according to Gimlin in the 1968 Argosy story. Gimlin saw Patty still ahead as Roger went up into the bush. Patty was "way out ahead and really taking off for the hills" according to Gimlin. No way Patty stopped, sat down, and watched the two right after the filming, imo. Patterson further states that Patty took off running. There is no room in the Argosy account for Patty sitting and watching.
Click to expand...

LTC, it's quite difficult to read all of the different PGF articles, P&G interviews and the testimony of Titmus and then try to make sense out of it all. We can only try to assemble all of their documented testimonies (with references to who said what to whom and when) and put together some kind of timeline and/or sequence of events.

We don't have what we really need. That is a map that shows details which match the testimonies of P&G and Titmus around the close vicinity of the filming location and also shows the detailed topography of the location. We need more though. We also want an obviously bigger map that shows where P&G tracked Patty for 3+ miles and the topography of that area. We don't have that stuff, but it's possibly even worse. The one map we do have from Titmus does not show the complete path of the logging road. That road and the multiple accounts of Patty walking on & across it are prominant features in the testimonies of all three guys (particularly for Gimlin & Titmus). Gimlin states that the "last time he saw Patty" was when she was "rounding a bend in that road about 300 yards away".

I want to know if anybody was capable of having a vista that allowed seeing 300 yards down that road from the vicinity of the film site. That is the length of three American football fields. I want to see a map that shows that road and every place that those three guys said they saw her tracks on it, and shows that "bend" at which Gimlin saw her for the last time. I don't think I'll ever see that. Gimlin seems to have not recreated that kind of a map at any time since the encounter. The records show that the PGF believers who have interviewed him never asked for something like it. As far as I can tell, Gimlin never faced questions from anyone who didn't already think that the film is authentic. I wonder if he ever will.

Imagine if the JREF BF skeptics had Gimlin in person answering questions about the film for us. Then imagine if we could bring Heironimus into the room and have him and Gimlin talk to each other. I ask for a lot these days, don't I?
 
2006091115514513_7_original1.jpg


Note how deeply the toes are dug in as opposed to the ball of the foot. Very unnatural for a real foot, but quite consistent with a rigid, Wallace-style fake foot.

I'm unwilling to read too much into looking at this track, for the simple reason that the photo is way off-axis, and the toes are in deep shadow. But I'll wager it exhibits the "monolithic margin" as well...
 
LTC8K6 said:
Scroll down a bit to the thumbnail photo of Patterson holding the casts.
Click to expand...

So Murphy thinks the casts are still wet. I guess it just ends with his opinion? I'm not qualified to give a meaningful opinion. Maybe he said that because the casts look grayish instead of whitish. I previously asked how long it would take for these castings to dry/harden in the ground before RP could lift them out. Tube said about an hour. The timeline is so troublesome to the PGF authenticity, that I was focusing on that.

Roger is shown holding these casts in very bright and direct sunlight. He may be looking downwards because of this. The shadow on his jacket suggests that the sun is above the level of the camera, and probably above the head of the photographer.

Murphy wrote: Some of us seem to be of the opinion that this film frame series of Patterson holding casts was taken after he and Gimlin had left the film site. In other words, in Yakima. I have said many times that it had to be taken at the film site. First off, Patterson is definitely wearing the same cloths he wore when he made the casts and he is unshaven. Furthermore, we can see that the sun is shining. The two arrived in Yakima late at night on Saturday, October 21. So unless the shots were taken on the way to Yakima (doubtful) then the earliest time the sun came out was Sunday, October 22. In this case, Patterson got up in the morning, did not shave, put on his same film site cloths and had someone other than Gimlin take the shots. Of course, he could have simply slept in his cloths, or not gone to bed at all, but I don't think that happened. Now one other thing I have just noticed. If you look closely at the casts he is holding, they appear to be still wet. If they were filmed say 42 hours after they were made (i.e., 2 p.m. Oct. 20 to 8 a.m. Oct. 22), I think the plaster would have dried out more.
Click to expand...

Murphy explains why he thinks that shot was taken at Bluff Creek instead of Yakima, but I don't feel that it is well supported. Yeah, RP is wearing the "same clothes". But he has those same duds on in virtually every scene we see that is related to the PGF. He's even wearing that red plaid shirt in the Bigfoot Cowboys shot I posted. Murphy doesn't seem to notice that Roger "no longer has" the plaster stain on his pant leg. He also doesn't mention that RP's beard is much more developed in the cast display shot compared to the cast pouring shot. They probably weren't taken on the same day.

It is my opinion that the shots of Roger Patterson holding the Patty casts were taken before the shots of him pouring plaster into the Patty tracks.

LTC wrote: The mid-tarsal break idea is my own, though. Clearly neither cast could be from the same foot that made the Laverty print, imo.
Click to expand...

Yes they could. Tube has already demonstrated that you can create a MTB with a flat-soled fake foot. We can already see from Laverty's photos and the still frames from "Reel 2" that the MTB doesn't appear in all of the tracks. How Meldrum arrived at that being an anatomical feature of the foot is beyond me.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I don't think the toes match, between the casts roger is holding and the Laverty print.
Click to expand...


I was arguing that same point over at BFF, and was finally shown a cast of the print in the Laverty pic.

index.php


Looking at the cast, it looks like the same clown foot could have made all the alleged PG prints..

The weird shape of the foot in the photo seems to be related to camera angle..
 
Titmus must have poured that cast.

My opinion has always been that the observed, filmed, photographed and cast Patty trackway at Bluff Creek was not created by the guy in the suit. I think Patty was filmed weeks prior to October 20th. I also think P&G spent much of October 20th creating the fake trackway, then filmed the tracks and made castings from it. Looking at the light and shadows in the cast making shot, I would estimate that it was about 2pm when Gimlin filmed Patterson pouring the plaster.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Roger followed Patty "up into the real thick bush" with the camera according to Gimlin in the 1968 Argosy story. Gimlin saw Patty still ahead as Roger went up into the bush. Patty was "way out ahead and really taking off for the hills" according to Gimlin.
Click to expand...

I can follow that. When Gimlin says "real thick bush", he's probably talking about the forested area that we see Patty entering at the "end" of the film. We can't know exactly when or even if Roger actually ran out of film at that instant. All we can do is watch the film and read their testimonies.

No way Patty stopped, sat down, and watched the two right after the filming, imo.
Click to expand...

She sure could, and I wouldn't try using that point in argument unless you know something that nobody else seems to know. We don't have key maps that could depict everything that happened.

Patterson further states that Patty took off running.
Click to expand...

So?

There is no room in the Argosy account for Patty sitting and watching.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I'm not trying to argue for the PGF authenticity or for believing what P&G said. I don't know how anyone can do that and maintain a straight face. I'm saying that one can shoehorn certain elements of their stories into an imagined event. As soon as Patty is out of sight, the cowboys start gathering up their runaway horses. Then they examine the tracks. Patty is watching them at this point. She then leaves and trucks up the mountainside. When they pick up her trail (to track her for 3 miles), they either don't notice her sitting spot or they pick up her trail at some point after the sitting spot. She seems to be said to cross the logging road more than once. I said it was a key feature because both P&G and Titmus make references to her tracks on the road. Another key element is Gimlin's comment that the last time he sees Patty she is on the road 300 yards away (rounding a bend). P&G may have made a beeline to that bend, and started their 3 mile tracking from that point. When zooming straight to her last seen location, they could have bypassed her sitting location. The problem is trying to figure out the sequences and context of the decribed events. There is so much ambiguity, that we can't even know if Gimlin's last view of Patty (300 yards away) happened 20 minutes after Patterson stopped filming her.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Does anyone care to engage in sheer speculation about whether or not Roger ever admitted a hoax to Patricia? I think not.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll play.

Bob Heironimus said that Patricia Patterson (wife of Roger) was looking out their window while Roger was having Bob try on the Patty suit in the yard. If that is true, Mrs. Patterson ought to have known it was a hoax and who was in the suit on the film. She may have even seen her husband constructing the Patty suit. Even if BH is telling a pack of lies and wasn't the guy in the suit - I would imagine that she could learn that it was a hoax somehow without Roger telling her directly.

If Patterson really filmed a Bigfoot, the question may have never been entertained. Though she may have asked him about the hernia and diaper butt, etc.

If you pay attention to the "principal people" surrounding the PGF, you see that they were basically only handled by PGF believers. I've never seen an interview that was done by an obvious or knowledgeable PGF skeptic. Gimlin seems to just show up at Bigfooter conferences, where he gets standing ovations by the fawning crowd. He signs autographs too. Take a look at the Green-Gimlin interview. Would you have handled Gimlin like Caesar did?

LTC, sorry and that was my bad. I even scrolled through the last day to see if it was a JREF poster that said it. I totally blew it, as it was right in front of my eyes. Sorry again.
 
So if Patricia was in the know about a hoax, do you think that she's exhibited any patterns of behaviour in all this time that would support this idea?

BTW, William, I'm not involved but I was glad to see the gracious apology. Again, I personally at this point of my involvement in the debate really try not to get too wrapped up in PGF minutia as it does make me rather nauseous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom