• 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.
footprint.jpg
 
How big is that track on the right in the picture? The big toe looks to be approximately the size of the man's palm. The cast is the size of the man's torso. What other animal has a foot that size?
Click to expand...

How much would it have to weigh to sink into the soil a lot deeper than Roger or Bob or their horses? 3.5 inches in some cases...
 
Here's ole' Rog for comparison, casting Patty's tracks supposedly, and barely making a dent in the soil. Yet 9 days later after heavy rains and floods, Titmus is able to tell all about what Roger did.

We don't know if this is the actual event, or the rehearsals Roger also filmed.

2ndReelStills.jpg
 
LTC8K6 said:
How much would it have to weigh to sink into the soil a lot deeper than Roger or Bob or their horses? 3.5 inches in some cases...
Click to expand...

That is a mighty big foot...lots-o-surface area (surface area:weight ratio) to consider in terms of causing a 3.5" depression.

Are there any similar pictures that show the depth of depression that say a man causes in the same setting (as a Bigfoot track)?
 
Thanks William, I've heard of large tracks but that one appeared to be enormous. I didn't notice the casts are closer to the camera. So in essence this is the same sort of optical illusion created with the "monster hog" photos.
 
The cast photo that LTC just posted is even bigger. That one shows a 17" track with a size 14 shoe next to it. That is almost certainly not Patterson's shoe.
 
Locknar said:
That is a mighty big foot...lots-o-surface area (surface area:weight ratio) to consider in terms of causing a 3.5" depression.
Are there any similar pictures that show the depth of depression that say a man causes in the same setting (as a Bigfoot track)?
Click to expand...

Heh heh. Maybe 1,957 pounds (NASI estimate) is correct after all.

I saw something in the video of a Meldrum lecture that I had never before. At 3:07 he shows an uncropped version of the "famous Laverty photo". In the lower right it appears to show a boot print. This is presumably that of Laverty or one of his crew. It's very shallow. Apparently, Meldrum has access to the full image, but in print we only see a tight crop of the Patty mid-tarsal-break track.

Look
 
I just read (again) one of the silliest arguments that sometimes are exposed by those who claim Patty is a real bigfoot. The "its easy for an actor to perform as a gorilla but not as a bigfoot".

Whoever claims this is deeply misinformed or dishonest. Once again I ask everyone interested in PGF to take a look at http://www.gorillamen.com/. Its basically related to vintage gorilla suits and performers.

Those guys spent days observing gorillas at zoos. It was not (and still is not) just a matter of walking on all fours.
Here's an example of the reality:
http://www.gorillamen.com/index.php?/archives/12-CONFESSIONS-OF-A-HOLLYWOOD-GORILLA.html
Calvert studied simians in zoos and on film for six months, aping the apes, basing his characterization on Gargantua, Ringling Brothers' showpiece. He also used those six months to get in top shape to handle the Kong- sized costume, which weighed 85 pounds.
Click to expand...

I suggest anyone who really belives that its easy to perform as a gorilla to rent the "Movie Magic" DVDs with the episodes related to "Congo", "Greystoke" and "Gorillas in the Mist". The actors that performed the gorillas obseved real animals and trained for a long time with and without the suits, aided by experts in primate behavior.

To perform as an upright-walking ape, apeman, man-beast, whatever, is easier than to perform as a knuckle-walking gorilla.
Check these, for example, as evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIv5WfpTojs
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=sku8_fkFQyc

So, want to defend the "Patty is a bigfoot" position? OK, you are entitled to do so, but try using arguments that can withstand a minimal ammount of examination.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Heh heh. Maybe 1,957 pounds (NASI estimate) is correct after all.
Click to expand...

Well...if you round that to say 2K lbs....

Gorillias ae typically between 5'5" and 5'9" tall, 310 - 440lbs in weight
Humans (adult male) on average are 5'9" and weigh 190lbs
Andre the Giant was about 7' tall and weighed between 309 - 550lbs

(Wikipedia is the source for all)

Bigfoot is typically given to be between 7' - 10' tall, assuming this...about the same size as Andre the Giant yet roughly 4 times the weight/body mass?

