• 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.
This bit about Patty stopping is not a mistake, folks. Sanderson and Patterson use Patty's stop and turn to explain why Patterson got such a good shot of Patty. They know what they are saying and they intend to say that Patty stopped and looked back, giving Roger the break he needed to get a good movie of her. The story in Feb of 1968 is that the film doesn't show much very clearly because Patterson is running and handholdig the camera. Then Patty stops and looks back, allowing Roger to film her clearly.

They claim that Patty stopped, and they mean it.

Roger did something then that I have never known any professional photographers to do, even if his camera was loaded with the right film, he had the cap off the lens, the thing set at the right F stop and so on. He started running, handholding his Kodak sixteen-mm loaded with Kodachrome film, trying to focus on this creature. What he got was just about what any amateur would get in such circumstances. But then he got a real break.

As he puts it: She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
How was it established that 3:30 is the error and that 1:30 is correct?
Click to expand...

The quote is from Saga, not the Humboldt Times, and the error in the Times was how long they'd been in the area, not the time.

I think we've discussed reporter error before, haven't we? Several times?
 
It was 3:30 in Argosy Feb 68 as well, wasn't it, Lu?

They also had still cameras.

At three-thirty p.m. on the twentieth of October last year, two young men, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were packing it on horseback into one of the last remaining great wilderness areas, northeast of Eureka, California. Their saddlebags contained, on one side, rifles and grub and, on the other, ready-loaded movie and still cameras and other equipment.
Click to expand...
 
kitakaze said:
Again, Lu, what you said:

Problem.
Click to expand...

"Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon seeing (or perhaps smelling) the figure, and he spent about twenty seconds extricating himself from the saddle and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera. He yelled "Cover me" to Gimlin, who thereupon crossed the creek on horseback, rode forward awhile, and, rifle in hand, dismounted. (Presumably because his horse might have panicked if the creature charged, spoiling his shot.)

The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet before Patterson began to run after it. The resulting film (about 53 seconds long) is initially quite shaky until Patterson gets about 80 feet from the figure. At that point the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees; on Krantz's map this corresponds to frame 264 (Perez, 12). To researcher John Green, Patterson would later characterize the creature’s expression as one of “contempt and disgust ... you know how it is when the umpire tells you ‘one more word and you’re out of the game.’ That’s the way it felt”.

Now the steady middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous frame 352,(see above at the very top for picture of frame). Patterson said "it turned a total of I think three times" (Wasson, 69), the first time therefore being before the filming began. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder, the creature walks behind a grove of trees, reappears for awhile after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point, then fades into the trees again and is lost to view as the reel of film ran out. Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach.

Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and “the men then tracked it for three miles, but lost it in the heavy undergrowth” (Coleman and Clark, 198). They returned to the initial site, measured the creature’s stride, made two plaster casts (of the best-quality right and left prints), and covered the other prints to protect them. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film

If he dismounted with rifle in hand, he must have had it out of the scabbard before he dismounted.

Or are you sayng Roger yelled, "Cover me" and he didn't?

The point was, Gimlin was mounted while Roger was on the ground. The creature could have looked less large to Gimlin because of that.
 
Last edited:
Patterson said "it turned a total of I think three times"
Click to expand...

Patterson tells a different story nearly every time, it seems.

He claims in the Argosy article that Patty might have turned and stopped because of the sound of the camera. He never mentions her turning two other times, or why she turned the other times. Neither does Sanderson.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It was 3:30 in Argosy Feb 68 as well, wasn't it, Lu?
Click to expand...

Also from Wikipedia:

"In an article in Argosy magazine, Ivan T. Sanderson gave the time of the encounter as 3:30 p.m., which differed from 1:30 p.m. time in other articles and in interviews by Patterson and Gimlin."
 
LAL said:
If he dismounted with rifle in hand, he must have had it out of the scabbard before he dismounted.

Or are you sayng Roger yelled, "Cover me" and he didn't?

The point was, Gimlin was mounted while Roger was on the ground. The creature could have looked less large to Gimlin because of that.
Click to expand...
Lu, do you understand that you're strengthening the point I'm making? I asked you to account for the discrepancy, why not try that? Am I to take it that the wikipedia entry is correct and Meldrum is not? I have no idea why you're mention Roger's 'cover me' part. You are presenting one account as truth. Why? Based on what? Can you or can you not explain these discrepancies? They're very important.
 
No mention in that wiki article that Titmus could not find where Patty entered the film site. Patty's tracks just begin at the river where Roger started filming her. There are no tracks of her arriving.
 
Agreed, LTC. What blows my mind was that Titmus was able to create a map at-the-scene of where Roger walked when he filmed Patty. He was able to do this at least 8 days after the event and there were rains. When he comes upon the scene, he would see Patterson & Gimlin tracks going every which way including numerous tracks that would be alongside Patty's tracks. He would see horse tracks all over the place going every which way. He would see Laverty (and possibly his coworkers) tracks mixed in. Out of all that, he is somehow able to decide which set of tracks were made when Roger was holding the camera. Incredible!
 
SweatyYeti said:
I've been doing more analysis of the MD video on another board....not your's and Melissa's board...and been recieving very positive comments from the members there.....including a skeptic, Shane, who has complimented my work with the stills and animations, while not "seeing" enough to make him lean towards the video being legit. Lately, though, his view of the video has changed....for the better. ;)
Click to expand...

SweatyYeti said:
Hey....I have an idea....how about we race over to the other board.....last one there (and the first one, too) is a happy camper!! :D
Click to expand...


SweatyYeti said:
....plus I'm in a race at the moment to get over to the other forum.....the one that doesn't reek of BS, like this one does.
Click to expand...
Anyone who would like to see Sweaty's analysis on the MDF can find it here:

Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center Forums.

Apparently, it doesn't reek of BS, like this place does.

BTW Sweaty, is Shane (sasquatchfound) a skeptic of bigfoot existence or was he just not sold on the MDF?

Sweaty is not a fan of Bill Appleton's enhancements that seems to clearly show a mask being removed and carried. I wonder what his thoughts are on the presence at the scene of footer Fred Bradshaw.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Diogenes:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/pursuit68.htm

That very night, McClarin is already calling Sanderson about the new film of bigfoot...
Click to expand...

He doesn't actually date the call.. But the supposed night of the filming would make sense ..

This is interesting from the article..

Only a dead, stunned specimen, or a skull, will prove the matter and convince the scientists and other skeptics. Roger has to get back into the field to obtain such. Meantime, we know of no less than nine other serious minded and in some cases fully financed outfits that are going into the field this spring. The funny thing about this case is that the topnotch scientists most deeply concerned with the specialty are taking it very seriously. Further, most of these scientists are government employed, and both the Canadian and American Governments themselves are deeply interested.
Click to expand...

Well, we know how fast Roger got back into the field, looking for more evidence ..
All that interest seemed to have fizzled real fast ... Darn scientists and other skeptics ..:D
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Anyone who would like to see Sweaty's analysis on the MDF can find it here:

Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center Forums.

Apparently, it doesn't reek of BS, like this place does.

BTW Sweaty, is Shane (sasquatchfound) a skeptic of bigfoot existence or was he just not sold on the MDF?

Sweaty is not a fan of Bill Appleton's enhancements that seems to clearly show a mask being removed and carried. I wonder what his thoughts are on the presence at the scene of footer Fred Bradshaw.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be fair not to show the rest of Sweety's work ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16435

Here is Bill's ( Morgoth ) analysis ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19360

Bill is way out of Sweety's league .. He's just a crummy programmer, who writes video analysis software ..


Of course most people will look at this film and say ' WTF ? ' ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWLkeLLhYQ

Lu will tell you it is a young female Bigfoot, carrying an infant, that climbs to her shoulders towards the end .. You can even see her bouncing breasts ..




You can't see the breasts ? No ? :jaw-dropp

Meldrum can ..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom