Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

W: What was the creature then doing, when you first saw it?

B: When I first saw it it was standing, looking straight at me.

1967 radio interview

 

[LTC8K6]

5. The sasquatch was caught out in the open and not in dense wood where it could dissapear behind the first tree in 2 seconds before even the camera was out of it's bag.

Feb 1968:

On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall

 

[carcharodon]

Nice try but you lose.

I lose? Why do I lose? How many times did I claim you reported me then??

Why should I ask you to state the truth clearly?

I did state the truth clearly. Twice (or was it three times) in recent days I specifically stated you reported me directly after the other reportee who reported me for posting a whole article when I didn't know that was against the rules.

I made NO MENTION of any other times you reported me. I SPECIFICALLY and CLEARY described ONLY the time you reported me for telling the other reportee to "go shove his report up his arse".

How much clearer do you want it? I can't GET any clearer or more specific than that.

Why should I get the person who is misrepresenting the facts to state them clearly when I know the truth?

I have only mentioned the ONE TIME you reported me. I haven't mentioned any other time so your claim about misrepresenting facts is unfounded.

I did also mention the fact that you also copied and pasted a post of mine from Cryptomundo and responded to it here behind my back and at a time when I hadn't posted here for ages. If you want to respond to a post then respond to it IN THE FORUM WHERE THE POST IS MADE.

Are you dense?

Perhaps, but clearly not as dense as you.

You consistently make mention of my reporting you in a way that makes it seem like it was not a single event.

LOL, how can that be when I went into great detail two or three times explaning the specifics of where and when the ONE report occured.

Did I mention any other times you reported me??? Nope.

Go blow it out yer arse Snitch.

Do not use insults or personal attacks to argue your point. "Go blow it out yer arse Snitch" is unacceptable here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Luminous]

Yes, in one way or another .. Mostly minor details, but some rather large ..

One of the biggest is that Patterson claimed his horse fell on him, and he had a bent stirrup to prove it. Gimlin says most definitely, the horse did not fall.

Another big problem is how they got the film developed that night in order to view it the next day ..

Really luminous, you need to read this stuff yourself. We are not asking you to do it over night. We have been discussing this for over two years now.

If you are going to trust others to tell you our interpretation of all this information, why don't you just trust us when we assure you it is a hoax ?

You need to find a copy of Long's book. It is very badly written and painful to read, but it seems to contain a good deal of factual information that tells a lot about the kind of person Patterson was.

I know, I really have to do my homework, It's just that I gave a commitment to you to read these posts and I've already begun working on it. Then this guy comes along with five more threads to read, probably interesting material, but it's a bit overwhelming.

I figured the main reason he gave those links to me is because he simply wanted to say that there are various stories about the P/G film and saga out there. If he could have simply said that, and then offer the threads as supplementals to read if I wanted to, that would have been helpful. Just reading the stuff you asked me to read is a lot bigger task than I anticipated. I will have to do it a little as a time as you said. The threads you asked me to read are really long. And there are some really long posts in the threads. Adding five more threads was just too much.

If you don't mind, if there are ever any times when you have something to share with me, please do your best to briefly summarize the information as often as you can. I would really appreciate it. I'm more of a power-point kind of guy. I Like the headlines, but I tend to avoid most of the small print. I'm going to continue reading the posts you suggested, but as you pointed out, I'm going to have to take my time with the materials. In other words, this may take a while. But I think you know that already.

Thanks D.

Luminous

 

[Teresa.Hall]

This is also part of that same interview and this part I wonder about. I realize Gimlin had forgotten some of what happened but this appears to be a discrepancy to me that I'd never noticed before in that interview:

Gimlin:........Yeah, it hadn't disappeared when the film footage…ah, when Roger ran out of film because it traveled on, oh probably not half again the distance of where he…[sic] but another thirty or forty yards. There was some trees down in that area. I suppose from the flood and so forth. There were many fallen trees and different things in that area. Then when the creature did disappear up a little draw, why I wanted to follow it. Of course Roger didn't want to follow it because he was on foot and he didn't want to be left there. We thought there was the possibility there were the two others around…we didn't know at the time whether that was one of the ones that had made the tracks up above the scene or not.

Later in the interview he says:

Green: So when you saw it, up until that moment you had never seen a track?

Gimlin: Never. Never seen a track at all, that's right.

Does anyone have any clarification for this?

 

[LTC8K6]

2. Daily searching on horseback and not on foot. The horses (hoofed animals) might well have overode the presence of humans to the sasquatch

.


Why would sasquatch know what a horse is?

I suppose he might want to eat it, but it should be an unfamiliar animal, shouldn't it? The noise of the horse shoes should scare sasquatch as well, I'd think.

