Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

From Meldrum's book 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science', p.139:

In Gimlin's words, "When I first saw it, it was standing, looking straight at us. That's when everything started happening. The horses started jumping around, raising the devil and spooking from this creature. Roger, well his horse was rearing up and jumping around."

Patterson's horse, younger and less experienced, tried to spin around and come back. Gimlin's was a more seasoned roping horse but was still spooked by the encounter with the figure. Patterson was trying to control his horse with one hand while reaching back into the saddlebag for his camera with the other. He was quite agile and athletic, since he did rodeo riding and gymnastics. This was a maneuver he had practiced. "He always kept that saddlebag ready. The saddlebag had two straps on it to keep it buckled down. He kept one buckled and one of them unbuckled so he could get his camera in the event he needed it in a hurry and this was the case at that particular time... that was his theory if he ever had to get it, he kept the one buckle on there so it would not bounce out while he was riding and the other one loose so he could get it out in a hurry," said Gimlin.

Patterson slid off the horse with his camera in hand and the horse ran off, prompting the packhorse to jerk free from Gimlin and follow. Patterson called out "Cover me!" as he ran across the creek toward the sandbar, which had a slight elevation of about 30 inches, the camera to his eye. ...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

They were in the area for weeks.. The horses had plenty of time to get use to the family of Bigfoots..

The horse antics are just part of the story ..

Roger and Bob just didn't go over it enough ..

The stories don't match, because neither one are true..

Pretty lame ..

 

[Luminous]

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.

Sorry Rick, I hope I didn't offend you in any way. I just thought that you were taking the long way home rather than a shortcut. I do want to read those links, just not now. I'll save them for when I've completed the tasks of reading three other gigantic threads.

You did nothing wrong. It all boils down to the fact that I am not very well versed in the latest BF books and videos. I have some understanding of the topic, so I am not entirely ignorant, but much of the debates on this board seem to be taking place between those who are "up to speed" in latest Bigfoot books and videos.

The problem is, I am not up to speed and I'm feeling pressured to to buy every BF book and video that's out there and spend hours taking notes and meditating on who said what etc. (No one here is making me feel that way. It's just that the good debates always seem to be between individuals who have studied the these topics relentlessly.) It's actually hard work to become a true proponent or a true skeptic!

Yes, I need to read those posts you listed, and for that very reason. But I guess I was hoping you would summarize the links briefly for me. That way I would not have to take the time to read them. Lame excuse I know. Procrastination and distraction my biggest weakness. So I will read them because I need this knowledge to progress. But the links you posted will have to wait until I've finished reading three other monstrous threads. I'm not sure how long this will take, but your posts will still be here a month I would assume. I don't think they get taken down. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from.

(Whispering) In the meantime, if you do want to briefly summarize these threads, I won't complain about it!

Sincerely,

Luminous

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Read Meldrum.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Quite possible. Memory is tricky at best.

Also, Gimlin was mounted, rifle in hand,

Uhh, that's not the story ..

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.

Roger was running after an animal, that he later wouldn't track, because he was afraid of being attacked ?

Quite possible. Memory is tricky at best.

Unless you're Heironimous ...


( someone please quote, so Lu can see her goofs here )

 

[kitakaze]

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, think about the differing accounts for Patterson not being sure of the film speed. Nevertheless, please take a moment to compare these (bolding mine):

"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.

From Meldrum's book 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science', p.139:

In Gimlin's words, "When I first saw it, it was standing, looking straight at us. That's when everything started happening. The horses started jumping around, raising the devil and spooking from this creature. Roger, well his horse was rearing up and jumping around."

Patterson's horse, younger and less experienced, tried to spin around and come back. Gimlin's was a more seasoned roping horse but was still spooked by the encounter with the figure. Patterson was trying to control his horse with one hand while reaching back into the saddlebag for his camera with the other. He was quite agile and athletic, since he did rodeo riding and gymnastics. This was a maneuver he had practiced. "He always kept that saddlebag ready. The saddlebag had two straps on it to keep it buckled down. He kept one buckled and one of them unbuckled so he could get his camera in the event he needed it in a hurry and this was the case at that particular time... that was his theory if he ever had to get it, he kept the one buckle on there so it would not bounce out while he was riding and the other one loose so he could get it out in a hurry," said Gimlin.

Patterson slid off the horse with his camera in hand and the horse ran off, prompting the packhorse to jerk free from Gimlin and follow. Patterson called out "Cover me!" as he ran across the creek toward the sandbar, which had a slight elevation of about 30 inches, the camera to his eye. ...

 

[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.

Diogenes, just a couple of questions... Who are the "WE's" you are talking about? You use "us" and "we" like you're speaking on the behalf of others concerning me. What's up with that? I'm not angry, just confused. Could you explain who and what you're referring to?

Thanks,

Luminous

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Uhh, that's not the story ..

Originally Posted by LAL View Post
Quite possible. Memory is tricky at best.

Also, Gimlin was mounted, rifle in hand,
Uhh, that's not the story ..

Quote:
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.

Diogenes:
Roger was running after an animal, that he later wouldn't track, because he was afraid of being attacked ?

Diogenes:
Unless you're Heironimous ...


( someone please quote, so Lu can see her goofs here )

Be happy to, though I doubt it will do much good.

 

[William Parcher]

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.

We have the near equivalent. It's the radio interview with P&G together, done in November 1967. They are free to disagree with each other, and Roger does that at least once...

Gimlin: It was a large hairy creature with arms that hang down beside its, you know, far down on its sides, below its knees, and it was quite ..
Webster: Do you agree with that?
Patterson: No, I think Bob's a little excited here, I don't believe they were below the knees, they were above the knees.
Webster: But they were well down on the sides, weren't they?
Gimlin: Way down, right.
Webster: And I could see that on the film tonight, they were well down on the sides.

Wow. Gimlin saw Patty and must have seen the film, and yet he still says the arms hang below the knees. Gimlin sounds like Heironimus, but here only weeks after the encounter, right Lu?

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Read Meldrum.

Uhh, that's not the story ..



Roger was running after an animal, that he later wouldn't track, because he was afraid of being attacked ?

Unless you're Heironimous ...


( someone please quote, so Lu can see her goofs here )

S:LMS p.139, 140 cont'd:

... With his vision restricted by the viewfinder, he ran into the sandbar and fell to his knees. Gimlin could see this within his field of vision, while keeping his eye on the creature, which had immediately turned and begun retreating up the sandbar and parallel to the creek bed. Gimlin rode across the creek, dismounted, and pulled his 30.06 rifle from its scabbard. He figured if it became necessary, he could get off a surer shot on foot than in the saddle on a jittery horse. He recalled at the time he was young, was still hunting and was an excellent shot. They always carried rifles when they rode in the mountains, but not with the intent to shoot a sasquatch. "We had talked about it, but decided unless it was necessary, we would never shoot. In other words, unless it was violent and attempted to attack us... I just stood there with my rifle. I never raised the rifle like I would shoot or anything like that, just held it in my hand and with the other hand held my horse to keep him from getting away from me." ...


JREF wish list addition: forehead slapping smiley.

 

[Spektator]

(snip) 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.

Labor Day in 1967 was Monday, September 4. The Tuesday prior to Labor Day would have been August 29.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

outside smilies don't work here do they.

 

[RayG]

Sprocket size may be a bit of an exageration.

Maybe not if your included image is shown true-to-size.

The sprocket hole looks like it might even be bigger than the subject in the film. (unless that's what you meant by exaggeration)

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

That cannot be correct, imo. Roger has to be referring to the forest behind Patty, imo. Patty's quickest way to cover was to do a 180 and hit the woods behind her.

I can't interpret "back up against the trees" any other way, and that's also what I see in the PGF.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Labor Day in 1967 was Monday, September 4. The Tuesday prior to Labor Day would have been August 29.

Thanks! So if I'm understanding this right the tracks were reported on August 29th and the film was obtained October 20th 1967. So the tracks occurred 1 1/2 months prior to the film.

 

[LTC8K6]

How did the tracks survive the rains?

A flood that washed out the road, and made the creek very wide?

It was raining for hours before Gimlin went out and put bark over the tracks. How did bark do anything anyway? Rain will run right under it, and wash it away, or wash the track away if the bark doesn't float, and we are talking about flooding rains lasting for hours.

 

[RayG]

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

What, who, when, where, and how? (a link will do)

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Luminous, from a former ardent proponent to a current one, let's expand a little for the sake of productive discussion. Let's set the PGF aside for a moment. Or let's even assume that it's not a man in a suit. Where does that leave us with the phenomenom? How do we examine this idea that bigfoot really, truly does exist? Let's try a little Q&A on it. I give you one question, you answer and add your own question. We keep it organized to that established format. Again, we leave the PGF aside.

My first question:

Where are these sasquatches?

 

[Spektator]

Thanks! So if I'm understanding this right the tracks were reported on August 29th and the film was obtained October 20th 1967. So the tracks occurred 1 1/2 months prior to the film.

Seven weeks and three days prior, to be exact--nearly two months.

 

[William Parcher]

More fruit for the picking:

Lyle Laverty observed and photographed the Patty tracks on October 21, or on October 23. Both can be referenced.

Bob Titmus visited the filmsite 9 days later, or 10 days, or "several weeks" (Meldrum). All of these can be referenced.

Titmus made 8 casts from the Patty tracks, or 10 casts. Both can be referenced.