Whlie hardly conclusive...something here just does not jive.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Wow... Look at this thing go, man.
Quite true. Next question:

Do you think sasquatches are as widespread as they're reported?

Also, by all means, ask me any question you like. Especially one that highlights what you think might be a flaw in being skeptical of bigfoot.
Click to expand...

I believe that there are some hoaxes, many misidentification's, and a percentage encounters that are the real thing. What that percentage might be, I dare not guess. I'm sure there are "staticans" out there that may be able study the sightings data and come close approximation.

Now, my question. How many sightings locations and witnesses have you personally investigated?
 
Diogenes said:
Let me guess? Patty is different from all other animals examined so far ...
Click to expand...

No, you are different from most people so far. And not for the best either. Twice you blatantly lie and make up things that I did not say in order to put me in a negative light, and you go on talking to me as if you've done nothing wrong??? Sorry that BS won't fly around here.

How about an honest admission and apology? Or is that beneath you?
 
http://americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2006_09_30_archive.html

Recently, when browsing through my files on the PG Film, I happened to notice that Forest Service timber-cruiser crew-chief Lyle Laverty was quoted as saying that he had been up Bluff Creek and gone past the filmsite just "days" before he had discovered the tracks, at which time they had not been there. An hour after I'd read that fact, I got a nudge from the back of my noggin that this quote had great significance, if it was accurate. I therefore e-mailed Mr. Laverty, who is currently the State Director for the Colorado State Parks system, and asked him:

"I recently read (but have mislaid my printout) that you said that you had come past the Patterson film site only days before you discovered the tracks there on Oct. 21 [see note below], and that there were no tracks there then. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would confirm (or disconfirm) that you said that, and give me an estimate of how many days prior to Oct. 21 that might have been."

(I now know that Laverty actually photographed the tracks on Monday Oct. 23--the next workday--based on his statement to that effect to Jeff Meldrum, quoted in Bigfoot Times, June/July 2005, p. 4, col. 2.)

On July 6, 2006 he responded, "As near as I can recall, I passed by the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th [presumably before 1:30]. I was part of a timber sale preparation crew working in Bluff Creek the entire summer. We operated out of a portable camp at Notice Creek during the week and returned to Orleans on the weekends."
Click to expand...
 
Luminous said:
I believe that there are some hoaxes, many misidentification's, and a percentage encounters that are the real thing. What that percentage might be, I dare not guess. I'm sure there are "staticans" out there that may be able study the sightings data and come close approximation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for addressing the question. Maybe I should have worded my question more clearly but when I asked 'do you think sasquatches are as widespread as reported?' I didn't mean it as 'what's your take on sightings as a collective body of evidence?' What I mean to ask is that sasquatch encounters are reported all across the NA continent from Alaska to Iowa to New York to Florida. Great White North to Deep South. Rainforest, arctic, desert, swamp, farmland, etc. Do you think that bigfoot inhabits ranges all across the continent?
Now, my question. How many sightings locations and witnesses have you personally investigated?
Click to expand...
Aha! You're going to like this. I was a witness to what I at the time was convinced was a close personal encounter with at least one sasquatch. I'm not going to go into great detail but several years ago while camping with a couple friends in a very remote part of the west coast of Vancouver Island where I grew up I found what appeared to be the clear tracks of a parent and infant sasquatch in the mud by a pond next to a river in the deep forest. Later that night while the three of us were in our tent we heard a cry from across the valley that was then answered very close to our tent. We then had an audio encounter in our immediate proximity with what at the time I could only attribute to a sasquatch. It was an intensely visceral experience to say the least. Nevertheless, in hindsight there are a number of factors that I must consider that make me unable to hold that experience as a genuine encounter. If I had stuck my head out of the tent maybe my feelings would be different. Maybe I wouldn't have a head, maybe I would have seen a large bear, maybe a sasquatch, maybe a bat$#!% crazy potgrower trying to scare us out of the area. Who knows. The point is that it was not reliable evidence for sasquatch. I couldn't reliably exclude a source other than an 8ft hairy bipedal primate. So I'm left to examine the same body of evidence you are and like it or no, not in one case is there a claim where something mundane can reliably be excluded.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom