Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[RayG]

It's actually hard work to become a true proponent or a true skeptic!

And some of us (like me) started as one and ended up as the other.

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

Here it is in a nutshell:

Forty years after Patterson submitted his film of a 'sasquatch', we're still not able to say with 100% certainty that the subject in the film is an actual squatch or a man in a suit. We have neither the suit nor an actual body.

There, I just saved you from reading thousands of post in numerous threads.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Why would you lose Patty's tracks on pine needles?

Makes no sense. She's so heavy her feet sink inches into the soil, right?

Why was it 3.5 miles before Patty got to any pine needles?

 

[kitakaze]

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

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

RayG

I'm not sure if LAL has Ray on ignore at the moment but I was thinking the same thing.

 

[LAL]

Read Meldrum.

Problem? Where does it say, in any account, Gimlin wasn't mounted while Roger was filming?

 

[LTC8K6]

The film is what it is. It's either a sasquatch, or someone in a suit.

I'm not certain which it is, and no one can tell me with any certainty which it is.

So, I really rely on the events surrounding the appearance of the film and the accounts of it's creation to judge the veracity of RP and BG and DeAtley, etc.

Like this:

On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself. Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.

So Gimlin comes back to camp that morning and Roger is not there. Roger doesn't come back until 10am...then Roger wants to go back to a place they've already been, and that's where they just happen across Patty?

Also, they had been to the film site already on this trip, yet Gimlin saw no tracks previously? I thought there were tracks of a family in the area? I thought they were worried about a male?

 

[LAL]

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

RayG

Read Krantz.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...

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!
Luminous

Tell us about it .. I would be embarrassed to admit the money I have spent on Bigfoot books and movies, not to mention the hours I have wasted, preparing visuals and arguing...

If you went on a Bigfoot board as a skeptic and started pooh pooing Bigfoot, and admitted you haven't done the research, you would be run out on a rail ..

Why should you be any less prepared on a skeptical board ?

Don't feel like you are being specially mistreated .. Look into some of the other discussions where people make claims with no substantive evidence to back them up..

Go over to the Religious discussions here, and you will find that the skeptics/atheists almost invariably no more about religion that the proponents do. It goes with the territory ...

If you don't want to be confronted with being questioned about your reason for believing this film is the real deal, you need to go to a forum like this:

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpbb3/index.php


You can get all kinds of confirmation that Patty is a real live Bigfoot, no questions asked , no homework required ...


They are completely satis fied to hear : " Well, gee whiz ! It looks so real to me ! "


Did you ever hear that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies ?
And stuff like this was his evidence ?

He also believed that some innocent little girls couldn't possibly be lying..

 

[LTC8K6]

"Bob started to follow on his horse, but I called him back. The tracks we'd seen earlier indicated she was part of a family group, and that could be dangerous. I was shaking quite a bit, so the film isn't too steady, but it shows the thing clearly. I've believed they existed for a long time, just from talking to many eye-witnesses. Now there's no doubt at all."

10/25/67

 

[rgann]

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…

Luminous

Absolutely no offense taken from anything you have written to or about me. Rereading my post it was cryptic in that it did not specify what I was asking you to look at. Consider the links resources not homework.

Reading through the last few pages of this thread I think your request to summarize is being done through a group effort, all the questions and comparisons you see are from the first hand accounts

An interesting thing that I think you will find among many of the skeptics here is that almost to the person we all had a interest in this subject, specifically the PGF since we where kids either it was a “In Search of the Mysterious Lost Secrets of the Hidden Something TV Show” or a book from the library (so take the evil scoftic label with a grain of salt). The idea that this might be true would be extremely cool and I don’t feel I am overstating this that everyone here would love it, however as one starts to peel back the layers of the stories, I am sorry to say in my opinion it just doesn’t look good.

Rick

 

[LAL]

Read Meldrum.

Problem? Where does it say, in any account, Gimlin wasn't mounted while Roger was filming?

 

[kitakaze]

Problem? Where does it say, in any account, Gimlin wasn't mounted while Roger was filming?

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.

 

[kitakaze]

Problem? Where does it say, in any account, Gimlin wasn't mounted while Roger was filming?

Again, Lu, what you said:

Also, Gimlin was mounted, rifle in hand

Problem.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why do both Roger Patterson and Ivan Sanderson say that Patty stopped and looked back?

I can understand Roger thinking that's what she did in the excitement and saying that shortly afte the event. I have no problem with the error because it could look that way in the viewfinder while you are running.

But by this time Roger has seen the film many times and so has Sanderson. It's February of 1968 and they both say Patty stops and looks back...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

Do you really not get the ' we ' and ' us ' usage in an argumentative context ?

Just pretend I said ' me ' and ' I ' , and move on .. You have got enough to worry about in actually researching this subject, than to be sidetracked by every nuance of my writing style..

 

[LAL]

Here:

Yes, he was mounted when they first saw the creature, rode across the creek and then dismounted, while Roger was filming. The click when he cocked the rifle may have been what caused her to turn. That's halfway through the sequence.

Second the wish list, but I'd wear it out.

This account from Saga, 1969, has the time as 3:30 PM.

"Many notable scientists have looked at the movie film of a snowman taken by ex-rodeo rider Roger Patterson. In recent years, the Yakima; Wash., monster-hunter launched several unsuccessful searches into the western wilderness. Then, at 3:30 p.m., Oct. 20, 1967, Patterson and Bob Gimlin were in the great forest north of Eureka, Calif. They sighted a strange, hair-covered beast walking upright through the timber. Patterson grabbed his movie camera and zoomed in as the creature moved away.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/saga1969.htm

Even the first story in the Humboldt Times contained an error.

 

[kitakaze]

Read Krantz.

Read Meldrum.

S:LMS, p. 165:

The question remains whether a human subject using a forced high-speed compliant gait would exhibit a fluid pattern of joint excursions comparable to those of the film subject. That remains to be demonstrated.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

outside smilies don't work here do they.

You should be able to link to them as images unless the host blocks hot linking..

( go through the motions of quoting me to see the hyper-text )

 

[LTC8K6]

What actually happened in the Patterson Case was that a mutual friend, - Jim McClarin rang me (Ivan Sanderson) late one night from California to say that word had come out that Roger had obtained some film of a Bigfoot and was on his way to have it processed. He requested help in handling matters, which we immediately promised, and we then started laying on all possible scientific, commercial, and publicity outlets.

McClarin called Sanderson before Roger even had the film processed?

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, he was mounted when they first saw the creature, rode across the creek and then dismounted, while Roger was filming.

Yes, of course. That is clear from what I posted. Again, your words:

Also, Gimlin was mounted, rifle in hand

Can you clarify that discrepancy, please?

The click when he cocked the rifle may have been what caused her to turn.

Huh!? The click? What are you talking about? Where does it say he cocked his rifle? Where are you getting that? Even if that was the case, what was the distance? How many other sounds were going on? The click of the rifle?

 

[LTC8K6]

Even the first story in the Humboldt Times contained an error.

How was it established that 3:30 is the error and that 1:30 is correct?