Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

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

There would not likely have been wild (feral) horses in the forests of Northern California. Closest thing would have been elk, with no reason for a Bigfoot to fear them.

Now that would have been some great film footage.. I wonder why he didn't get any of that ..

You see, RP's horse instantly bucked, fell and ran. Roger had to run alongside it for 30 seconds trying to get the camera out of the bag before he could start the filming.

 

[carcharodon]

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: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:
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?

I believe Bob Gimlin was refering to the tracks found in the mountains above and around Bluff Creek itself that John Green and Rene Dahinden saw just a couple of months before.

These were the tracks that made Patterson forego Washington State (where he was looking) and head to northern California instead. This is why Patterson and Gimlin set up camp where they did, because of the earlier tracks found. Presumably being lower down and on flatter terrain was easier for their horses as they were being ridden daily. It was still in the same 'general area' as the tracks Green and Dahinden saw though. According to John Green's map in his book, Blue Creek Mountain and Onion Mountain (where the earlier tracks were found) are only about half a dozen miles as the crow flies from the P/G film site and would still basically be 'up above' the scene.

 

[carcharodon]

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..

On the other hand, Patterson seemed embued with a schoolboy like enthusiasm for embelishment and exaggeration. Sometimes, this occurs unknowingly. He even claimed the animal's size was far in excess of what Gimlin claimed. Doesn't mean he was lying, just means that in his natural overexcitement and then enthusiastic relays of the story things might have gotten exaggerated.

I know a person who was in a fight and dispatched 2 other blokes. I saw it. On re-telling, the story got slightly exaggerated into a bit more than it actually was. The guy wasn't purposely lying, just guilty of overblowing it a bit. The basic story was true though, but I couldn't convince him that some of the embellishments he came out with weren't quite like that. He wouldn't have it though.

 

[carcharodon]

carch, kit, why don't you two just get married? This might be someone's interpretation if they stumble upon your tit-for-tat....

c: 'poke'
k: "Mom, c poked me."
c: "No I didn't."
k: "Did so."
c: "Did not."
k: "Yes you did."
c: "No I didn't."
k: "Did so."
c: 'POKE'
k: "OW! What was that for?"
c: "You told mom."
k: "Well you poked me."
c: "Did not."
k: "Did so."
(continues thus until one of the parents has an embolism)

RayG

That's actually quite funny. I approve of this post. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than pictures of Gollum and Michael Caine.

I'm considering putting Snitch on ignore...if I hang around here.

 

[kitakaze]

Feel free to put me on ignore, Lyndon. I do agree that Ray's assessment is pretty funny and fair. As I said, I'm dropping the issue. I do hope that you address the bigfoot issues in the post I mentioned above, though.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

There would not likely have been wild (feral) horses in the forests of Northern California. Closest thing would have been elk, with no reason for a Bigfoot to fear them.



You see, RP's horse instantly bucked, fell and ran. Roger had to run alongside it for 30 seconds trying to get the camera out of the bag before he could start the filming.

LOL that's a funny scenario, but according to Gimlin when John Green interviewed him Patterson's horse never fell. It turned trying to reverse it's direction of travel, bucked and Patterson grabbed the camera and slid off the horse.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I believe Bob Gimlin was refering to the tracks found in the mountains above and around Bluff Creek itself that John Green and Rene Dahinden saw just a couple of months before.

These were the tracks that made Patterson forego Washington State (where he was looking) and head to northern California instead. This is why Patterson and Gimlin set up camp where they did, because of the earlier tracks found. Presumably being lower down and on flatter terrain was easier for their horses as they were being ridden daily. It was still in the same 'general area' as the tracks Green and Dahinden saw though. According to John Green's map in his book, Blue Creek Mountain and Onion Mountain (where the earlier tracks were found) are only about half a dozen miles as the crow flies from the P/G film site and would still basically be 'up above' the scene.

Okay, I've read the pertinent part of the interview, however, it wasn't months before that the tracks were found, according to Gimlin it was "just prior" (the Tuesday before Labor Day) to Patterson and Gimlin's arrival that three sets of tracks were seen and reported by telephone to Patterson's wife. Patterson and Gimlin were in the Mt. St. Helen's area of Washington at that time.

However, Gimlin says "By the time we got down there, these tracks supposedly were 3 different sizes and were just globs in the mud as far as I was concerned. We couldn't get any plaster cast definition of them at all." So not only had he seen the tracks they had tried to cast them and couldn't get any definition. Does anyone know when Labor Day was in 1967? The film was taken on October 20th, but I don't know how long Patterson and Gimlin had been camping in Bluff Creek when the film was taken.

 

[rgann]

...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.

Luminous

Just for the sake of clarity (and unfortunately not brevity) and to follow up on your request to summarize the findings in a power point-esque way: My main motive was to provide you access to what I have found, to the best of my knowledge these 5 interviews are the only first hand accounts of what happened during the filming of the PGF. (any additions to this list are welcome)

One of the beauties of this forum is that people here will listen to your opinions and then ask for evidence, it’s the scientific method applied, it’s not a dogma or a skeptical manifesto, it’s simply a way of attempting to “know”. The request to summarize findings unfortunately flies in the face of this perspective, typically everyone here would like to not only hear what you think but also see how you came to these conclusions. I completely understand that you are overwhelmed at the volume of things to read, my hope was that as you read different interpretations of what happened during filming you would have a single post to refer to and be able to check opinions. As an analogy it’s like having a discussion about the Synoptic Gospels without having a copy of the New Testament.

Rick

*Reading the rest of the thread it appears others are pointing out inconsistencies/curious statements.

 

[William Parcher]

LOL that's a funny scenario, but according to Gimlin when John Green interviewed him Patterson's horse never fell. It turned trying to reverse it's direction of travel, bucked and Patterson grabbed the camera and slid off the horse.

