• 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.
Guess who's behind this ..

Your Bigfoot research grant at work ..

Here is a new virtualization tool over Idaho State.

It is a 3D scan of the Laverty print/cast ..


http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/SpecimenLibrary/java_applets/foot1.html

It is absurd to claim the dent in that cast is a natural anatomical feature
of Bigfoot ..

If so, where is it in all the other prints? For pete's sake.. It doesn't even show up in the other Patty prints ..
 
National Geographic TV has an excellent series called "Is It Real?" that skeptically analyzes claimed phenomena. The episode on Bigfoot does a good job of debunking the claims, especially the Patterson film. The series is still running, and the NG website provides showtimes.
 
Diogenes said:
I have been told that this is the cast of the Laverty track ..
Click to expand...

It is. You can clearly see the same cracks in the "MTB" of the cast as well as the Laverty photo. It's worth mentioning again that this cast was made by Bob Titmus about nine days after P&G claimed to encounter and film Patty. That those little cracks in the MTB remain after nine days sorta amazes me. I understand that it was supposed to be covered by bark, but I'm still surprised the track remained so "crisp" after all the rains. Titmus said that he cast ten consecutive tracks at the Patty film site. Gimlin said he covered a few tracks with bark. That means that Titmus was casting some tracks (seven?) that were always fully exposed to the rains.

The angle of the toes in the photo, is a distortion caused by the angle of the field of view..
Click to expand...

Understood. I am curious about that photo of the Laverty track I found at Hancock House. It's obviously the same track again, but the orientation is quite different from the "famous" Laverty shot. Do you think that someone just reoriented the viewing aspect of the Laverty shot to arrive at what we see at Hancock House?

It's also obvious that we are not looking at a mid-tarsal break, but rather some debris that was stepped on ..
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Your Bigfoot research grant at work .. Here is a new virtualization tool over Idaho State. It is a 3D scan of the Laverty print/cast ..
Click to expand...

Why is Meldrum doing that? It's cool, but what is the intended purpose?

Do we know that money was spent on this 3D project by Meldrum or ISU? Maybe not. Anyway, I am curious where and how Meldrum is spending the approx. $70,000 he was given for Bigfoot research. I would think that he ought to be spending it all on trying to confirm that Bigfoot is not a myth by searching for the animal itself. We've heard that he has spent some money on equipment to do that. Grant proposals usually have initial detailed plans for how the money is to be used, and periodic progress reports on how the project is going according to the initial plans.
 
William Parcher said:
Quote:Diogenes
" It's also obvious that we are not looking at a mid-tarsal break, but rather some debris that was stepped on .."


Why do you say that?
Click to expand...
Just what it looks like to me. The depression is missing in the other prints; there is no reason to believe it is a natural feature of the foot .

William Parcher said:
Why is Meldrum doing that? It's cool, but what is the intended purpose?
Click to expand...

http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/projects.htm

Comparative Morphology of the Hominoid Foot: Dr. Jeff Meldrum

http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/virtual_hominoid_foot.htm

Project Summary

The scanning facilities at the Idaho Virtualization Laboratory provide an exceptional opportunity to create a visual record of the collection of footprint casts attributed to sasquatch, housed in my lab in the Department of Biological Sciences at Idaho State University. The images permit comparative and metric analyses of these footprints to be conducted in three dimensions. The archiving of the casts also creates a means of digitally sharing images of these artifacts with collaborators.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, yes, the "mid-tarsal break"; or more properly, the mid-foot pressure ridge. I seem to remember that this topic has been discussed before, probably in this thread, but then again Bigfootery for me is becoming more and more like Waiting for Godot...

Remember, soil is not always homogeneous. While I'll accept that the soil of Bluff Creek was fairly hard, as attested to by several witnesses, it may not have been hard everywhere. It's possible that this particular track was simply made in a softer patch of soil.

What is also possible, I believe, is that a flexible fake foot could have made this track; sort of like this:

IMG_4987.jpg


Take a close look at the recent 3D animation of the cast made of this track. You will see how "bowl" shaped - you know, hemispherical and stuff - both the heel and the "ball" of the foot are. I suspect, but do not know, that this may be due to the concentrated pressure of a cowboy boot's heel and fore-foot being spread out by a costume-foot "over boot".

If hoaxed, it's already deep enough to be convincing, why mess with it? Take a walk in deep sand sometime, even with a rigid human arch, you will create this kind of mid-foot pressure ridge in some of your tracks. If hoaxed, I'll bet Patterson didn't find the morphology of this track that weird.

Hey, then again maybe it's a real Sasquatch...

I think Desertyeti agrees with me on this one, so neener, neener neener...

IMG_5002.jpg
 
Yes! Crests claimed to be created by mid tarsal breaks and hourglass-shaped prints are not the definitive uncontestable marks of real bigfeet prints.

Well, maybe not and bigfeet walked over Vesuvius's volcanic ash after the eruption that destroyed Pompeii...
_41411664_foot_pnas_203.jpg


And since everything is possible, I must be a bigfoot! A man wearing boots would not be able to make those prints...
myfoot1.jpg
 
Diogenes said:
The biggest problem I have with accepting this film as proof that Bigfoot exists, is that virtually nothing substantial emerged from the area in which the film was made.

I can't believe that such a convincing looking creature, vanished from the face of the earth, without a trace, unless it was a suit that was destroyed or very effectively hidden away.
Click to expand...


As far as I'm concerned, this issue all comes down to muscle-tone. BH looks like a fluffy marshmallow in his laughable getup. The subject in the Patterson film however, is in a league of its own. You can clearly make out its musculature. There are clear biceps and triceps and clear brachioradialis. Then you have the Latissiumus Dorsi and the trapezius. Of course you also have the prominent Gluteus Maximus, the flexing quadriceps and the very noticeable gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. In 67, and even today, there isn't a bigfoot costume that shows this kind of detail. Show me one bigfoot costume from that time period that has all these muscle features and I will recant. I'd bet you have a hard time finding such a bigfoot costume today! Why? Because that's not cloth and padding you're seeing there, it's flesh and fur.

:D
 
There is NOTHING clear about the P/G film apart from the fact that it lacks detail, colour and unimpeachable sources. It is a grainy, jerky 16mm B&W film that could very easily be a person in a suit. Why do you think these debates go on forever? Because it's so far from clear as to be useless.
 
Luminous said:
As far as I'm concerned, this issue all comes down to muscle-tone. BH looks like a fluffy marshmallow in his laughable getup. The subject in the Patterson film however, is in a league of its own. You can clearly make out its musculature. There are clear biceps and triceps and clear brachioradialis. Then you have the Latissiumus Dorsi and the trapezius. Of course you also have the prominent Gluteus Maximus, the flexing quadriceps and the very noticeable gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. In 67, and even today, there isn't a bigfoot costume that shows this kind of detail. Show me one bigfoot costume from that time period that has all these muscle features and I will recant. I'd bet you have a hard time finding such a bigfoot costume today! Why? Because that's not cloth and padding you're seeing there, it's flesh and fur.

:D
Click to expand...

I bet you see Mr. Atlas-like muscle tone when you look in the mirror too, don't you?

If you can see muscles at that level of detail on that film, then you're either lying, deluded, or a retro-clairvoyant.
 
Kenny 10 Bellys said:
There is NOTHING clear about the P/G film apart from the fact that it lacks detail, colour and unimpeachable sources. It is a grainy, jerky 16mm B&W film that could very easily be a person in a suit. Why do you think these debates go on forever? Because it's so far from clear as to be useless.
Click to expand...

Sorry you had such a bad experience viewing the film. Actually, the best details are in the stills.
 
Huntsman said:
I bet you see Mr. Atlas-like muscle tone when you look in the mirror too, don't you?
Click to expand...

Gasp! How did you know that? You must be super-clairvoyant! :eek:

If you can see muscles at that level of detail on that film, then you're either lying, deluded, or a retro-clairvoyant.
Click to expand...

You are either blind or in total denial.
 
I guess I can't post pictures till I hit fifty posts... So you'll have to settle for the text version for now.

Musculature. If it's there, the suit idea is out the window. Everyone knows that gorilla suits in 67 did not display such features as biceps, triceps, glutes, an ass crack, lats, quads, gastrocnemius and soleus muscles! In fact, gorilla suits with accurate musculature are rare even today, costing into the hundreds of thousands to produce, and are used mainly for movies.

These muscles are clearly visible on closeups of Patty. Only the willingly ignorant will deny it.

The only way a skeptic can argue their way out of this tight corner is by denying what is plainly visible or by changing topics altogether. (All of this is intellectual dishonesty)

Concerning Patty's musculature, skeptics have to say, "it's not there" because if it is there (and it is), their argument of a suit is completely obliterated and they know it. So hold on to whatever ground you think remains of your argument, all you professional skeptics, because you don't have much to stand on. The fact is, not only are these muscles visible, some are even flexing! Gasp! OMG! Can't be!

Put on your Ray Charles glasses now and sing us a little tune about how these plainly visible muscles are just not there! Imagine them away... Then accuse me of imagining that they are there! You do have a little problem though. I have a film and clear images that back me up. What do you have?

The question now is: are you really on a quest for truth, or are you a professional "contrarian," who takes the opposing side no matter what, just for the sheer delight of it? Are you the type that gets more stubborn, even when shown to be completely wrong? Or are you humble enough to admit (shall I say it?) that you might have been mistaken?

Who are you? Who, who. Who are you? Who, who? I really wanna know...

Someone show me some intellectual honesty out there! :D
 
Intellectual honesty starts with acceptance that alternative hypotheses exist. Padding can give the illusion of underlying musculature, and a general increase in bulk. There is a danger of this revealing itself on film or video. The sudden bunching of the upper right thigh when Patty steps down on that foot may very well be the padding revealing itself. It is often explained by Pattycakes as a hernia or hair being disturbed from the hand raking across it. Take your pick. The alternative hypothesis of bunching material is discarded, because their argument starts and continues from the position that this is a real animal. Real animals don't have padding, so that thing must be a hernia or a hair flow anomoly.

Another Pattycake tactic is to try to always argue that it must be an off-the-rack gorilla suit. These things would obviously not work as a convincing Bigfoot costume unless they were modified. They were a one-size-fits-all affair and never intended to to show the form of the person wearing it. They immediately show signs of folding and draping because the "skin" is so generous and loose. But Patterson was quite artistic, creative and had excellent craftsmanship abilities. He constructed a variety of refined things, was a sculptor and built saddles. That would have given him the skills and means to work with leather and presumably synthetic fabrics and other such materials. I can easily imagine him starting with a gorilla suit and customizing it to look like Patty does.

That skeptics can point out strange bulges (and other oddness), might show that RP was not 100% successful in creating a fully convincing fake Bigfoot. You will not impress anyone in this forum by claiming that skeptics are blind. The most you can hope for is that other Pattycakes agree with you.
 
If you want to find out if something is an illusion or not, ask the illusionists themselves, not members of the intended audience.

I'm amused that in Jeff Meldrum's new book he introduces the nearly 40 year old testimony of ONE individual within the professional costume community, Janos Prohaska, as evidence that Patty is not a guy-in-a-suit. Does Prohaska's opinion represent a consensus? By no means.

How about the testimony of Chris Walas?

"The separation between the leg and torso, however, is an obvious clue to me. When I saw it, I was shocked and angry. Shocked because I didn’t expect to see it and angry because I didn’t want to see it. I still want to believe that the subject in the Paterson footage is a real creature; and it is. It’s a human creature in a Sasquatch suit."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=0

How about the testimony of Howard Berger, Bob Burns, and John Vulich?

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

How about the testimony of Rick Baker?

"Famed Hollywood creator of "Harry" (from the movie "Harry and the Hendersons"), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now it can be told" (in 1992) show that "it looked like cheap, fake fur" after seeing the filmstrip."

Daniel Perez Bigfoot Times monograph page 21. Additional material here:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

And how about the testimony of perhaps the greatest costume FX guy out there today, Stan Winston? In what has got to be one of Bigfootery's biggest backfires, Winston is interviewed about the Patterson film as a "bonus" feature of the Sasquatch Odyssey DVD:

"Also appearing is one of Hollywood's greatest special effects legends, Stan Winston, creator of movie monsters such as the Jurassic Park dinosaurs, the apes in Congo, Alien, Predator, etc. Along with the late John Chambers (who created the apes in Planet of the Apes, and whom film director John Landis credits with being the man behind the Patterson-Gimlin footage creature from Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967), Winston is an undisputed master of movie trickery. He viewed the Patterson-Gimlin footage, and states: "It's a guy in a bad hair suit. Sorry." Later, "For under a thousand dollars -- in that day -- they could have had this suit made. If one of my [professional] colleagues created this for a movie, he'd be out of business."

http://www.cryptofoot.net/videos.html

Bigfootery has put itself in the position of ASKING THE WRONG GUYS. Asking Meldrum or Krantz or Bayanov about the film is kind of like asking the editor of Guns and Ammo whether Penn and Teller really catch bullets in their teeth or not. It's not a ballistic issue, it's an illusion issue.
 
William Parcher said:
Intellectual honesty starts with acceptance that alternative hypotheses exist. Padding can give the illusion of underlying musculature, and a general increase in bulk. There is a danger of this revealing itself on film or video. The sudden bunching of the upper right thigh when Patty steps down on that foot may very well be the padding revealing itself. It is often explained by Pattycakes as a hernia or hair being disturbed from the hand raking across it. Take your pick. The alternative hypothesis of bunching material is discarded, because their argument starts and continues from the position that this is a real animal. Real animals don't have padding, so that thing must be a hernia or a hair flow anomoly.

Another Pattycake tactic is to try to always argue that it must be an off-the-rack gorilla suit. These things would obviously not work as a convincing Bigfoot costume unless they were modified. They were a one-size-fits-all affair and never intended to to show the form of the person wearing it. They immediately show signs of folding and draping because the "skin" is so generous and loose. But Patterson was quite artistic, creative and had excellent craftsmanship abilities. He constructed a variety of refined things, was a sculptor and built saddles. That would have given him the skills and means to work with leather and presumably synthetic fabrics and other such materials. I can easily imagine him starting with a gorilla suit and customizing it to look like Patty does.

That skeptics can point out strange bulges (and other oddness), might show that RP was not 100% successful in creating a fully convincing fake Bigfoot. You will not impress anyone in this forum by claiming that skeptics are blind. The most you can hope for is that other Pattycakes agree with you.
Click to expand...

Not blind. Willigly blind. That's worse.
 
tube said:
How about the testimony of Howard Berger, Bob Burns, and John Vulich?

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

How about the testimony of Rick Baker?

"Famed Hollywood creator of "Harry" (from the movie "Harry and the Hendersons"), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now it can be told" (in 1992) show that "it looked like cheap, fake fur" after seeing the filmstrip."

Daniel Perez Bigfoot Times monograph page 21. Additional material here:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
Click to expand...

Was this supposed to be a link to Perez's monograph?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom