Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[carcharodon]

Fred Bradshaw was not at the scene. His own family says that's not his voice.
The voice Larry Lund says is Bradshaw's is that of the outfitter, Tom Lines.

Oh geez Lu is this old chestnut still being trotted out??? Like you said Bradshaw's own family says it's not him. This is done and dusted.

It's right up there with the gifs of a 'mask' complete with 'white latex interior' than we can 'clearly' see. There is NOTHING in the MD footage that is 'clear', and that goes both for and against. We can see 'something' on top and moving on the subject's head but nothing is clear enough to show exactly what it is.

These nerks who claim it's 'clearly' a mask are just as bad as those they ridicule for claiming it's 'clearly' a baby.........they just don't realise what hypocrites they are being in the process.

Meldrum is criticized (rightly in my view) for seeing breasts or whatever but so also should the scoftics who see a mask.

By the way Lu, am I understanding your debate with Kitakaze (see I didn't call him Snitch) right? You are arguing that Gimlin was mounted when he came across Patty and when he was closest to her and for some time after that so that might have been the reason why he didn't think she was as large as Patterson thought seeing as Patterson was on the ground quite quickly after the initial encounter?? Kitakaze is arguing that Gimlin then dismounted so this would refute your argument? But how does it? Gimlin was still mounted at one point....when he was closest to the creature. The fact that he later dismounted is irrelevant. I don't believe you ever claimed that Bob Gimlin was mounted during every single second of the encounter. You simply said he was mounted, which is correct. You are not mistaken for saying he was mounted because he was mounted at some point. When Gimlin was dismounted the creature was much further away than the initial encounter.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nope. The trees were the trees in the log pile. The whole scenario took place in the middle of the Bluff Creek dried waterway. The only thing left after the summer was a stream. It was the central area and stream where the log pile was and where Patty was first encountered. It was in the middle of a clear area and not backed up against the forest.

Read Chris Murphy's book and look at the overhead shot taken by Dahinden. What you see in the background in the P/G footage is a forest that is in actual fact further away than it looks on the film.

Patty was at no point 'backed up against the forest'. She was however, right next to a bunch of downed trees at the log pile, and this is what is being refered to. The log pile/downed trees were in the middle of the dried Bluff Creek river/creek system right next to the stream that remained.

Disagree strongly. This is a complete reinterpretation of what Patterson said and what happened, imo. I have seen the overhead shot, as well. Patty was between the creek and the woods, with her back to the woods. Roger is talking about the woods. Patty's quickest cover was a 180 to the woods.

It still seems that Roger and Bob saw tracks recently in the area to me. Reading the accounts leads me to believe they saw tracks shortly before they shot the film.

Titmus was not able to find any tracks of Patty arriving, period. This heavy creature that leaves inches deep prints, prints deeper than a horse's hooves and much deeper than a human's feet....tracks so deep that big old BoB Titmus could not get anywhere near as deep jumping off a stump. Titmus merely invents a path which he thinks would have allowed Patty to arrive without leaving tracks to account for the problem of not being able to find out where Patty came from. There are no tracks of Patty crossing the creek onto the sandbar, anyway. Bob is just supposing. He found no evidence of the path he suggested.

This is a typical bigfoot trail, imo. It just starts and stops. Patty comes from nowhere, and goes nowhere.

*Note. Crossing the stream would also account for Patty's wet feet and the fact that the dirt and top soil stuck to the undersides of her wet feet as she walked off, like sand clings to our wet bare feet when we are on the beach.

This would stick to anyone with wet feet then as well, including the feet of a suit. If this soil is loose enough to cause blockfoot, then the flooding rains would have left no tracks, imo. Bark wouldn't help much in heavy rain anyway.

 

[LTC8K6]

Of course, this bigfoot conveniently avoids the "hard road" to leave some nice prints for us.

 

[LAL]

Bump. I was really hoping you'd address this post, Lu. It seems like you're quoting wikipedia against Meldrum which is, you know, kind of a new one.

I'm not. Where did you get that idea? Where do the accounts disagree?

All these supposed discrepancies show nothing but that there are discrepancies, due to reporter error, mistakes getting repeated, normal tricks of memory. They do not prove a hoax.

Of course, it's fun reading all the articles and interviews. I have Sanderson's book. Maybe it's time I read it. I'll let you all know if he corrected the time in the book.

 

[LTC8K6]

All these supposed discrepancies show nothing but that there are discrepancies, due to reporter error, mistakes getting repeated, normal tricks of memory.

Supposed discrepancies show that there are discrepancies?

Does a supposed bigfoot show that there is a bigfoot?

Many of the discrepancies are from Roger and Bob themselves from close to the event, though.

 

[LAL]

Of course, this bigfoot conveniently avoids the "hard road" to leave some nice prints for us.

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//TraSas1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//BesSas1.jpg[/qimg]

LTC, you really need to read the account by John Green (who was there- that's him in the photo) in The Apes Among us. He clearly states where those tracks went (there were three sets, BTW). I think I posted that, but you wouldn't have seen it.

The road was under construction. I'll have to check, but I don't know there was a "hard road" to begin with.

The Wallace family claimed the stride was achieved by pulling Ray and his feet behind a truck and one member even demonstrated for NG. Evidently they left out the part here he nearly killed himself in the attempt.

That must have been some other event, since these pictures clearly show there are no truck tire tracks in the proper places. A photo with Dahinden shows that even more clearly.

 

[LAL]

Many of the discrepancies are from Roger and Bob themselves from close to the event, though.

Sure. That's normal in an unexpected event. Haven't we discussed the experiment often done in colleges?

I've been interviewed by detectives and found myself unable to remember for sure what an armed robber was wearing, but was quite sure of the caliber of the gun he had on me. In one, another person present didn't even see the second gun. It was poking into my ribs as I tried to unjam the cash register.

Bob was focused on the animal, not on what was happening with Roger and his horse.

 

[LTC8K6]

Those tracks are clearly fake to me, Lu. They were clearly made by Ray Wallace's wooden feet. I don't think they were made by pulling anyone behind a truck.

I've seen the demonstration, and I wouldn't bother doing that. However, there need not be any tire tracks visible, imo. I can easily see how you could pull a man off to the side, like a water skier, keeping the vehicle on the road, and making bigfoot tracks on the side.

My guess is that the Wallace family didn't know how Ray made the tracks, and that idea was the best they could come up with.

Hey maybe Ray had a giant steel wheel with feet on it that he rolled along the roadway? Maybe he used a helicopter? How about a pogo stick, Lu? I know! A trained Kangaroo!

Let's come up with the hardest, most ridiculous ways for anyone to fake bigfoot tracks, and then laugh at the ideas.

How about a small pile driver with a fake foot on it?

 

[LTC8K6]

"Hard road" is not my term, Lu.

 

[kitakaze]

Fred Bradshaw was not at the scene. His own family says that's not his voice.
The voice Larry Lund says is Bradshaw's is that of the outfitter, Tom Lines.

Is that so? If so then my apologies for being mistaken. How was that established? Do you have any links that will help me get to the bottom of it?

Why do you think the MDF is legitmately a video of a real sasquatch? Is there some collective data that points to sasquatch and makes a man in a suit unreasonable? Does it move the way sasquatches are said to move or does it move like a man? Do you know of any information that points to a hoax or conversely rules one out?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....
Bob was focused on the animal, not on what was happening with Roger and his horse.

Says you .... And I'm sure that makes you feel better ..


That's not what Bob says ..

Green: But then Roger’s horse didn’t go down?

Gimlin: No. It didn’t fall down, just reared up is all.

Green: Because this has been said since [inaudible] …you know that Roger’s horse fell down…?

Gimlin: No, no his horse never did fall down. No.

Green: Okay, that’s interesting. So did he get the camera while he was still on the horse?

Gimlin: Yes, while he was stepping down off the horse. Umm, a lot of people have asked me about that and they probably don’t realize the agility that Roger had. He was a tremendous athlete. Roger had tremendous agility! He had been a rodeo rider, he did gymnastics and this wasn’t a full size horse Roger was riding either. It was a pony, a small horse.

What part of NO are you having a problem with ?

Gimlin says he was watching Roger and his horse .. Nothing about being focused on the creature ..

Are you calling Gimlin a liar ?



( LTC - feel free to use this to respond to Lu )

 

[William Parcher]

Diogenes:

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

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

An undefined statement in Chris Murphy's "History of the PGF" might allow for an explanation of this.

This task accomplished, they would then return to their campsite. Leaving their horses tethered at their campsite, the two men started out in their truck for a local airport, probably Murray Field in Arcata. On their way, they stopped at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek to talk to their friend, Al Hodgson. As it was after 6:00 p.m., however, the store was closed. Patterson therefore telephoned Hodgson at his home. Hodgson and other friends, including Sly McCoy, thereupon met with Patterson and Gimlin, presumably at Hodgson's store. Patterson and Gimlin then related their experience to their friends.

This leaves open the possibility that one of the "other friends" gathering at Hodgson's store was McClarin; or that any one of them decided to phone McClarin just after this impromptu meeting.

One interesting thing does stand out to me. Numerous folks immediately went into action and started various gears turning. Look again at how Sanderson sets up important agencies with the anticipation of a monumental bit of footage. Yet at this point, nobody has seen the film to know that it isn't a (what we now call) blobsquatch or an obvious hoax. It's as if everyone including Patterson had full confidence that a decent film of Bigfoot had just been obtained. Where did this optimistic confidence come from? I like to think that it was because nobody had already seen any footage of a Bigfoot, whether it look realistic, blobsquatchy or hoaxed. Patterson was the first to claim film footage of this creature. A hoaxer using a film camera was simply unheard of. Exactly what would all of these anxious Bigfooters have done if it turned out that Patty looked like nothing other than a dude in a costume?

The debut showing of the Patty footage was witnessed by Green, Dahinden & McClarin in DeAtley's basement (Oct. 22) with Patterson present (but not Gimlin). All of them were Bigfoot believers. None of them had ever seen a filmed Bigfoot encounter, because nothing like this existed. Try to imagine the implications if one or more of those guys sitting in the basement thought that Patty looked like a guy in a suit. Do you stand up from your chair and say "Roger, that looks like a costumed man. Are you trying to pull a hoax on us here?" What happens if somebody else says first that it's awesome and we now finally have footage of this elusive beast? Do you start an argument with them right there in that basement that it isn't really a Bigfoot? Do you look Patterson in the eye and ask him what kind of a fool he thinks you are? Did any of you even get the chance to see the funky popping "thigh hernia"?

No, none of this did, or even could happen. This basement viewing was a meeting of a 1967 Bigfoot belief cult group. You would have been a suicidal idiot to stand firm on any skepticism. Would the rest of them have ganged up on you and said you were acting like a scoftic? Would ostracism be the consequence of saying that your "fellow Bigfoot seeker" was a hoaxer? Nowadays that kind of skepticism results in being banned or driven out of believer forums. It's all cult behavior based on what and who you believe. The stage for modern Bigfootery as a cult was established in DeAtley's basement with the first showing of Patty. They believed.

It's a hell of a start,
It could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Bigfoot Train.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Is there some collective data that points to sasquatch and makes a man in a suit unreasonable?

One thing that makes NO sense whatsoever, if the subject's run across the hillside was intended to hoax the campers below.....is why did he have something flopping around on his back???

Was that supposed to make him appear more like a Sasquatch??

This one illogical aspect of the "hoax" is one reason to doubt that it was just a man-in-a-suit.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:


One thing that makes NO sense whatsoever, if the subject's run across the hillside was intended to hoax the campers below.....is why did he have something flopping around on his back???

Was that supposed to make him appear more like a Sasquatch??

This one illogical aspect of the "hoax" is one reason to doubt that it was just a man-in-a-suit.

Fair enough. Some questions. You're of the opinion that you think this is a video of a small mother sasquatch sprinting across a field with a baby on it's back, correct? This flopping around on the back, is it supposed to be visible throughout the video? Also, do you think you can see bouncing breasts?

Very importantly, do you find anything in this video to be incongruent with sasquatch as it's commonly described?

And since you are being good enough to discuss this with me, I'd like to try again and ask you a couple of non-MDF questions.

What is it about answering 'if the fingers bend what must we pretend?' that causes you to evade/avoid/ignore it?

Are you interested in starting a thread on your Mars claims?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This one illogical aspect of the "hoax" is one reason to doubt that it was just a man-in-a-suit.

Another question you have never answered ...

Who has ever claimed this event is a hoax ?

Who is claiming the subject has a backpack on ?

Whatever it is; there is absolutely no reason to believe is a young female Bigfoot with an infant on it's back ...

 

[LTC8K6]

One thing that makes NO sense whatsoever, if the subject's run across the hillside was intended to hoax the campers below.....is why did he have something flopping around on his back???

Wardrobe malfunction.

 

[kitakaze]

Another question you have never answered ...

Who has ever claimed this event is a hoax ?

Who is claiming the subject has a backpack on ?

Whatever it is; there is absolutely no reason to believe is a young female Bigfoot with an infant on it's back ...

Sweet Zombie Jesus! Thank you, Greg! Excellent point. Where the heck is my head at? That's what I get for spending so much time discussing bigfoot.

Sweaty, a revision:

Is there some collective data that indicates sasquatch while making a human subject unreasonable?

Greg, cheers.



Where is that frickin' forehead slapper smiley!?

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't like to use the 1992 Gimlin interview as it's sa far from the event, but this line from Gimlin seems very odd to me:

Green:So there wasn't sand to show footprints beyond where you saw it?
Gimlin:No, it was gravel mostly, but there was sand and dirt where it went across the creek, but it never left a footprint in the sand or in the dirt or soil. It did leave a wet mark on the rock in the creek where is went across and went on into the hills from there.

How can heavy Patty never have left a footprint there?

 

[LTC8K6]

Personally, I'd get a monkey doll and tie it's arms around my sasquatch's neck so it would look like she had a baby on board.

Why believers can't seem to think of how to hoax anything is beyond me.

It's not like there will be clear video or anything.

 

[kitakaze]

Meldrum is criticized (rightly in my view) for seeing breasts or whatever but so also should the scoftics who see a mask.

OK, we agree on the first point but on the second, setting aside for a moment ideas about ape masks or bigfoot costumes, why? Is there some reason that we should limit our options to sasquatch or person in suit perpetrating a hoax?

By the way Lu, am I understanding your debate with Kitakaze (see I didn't call him Snitch) right? You are arguing that Gimlin was mounted when he came across Patty and when he was closest to her and for some time after that so that might have been the reason why he didn't think she was as large as Patterson thought seeing as Patterson was on the ground quite quickly after the initial encounter?? Kitakaze is arguing that Gimlin then dismounted so this would refute your argument? But how does it? Gimlin was still mounted at one point....when he was closest to the creature. The fact that he later dismounted is irrelevant. I don't believe you ever claimed that Bob Gimlin was mounted during every single second of the encounter. You simply said he was mounted, which is correct. You are not mistaken for saying he was mounted because he was mounted at some point. When Gimlin was dismounted the creature was much further away than the initial encounter.

Well, thanks for addressing me as kitakaze, carcharodon. That's gotta count for something. So we're quite clear, I'm not at the moment interested in the issue as it pertains to size estimates. I'm interested in LAL answering directly the questions I asked. I'm not saying she's dodging or anything but if you go back and look at the exchange, you'll see that there's some important issues left unresolved. I'll point those out in a direct response to her.

I had some important questions for you, too, if you saw from the last time I responded to you. If you're interested in setting aside the bickering that we've equally been contributing to and addressing them I think that would be great.