It is funny. What's not so funny is the fact that P&G told so many variant accounts of what happened. Anyone trying to research the events from testimonies is faced with contradictions and changing stories. When that stuff is associated with Bob Heironimus, he's labeled a liar/hoaxer because of it. There is often a double-standard applied when proponents or skeptics evaluate these things.

The situation with the differing and changing stories of P&G shows itself when anyone tries to write about the encounter and surrounding events. When someone like Meldrum writes a new book that recounts what happened, he has the opportunity to tell it in any version he chooses. These versions can all be individually referenced to interviews, or even versions given by other authors.

Was the encounter just after noon, or about 1:30? Both can be referenced.

Was Roger's foot crushed by his horse, or not? Both can be referenced.

Was Patty first seen crouching, or standing? Both can be referenced.

Did she stand and stare for 30 seconds, or start walking right away? Both can be referenced.

Did they track her for 3.5 miles afterwards, "on up the creek bed quite a ways", or even not far at all. All three can be referenced.

There are certainly more things than those which can be picked from by any journalist. That situation began immediately after the supposed event.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

" RogerKni "


Roger has done a great job of clarifying what Gimlin really meant, when it doesn't make sense ...

 

[LAL]

Does anyone have any clarification for this?

Teresa won't be able to read this, but I think Gimlin was referring to the August-September OM/BCM track events in the first instance. Those were the tracks that brought them to the area in the first place. Those were investigated by John Green , Don Abbott and Rene Dahinden. Al Hodgson called Patricia Patterson about them while Roger and Bob were in the Mt. St. Helens area and they decided to go to California in October.

They went to California to try to film tracks for the documentary, but reportedly only found old ones. Maybe Bob didn't see anything he could identify positively as sasquatch.

Ooop! Looks like I was beat to it. Good.

 

[LAL]

When that stuff is associated with Bob Heironimus, he's labeled a liar/hoaxer because of it. There is often a double-standard applied when proponents or skeptics evaluate these things.

When Morris and Heironimus describe two completely different suits that were supposedly used in this event, there should be at least a few questions about that.

Whether Roger's foot was temporarily pinned under his horse or not does not seem important to me by comparison.

If I had just seen a sasquatch by a stream, the last thing I'd be looking at is my watch.

 

[William Parcher]

However, Gimlin says "By the time we got down there, these tracks supposedly were 3 different sizes and were just globs in the mud as far as I was concerned. We couldn't get any plaster cast definition of them at all." So not only had he seen the tracks they had tried to cast them and couldn't get any definition.

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.
Green: And you weren't at all convinced that there were any such animals to be seen?
Gimlin: That is true. I was not convinced that they really existed. You know, I figured Roger must have had a reason...

Whaa?

 

[kitakaze]

There are certainly more things than those which can be picked from by any journalist. That situation began immediately after the supposed event.

Did Gimlin remain on his horse or did he dismount? Both can be referenced.

Did he train his rifle on the creature or simply remove it from it's scabbard and hold it at his side with one hand and the other on the reins of the horse? Both can be referenced.

 

[LAL]

You see, RP's horse instantly bucked, fell and ran. Roger had to run alongside it for 30 seconds trying to get the camera out of the bag before he could start the filming.

"R: All of a sudden I caught something out of, glimpsed, out of the corner of my eye, and my horse immediately reared on me and I was, I tried to pull him down and at this instant after I seen the object to the side I wasn't able to see it again for a little bit. My horse fell with me, I probably pulled him half over, and as he got up I was able to get up and control him until I went around the other side and got the camera out of the saddle bag and I turned my horse loose, and was able to start shooting and I yelled."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

Reared, not bucked.

 

[kitakaze]

When Morris and Heironimus describe two completely different suits that were supposedly used in this event, there should be at least a few questions about that.

Whether Roger's foot was temporarily pinned under his horse or not does not seem important to me by comparison.

If I had just seen a sasqutch by a stream, the last thing I'd be looking at is my watch.

Let's say Heironimus' claim is false. Does whether Roger being bucked off the horse and getting pinned under it or gingerly grabbing the camera from the saddle bag one-handed and sliding off the horse in a well-rehearsed maneuver seem important to you? Think about this in light of the whole film speed debate.

 

[LAL]

Yes, I'm sure you are, the one where LAL is moderating.

She joined, but she didn't last long.

 

[LAL]

Let's say Heironimus' claim is false. Does whether Roger being bucked off the horse and getting pinned under it or gingerly grabbing the camera from the saddle bag one-handed and sliding off the horse in a well-rehearsed maneuver seem important to you? Think about this in light of the whole film speed debate.

First off, he wasn't bucked off. He had rehearsed grabbing the camera out of the saddle bag. The guy was a rodeo rider, remember? He was small, nimble and athletic.

They were going into an area with a recent history of activity and he was prepared in case they did run across one.

What film speed debate? The speed's been established.

 

[LAL]

On the other hand, Patterson seemed embued with a schoolboy like enthusiasm for embelishment and exaggeration. Sometimes, this occurs unknowingly. He even claimed the animal's size was far in excess of what Gimlin claimed. Doesn't mean he was lying, just means that in his natural overexcitement and then enthusiastic relays of the story things might have gotten exaggerated.

Quite possible. Memory is tricky at best.

Also, Gimlin was mounted, rifle in hand, while Roger, who was short, was on the ground, running after her. He did prove to be quite good at estimating weight and guessed Dr. Krantz' to the pound.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

It's a shame Mr. Gimlin and Mr. Patterson didn't document that encounter by writing down the agreed upon events and publishing the mutually agreed upon account back then. It would have saved everyone a lot of confusion forty years later.