 

[kitakaze]

If you allow others to hold open the possibility that the PGF is a man in a suit, then you can't argue that it's good evidence for sasquatch, imo.

Imo, the only way you can argue that the PGF is good evidence for the existence of sasquatch is if it's unreasonable to believe it might be a man in a suit.

Hallejujah! What Shultz said!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, according to Krantz (Big Footprints, page 93), "...at its closest, the figure stands only 1.66mm on the actual film, inside an area measuring 10mm wide by 7.5mm tall."

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere else that the subject was only about the size of one of the sprocket holes in the film, but I can't remember where I saw that. (I may be mistaken though).


RayG

Sprocket size may be a bit of an exageration . I would say there is a surprising amount of detail , but still a lot of room for interpretation.

Imagine what may be added or lost by transcribing this to 35mm, VHS, DVD and back and forth between the different mediums..

Here is a good article on the resolution of 16mm film ..

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/filmres.html

Thus, finger or toe detail, that should lie in the vicinity of this 2" limit, does not show up crisply at all. Any conclusions based on supposed detail below the stated limit are largely a function of the imagination of the examiner, should be viewed with grave suspicion, and would require heroic proof to be convincing. Analysis based on anything other than direct copies of the original film frames is also to be avoided at all cost due to the above considerations.

 

[Luminous]

Luminous, it is commendable of you to test your beliefs by objectively discussing the issues, both pro and con. I think it's important to hear both sides of an issue in order to have the best information possible with which to base a conclusion.

Well, I can't ague with that.

 

[kitakaze]

I lose? Why do I lose? How many times did I claim you reported me then??

I did state the truth clearly. Twice (or was it three times) in recent days I specifically stated you reported me directly after the other reportee who reported me for posting a whole article when I didn't know that was against the rules.

I made NO MENTION of any other times you reported me. I SPECIFICALLY and CLEARY described ONLY the time you reported me for telling the other reportee to "go shove his report up his arse".

How much clearer do you want it? I can't GET any clearer or more specific than that.



I have only mentioned the ONE TIME you reported me. I haven't mentioned any other time so your claim about misrepresenting facts is unfounded.

I did also mention the fact that you also copied and pasted a post of mine from Cryptomundo and responded to it here behind my back and at a time when I hadn't posted here for ages. If you want to respond to a post then respond to it IN THE FORUM WHERE THE POST IS MADE.


Perhaps, but clearly not as dense as you.

LOL, how can that be when I went into great detail two or three times explaning the specifics of where and when the ONE report occured.

Did I mention any other times you reported me??? Nope.

Go blow it out yer arse Snitch.

Ray's right, it a waste to continue the issue with you. You know when you choose words like 'as per usual' and similar descriptions that you were distorting the truth.

As for your getting bent out of shape about my posting comment made by you and another at cryptomundo and this 'behind my back' stuff, get over yourself drama queen.

 

[William Parcher]

Evidently the BBC lost most of the second roll.

I'm curious about what information we have that supports this.

John Green wasn't involved in the making of the film and he's still alive. He has a first generation copy and was present when it was shown in DeAtley's house. I don't know what you'd mean by vested interest. He's 80 this year, feisty as ever, and gains nothing from the film.

We are told that Green was only shown the "Patty encounter" portion of the film at DeAtley's house. Green may indirectly profit when the PGF is supported as authentic. He sells books that are based on Bigfoot and the PGF being real.

You see the relevant portion. You can see the portions with the pack horse being led and of Roger casting prints in the 1971 documentary Bigfoot:Man or Beast? with Robert Morgan.

When we see pack horses right before the track casting, it means there was editing to the film.

There are stills on Chris Murphy's Murphy File on the Hancock House webpage.

Can you link to this?

So did John Green see the entire, uncut two reels before any editing?

Apparently not, or it is simply unknowable. RP only showed him the Patty walk part two days later in DeAtley's basement. Green had no way of knowing if RP had already done editing to that bit, because it would have required physically examining the film itself to look for evidences of cutting/splicing.

The following week the film was shown at the University of British Columbia and Green & Dahinden were present. They later disagreed on whether the "second roll" was shown at this event.

It is possible that nobody other than Roger Patterson and the film developer saw both rolls of film in their true unedited state, as they would appear after the processing. As it is, we have no direct evidence that there were "two rolls" shot on October 20th (with the first roll ending as Patty walks away, and the second roll containing casting and stomp test scenes). It only comes from the testimonies of P&G.

 

[mangler]

carcharodon,

To even suggest a comparison between Clayton Mack and people like Scott-Donelan, Brown or Hardin is laughable. These men have proven themselves time and time again in the real world.

Killing black/grizzly bear on the west coast of BC in the 30's, 40's and 50's is like being successful hunting for hamburger in the grocery store today.

Are you saying that you belive Mack truly experienced first hand encounters of not one but several sasquatch? Kind of funny how when someone finely brings a camera, nothing!

m

 

[carcharodon]

From John Green's interview with Bob Gimlin:

Green: Did you come around a corner or did you see it from a distance or…?

Gimlin: No, it wasn't exactly a corner. We came around a bend. We were riding the creek beds, is what we were doing and so when we came around the bend in the creek; this thing was standing alongside the creek. Stand upright.

Green: So it was standing when you first saw it?

Gimlin: It was standing still, right at the edge of the creek when we first saw it, yes.

Green: Right at the edge?

Gimlin: Right by the edge of the creek, yes.

Green: But fully upright?

Gimlin: Fully upright, standing upright, yes.

Both Green and Krantz cite the subject was squating/crouching. Presumably this is taken from Patterson's original account which I don't have to hand right now. The animal then stood upright.

Did both men round the log pile at the same split second? Unlikely. Did Patterson see the animal just before Gimlin, when it was squating?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Later in the interview he says:

Quote:

Green: So when you saw it, up until that moment you had never seen a track?

Gimlin: Never. Never seen a track at all, that's right

Does anyone have any clarification for this?

Let me speculate on the ' Roger Knights ' clarification .. ( If Roger is lurking, he can correct me )

Roger might say, Gimlin was saying they were not tracking the subject; that they weren't following tracks at the time...


I don't have a problem with that myself ...

 

[carcharodon]

.

Why would sasquatch know what a horse is?

Why are you asking that question? Who said it would? I said 'hoofed animal', and a large one at that, which a horse is, might have overode the presence of Patterson and Gimlin. There were three horses I believe all bigger and smellier than P and G.

The fact that a horse is a hoofed animal, if indeed the sasquatch was even aware of it's presence beforehand which it might not have been, might also have lessened the sasquatch's weariness.

I suppose he might want to eat it, but it should be an unfamiliar animal, shouldn't it?

Don't they have wild horses in America????

The noise of the horse shoes should scare sasquatch as well, I'd think.

The 'noise'? On soil and dirt? I don't suppose the horse shoes were going clickity click like they would on a paved road.

On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall

Er, that would be the trees bunched up on the downfall log pile. To get to the actual forest, the subject was out in the open and had to walk across a clear area.

 

[kitakaze]

Lyndon, any chance of you responding to the rest of this post? The rest was far more important than bickering over silly stuff.

 

[William Parcher]

Roger Patterson to The Province, October 25, 1967:

She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Roger Patterson to The Province,

She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright.

October 25, 1967:

Now that would have been some great film footage..

I wonder why he didn't get any of that ..

As has been mentioned before - much of Patterson's telling, sounds like what he must have envisioned for his documentary . He just didn't bother to stick with the final draft, once he decided to start telling the story; and he didn't give Gimlin a copy either..

 

[carcharodon]

To even suggest a comparison between Clayton Mack and people like Scott-Donelan, Brown or Hardin is laughable.

Why? He was a reknowned tracker and hunter wasn't he?

These men have proven themselves time and time again in the real world.
Killing black/grizzly bear on the west coast of BC in the 30's, 40's and 50's is like being successful hunting for hamburger in the grocery store today.

Presumably, by that analogy you'd disregard the likes of Jim Corbett too coz he was 'in the olden days when everything was black and white' and not as real as it is in colour today and shooting tigers back then was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Are you saying that you belive Mack truly experienced first hand encounters of not one but several sasquatch?

Not saying anything of the sort. It was in fact, a bit of sarcasm.

Kind of funny how when someone finely brings a camera, nothing!

Roger Patterson got something....and it's unlike any man in a bigfoot suit that I've ever seen....but still it's 'nothing' to the scoftics.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Thanks

Let me speculate on the ' Roger Knights ' clarification .. ( If Roger is lurking, he can correct me )

Roger might say, Gimlin was saying they were not tracking the subject; that they weren't following tracks at the time...


I don't have a problem with that myself ...

I was reading the entire interview and taken in context it sounded to me like he was saying up until the time they saw the creature he had never laid eyes on a track, after stating they had seen tracks of three individuals earlier. He was talking about what occurred when they first saw the creature. (At least, that's how I read it in the interview.) I was reading literally and not assuming what he meant. I'm trying to interpret based solely on what was said in the interview as to what occurred, but again Mr. Gimlin states his memory isn't 100% of the events that transpired. It may be all for nought.

Being a transcriber as a career there are times when I have to assume to know what the dictator meant to say but if I'm wrong I'm screwed, so I try not to do that if at all possible.

What's Roger Knight's name on this forum?