Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

May I suggest, those interested, start a new thread about a shapeshifting Bigfoot.

This thread is about the PGF..

Thank You

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Patterson had the creativity and skills to do just about anything. He could have applied a variety of methods to crafting his fake Bigfoot tracks. When you look at the two displayed casts you notice an amazing precision and preserved form. The toes are gem-quality, showing no distortion and are even formed in high relief (the sides of the toes are preserved in addition to the bottom).

No real foot makes prints like that when walking ( see cast in photo I just posted )...

Just the presentation of such a cast, as a print of the subject in the film, is all it should take to satisfy anyone the whole thing is a hoax..

 

[Drewbot]

1. While it may be a scale model of Rogerfoot, Pattyfoot had dermal ridges, did it not? Therefore, how can you prove that Rogerfoot came from Roger's foot without proper dermal imprints? Does anyone have a record of Roger's footprint for verification?

2. This whole argument about dermal ridges and how the prints were made is moot, since the Patty had no Achilles tendon biology in which to place any pressure on his toes/balls of feet area anyway. The print should just be a heel tapering up to the middle of the foot and then nothing. Without the achilles tendon biology, Patty's foot would just have to stomp straight down, and lift straight up, then slap/stomp back down again... wait a minute... is this the source of the 'inhuman gait'???

 

[William Parcher]

There were no dermals associated with the Patty casts made by either Patterson or Titmus.

What's this about Patty not having an achille's tendon? Meldrum shows it in his foot drawing.

 

[Drewbot]

Right, I posed that question on the BFF.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18482&view=findpost&p=387006

Meldrums drawing looks nothing like the foot I see in PGF

The Achilles should curve into the heel of the beast, but instead it terminates somewhere a few inches from the heel. from http://siri.uvm.edu/ppt/footprotect/sld006.htm

Which is why I chose to use feet shaped like this in my very own original Paint drawing of the fake foot used to make Mid-Tarsal Breaks.

 

[William Parcher]

I think Patterson did not have a zoom lens. However, in the clips we see of the horseback riding show, a zoom appears to be in use. We just don't know. If Patterson had a zoom lens, he apparently did not use it for Patty's debut.

It seems most likely that he did not rent this camera with a zoom lens. That kind of lens would have probably been exotic and expensive. I don't think the K100 zoomed in on Roger in that first scene. I think it was a post-development zoom. We see this happen later in the clip during the Patty walk. The clip freezes Patty in stop action and then zooms in on her image. That is a post-development production stop and zoom. The question I have is; were those effects done by Patterson, ANE, Mysterious Monsters producers, or who?

 

[Correa Neto]

Quick nitpick question:

We're talking about zoom or telephoto objectives?

The camera at Diogenes' post seems to have interchangeable telephoto objectives instead of zoom, but I may be wrong. A zoom objective would cause a gradual increase (or decrease) in the subject's size while a telephoto would cause a sudden size increase (or decrease).

 

[historian]

tube, I have already color enhanced and everything else, on my invisible bigfoot pictures, and came up with zip. That one was at about 25 yards away, at night and in a clear cut.

 

[bruto]

Quick nitpick question:

We're talking about zoom or telephoto objectives?

The camera at Diogenes' post seems to have interchangeable telephoto objectives instead of zoom, but I may be wrong. A zoom objective would cause a gradual increase (or decrease) in the subject's size while a telephoto would cause a sudden size increase (or decrease).

As I understand it, the turret with multiple lenses was an option with the K100, as it was with many other movie cameras of the time, when zooms were still pretty exotic and expensive (and also, as even now, had relatively smaller maximum apertures). So one could get the camera with a single lens of fixed focal length, a single zoom, or a turret. The ones seen in the links are turret models, but (again, I can't find the reference off hand now) I believe Patterson is said to have rented a single lens version, which would make some sense if he intended to pack it into rough country and shoot hand-held.

It would also make sense, of course, if he had a pretty good idea of where his quarry could be expected to show up, but that is admittedly a somewhat cynical stretch!

 

[RayG]

tube, I have already color enhanced and everything else, on my invisible bigfoot pictures, and came up with zip.

How do you know you got pictures of an invisible bigfoot if he was invisible? I'm not following the logic.

Speaking of invisibility:

According to the laws of physics as presently understood, a perfectly invisible person would necessarily be blind, no matter how their invisibility were achieved. In order to see light, it must be absorbed by the retina, but in order for a person to be invisible, the body must not absorb light.

Please explain how bigfoot is able to manipulate the laws of physics.

RayG

 

[historian]

Ray, I believe you have a bad source. Physics books don't explain invisibility, because it is explained in the book X3 by Adrian Dvir. It's closest match is superstring theory. Physicists 35 years ago, knew all about the invisible Bigfoot, but failed to put it in publicly available books. So they have and still are playing games. What makes better sense is "in order for a person to be invisible, the body must not reflect any light and actually appear to be clear." Bigfoot can see just fine, either in the dark or while invisible. From my field experience.

How do I know I have pictures of an invisible Bigfoot?
Because this particular subject was doing loud power exhaling and slowly working it's way across the clearcut, pausing only in it's slow walk to change directions and move directly at me. Presumeably to see if he or she could run me off. It lasted for about 5 minutes. I obviously cannot positively identify it, but it was responding to a Bigfoot siren call, sounding like other presumeable Bigfoot from previous experiences and there appeared to be other Bigfoot audio activity in the immediate vicinity. I also had a Bigfoot orb in my face, just prior to the commencement of this audio display. And it was a fresh area. Bigfoot cannot usually be tricked to respond in this manner, at locations where they have been called in previously. They are fast learners.

 

[LTC8K6]

Even if a lion were invisible, we would see the effcts of it's passing through the environment. We'd see the grass move, the dirt move, it's breath being exhaled on a cold day, dust kicked up, etc.

It would be the same for bigfoot. Even standing still, you'd see the grass crushed in the shape of sasquatch feet, or the dirt pressed down the same way.

Once you know that you are specifically looking for an invisible lion or an invisible bigfoot, the invisibility loses a lot of it's effectiveness.

Just carry a paintball gun and shoot where you see evidence of an invisible animal.

Just use IR detectors as well. Being invisible won't cool an animal off any.

Carry a super soaker full of paint.

Try alternate light sources and wavelengths.

In fact, these days, being invisible probably won't work to hide you anywhere near as well as people seem to think it would. As soon as people realize what they are dealing with, it's game over. There are all sorts of ways to see an invisible being.

 

[manofthesea]

I Apologise For the Distraction

I really enjoy the 'fun' side of bigfoot conversations, thanx Historian.

I have a legitimate question regarding the PGF. Could the missing footage from the first reel be the 'documentary' effort? Seeing BG in his native attire has really put the issue of the events prior to filming Patty in the forefront, to me.

Two possible reasons they left Yakima and went down to California:
1) Bigfeet migrate south during the winter, or
2) You could get shot pulling a stunt like that in Washington.

 

[manofthesea]

Someone say my name?

Ask the same question about the conventional Bigfoot. How and why would natural selection 'create' a creature with the physiology and behavior of a Bigfoot? Why gigantism instead of dwarfism? Why all the extreme avoidance and Ninja-quality evasive behavior? Why do they treat us like we are brutal killers or carry the plague when we never bring harm to them? Why don't enraged male Bigfoots or protective mothers occasionally rip humans to shreds?

The flesh-and-blood Bigfoot hardly makes much more sense than the invisible one. Take your pick.

1) I bleev gigantism and dwarfism are related to the species natural environment. Like li'lfoot (florens man) was isolated on an island, whereas bigfoot has the whole North American continent and his size would be relative to other wooly type NA mammals. Ie. the mastadon.
2) Avoidance would be a learnt trait, precisely because we carry the 'plague'.
And many other nasty diseases. I don't know how good sasquatch healers are, but I doubt they can handle TB etc.
3) Who's to say bigfeet aren't enraged towards humans. Do hikers and hunters regularly disappear from the face of the earth? Or is something sinister happening to these people?

This post is completely sincere, sorry guys.

 

[Correa Neto]

1) I bleev gigantism and dwarfism are related to the species natural environment. Like li'lfoot (florens man) was isolated on an island, whereas bigfoot has the whole North American continent and his size would be relative to other wooly type NA mammals. Ie. the mastadon.

Its more complicated. First of all, you have to define "gigantism", for example. Would you consider mastodons as giants? If the answer is yes, then I pose the following questions: Why? Are elephants giants also? Why? Are capibaras giants? Why?

Large sizes can be attained in the absence of competition and in the absence of predation. In some cases even in islands. As examples, I offer Amblyrhiza Inundata and the komodo dragon.

Large sizes are quite often associated with adaptation to a restrict set of conditions- an elevated level of specialization. This fact quite probably is in direct contradiction with the commonly accepted speculation that bigfeet (assuming they are real) are generalistic creatures. Large sizes and elevated specialization levels also render a species more vulnerable to environmental changes and eventually extinction. Here we have some extra issues when it comes to the plausiblity of the creature.

2) Avoidance would be a learnt trait, precisely because we carry the 'plague'.
And many other nasty diseases. I don't know how good sasquatch healers are, but I doubt they can handle TB etc.

Bigfoot healers? This implies a bigfoot culture! If its already hard for me to see some plausibility on the idea of small groups of these animals wandering undetected across North America, imagining these groups, with culture, leaving no trace is even harder...

This put, interspecies disease transmission is tricky, very tricky... Some cross the barrier, some do not. Not to mention that you are supposing that we transmit some diseases to the animals, but the opposite path seems to have been forgotten.

The most implausible issue with this idea is that there are sighting reports at areas that are not exactly the PNW's savage unreachable wildernesses...

3) Who's to say bigfeet aren't enraged towards humans. Do hikers and hunters regularly disappear from the face of the earth? Or is something sinister happening to these people?

So what? People disappear at cities too! Some cryptocritters are responsible?

Have you ever considered the many causes for the disappearance of people in the wildernesses? There are so many already that adding such an extraordinary new one is not needed at all. And what are the actual numbers? Is there a match with the areas with a higher ammount of (supposed) bigfoot ativity?

This post is completely sincere, sorry guys.

Mine was sincere, too...

 

[Drewbot]

Critical problem with PGF

1. The bigfoot guru Meldrum proclaims on his website http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html that this is a representation of Patty's foot.


2. The actual foot in PGF as shown here, lacks achilles tendon biology as described by the Leading bigfoot researcher, (from the scientific community)in the United States.



Why would they put this photo up in support of the PGF being real? Carelessness? Hoping we wouldn't notice? Other?

 

[William Parcher]

No real foot makes prints like that when walking ( see cast in photo I just posted )... Just the presentation of such a cast, as a print of the subject in the film, is all it should take to satisfy anyone the whole thing is a hoax..

I'm imagining an interesting scenario. Pretend that the PGF never happened and we never had any Patty casts. But we do still have all of the other Bigfoot casts. Now pretend that somebody in the present day claimed to find a Bigfoot trackway on a creek sandbar in northern California. He casts a few tracks and they look just like the ones Roger displays from Patty. He even videotapes a cast pouring scene and shows a few of the tracks - just like the PGF. There is nothing about his story or his character that would suggest a hoaxer. Now how would Bigfooters and BF skeptics react to these casts? Would they be declared likely fakes because they are so precise with no distortion whatsoever? Is there anything else about them that looks phony? Would many Bigfooters champion these casts and declare them the newest and possibly most important Bigfoot evidence?

 

[RayG]

The actual foot in PGF as shown here, lacks achilles tendon biology as described by the Leading bigfoot researcher, (from the scientific community)in the United States.

But you're comparing apples and oranges. The Skookum cast is an apple, and Patty is an orange.

Just because one bigfoot has a pronounced achilles tendon doesn't mean they all do.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Just because one bigfoot has a pronounced achilles tendon doesn't mean they all do.

Some of them have tendons like elk...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Drew,
I think Correa Neto addressed this a while back.. I'll try to dig up the relevant posts..
He showed how the mechanics of such a foot would be very inefficient .

As far as your choices.. I would go with ' Hoping we wouldn't notice? ' ...

It's made up ..
There was an anthropologist on a DiscoveryChannel episode of ' Best Evidence ' who said the mid-tarsal-bend and a human-like big toe on the same foot, just didn't make sense.


When you don't have the actual foot, to prove it one way or another, you can make stuff up, and get away with it in some circles...

Also, we might ask what's with the thickness of the pad on that Bigfoot foot ?