• 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.
I know that this forum is made up mostly of "septics", but I have a simple question regarding Patty. (Beside being a hairy, dopey guy/chick) What species is Patty presumed to be?
 
manofthesea said:
I know that this forum is made up mostly of "septics", but I have a simple question regarding Patty. (Beside being a hairy, dopey guy/chick) What species is Patty presumed to be?
Click to expand...
Did he... just... YES! He did. He did the "septic" thing. Man, that stings but boy, was it clever!

Good one, MOTS.:D
 
Patty's species?

Homo sapiens sapiens

Or perhaps Homo sapiens scammeris...

Or Bigfootuus fraudulentuus or Makebeliveris sasquatchiis or Gigantopithecus hoaxericus or Blokeinanapesuit fooledyou.
 
Diogenes, if that map you posted is accurate, and the camera view is NW (exactly?), then this should be enough to determine Patty's direction of travel. There is only one sun configuration where the shadows of trees 1 and 3 intersect the trackway as shown. The angle that the trees make is easy to determine given the distances between them (if accurate). We should be able to construct an overhead view with the trackway overlaid where it intersects the shadows. The distance Patty travelled between the shadows looks like about one step. The frame numbers would confirm this.

Mangler, does the top of the map show a compass heading or is NW an approximation? An exact heading can give us a track angle relative to North (noon).
 
Last edited:
The lat and long are given as:

41N 26.301' 123W 42.357'

Here is another map that supposedly shows compass orientation, but doesn't have the trees drawn in ..

map.bmp


Maybe Mangler can orient them for us..
 
RayG said:
He did? I thought that was John Green?

RayG
Click to expand...

You're right, it was Green. My memory distorted his "I guess he wanted two Sasquatch films" comment about Green into Green referring to Dahinden. Here's another quote on the matter:

"Most of the hunters were saying for publication that Marx had the genuine article. Rene conceded reluctantly that such might be the case, more from a desire to believe Marx's wife, whom he respected and liked and who was confirming her husband's story, than from conviction. John Green arrived and wasted no time in declaring the film authentic."
Click to expand...

So it looks like that despite his reluctance, he was willing to say that it could be real based solely on his opinion of Peggy Marx. Still, that's not quite the same as what I thought/said he did.

Also, this page has some more Marx madness.
 
Rene conceded reluctantly that such might be the case, more from a desire to believe Marx's wife, whom he respected and liked and who was confirming her husband's story, than from conviction.
Click to expand...

Sounds like after the fact rationalization of a mistaken belief in the Marx film to me.

Besides, what kind of investigator abandons his common sense like that?
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
While I'm sure your musings are very interesting, I was wondering, Sweaty, if you might be so kind as to share with us your thinking as to why an un-suited Bob Heironimus is shown riding on his horse, Chico, with Patterson in the PGF. You remember that, right?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3007211#post3007211
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea why Bob Heironimus apparantly was in the 2nd reel of film.
Is there any significance to that fact...if he actually was in it?


The fact of the matter is.....Bob H. was definitely not the "guy-in-the-suit". That can be ruled out well beyond a shadow of a doubt...because he said that he wore a helmet of some kind.
The sharply-sloped (from all sides) forehead of Patty barely allows space for a human head, if at all.....let alone a human head with a helmet on.

While some things can be attributed to "bad memory"....Bob couldn't have falsely remembered wearing a helmet if he hadn't actually worn one in the suit....so, therefore, since he said he did.....he is lying about being in the "suit".....plain and simple.
 
How do you know it's the second reel, though?

I have never heard anyone say anything about such scenes being on the second reel. The scenes of horseback riding are always described as being filmed before Patty, aren't they? The second reel is always described as showing the trackway, the castings being made, and the experiments with track depths, as far as I know.

We are only talking about 3-4 minutes of film per reel here. It doesn't seem like there can be much room on the second reel for anything more than the trackway, the castings, and the depth experiments.

So, if you know that it is the second reel, how do you know?

The colorful shots of Bluff Creek have got to be the first reel, I'd think.
 
That is a worthless counter-argument to BH's claim. You still haven't presented graphic proof of your "head won't fit" idea.

This has already been explained to you, but your own head won't accomodate reality. The inside of the headpiece reminded BH of an old-style football helmet. This is a thick leather cap and something like that must have been used by Roger. Don't think hard plastic shell - think leather padding. It probably gave structural rigidity to the head, unlike the floppy latex heads of cheap Halloween costumes. Bob said that his own eyes were at least an inch (I think he said inch or two) from the eye holes in the mask. This puts his whole head at a rearward bias inside the costume head. Presumably Bob's nose, cheeks, mouth & chin are also this distance from those features on the mask. You cannot proceed with trying to evaluate the "head fit" if you think that his own face was flush with the face of the mask. Someone could do a cut-away graphic that shows Patty's head with Bob's own head inside. His head only occupies a portion of the internal "volume" of the costume head. There is none of Bob's own head inside of that saggital crest dome thing.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I have never heard anyone say anything about such scenes being on the second reel. The scenes of horseback riding are always described as being filmed before Patty, aren't they? The second reel is always described as showing the trackway, the castings being made, and the experiments with track depths, as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Many would now say that the cast display scene must also be from the second reel.

We are only talking about 3-4 minutes of film per reel here. It doesn't seem like there can be much room on the second reel for anything more than the trackway, the castings, and the depth experiments.
Click to expand...

But those scenes only last for a few seconds (as we see them on the Mysterious Monsters clip, etc). We know practically nothing about the stomp depth test scene, but the others don't account for more than about 15 seconds. The same is true for the horseback scenes. They total no more than about 15 seconds. If each 100 foot reel represents 3-4 minutes of filming - then there is quite a bit of the first reel that we are not seeing. But the second reel is a different story because Roger didn't say he used it all up. He may have filmed for less than a minute on the second reel.

The colorful shots of Bluff Creek have got to be the first reel, I'd think.
Click to expand...

We are presuming that is true. The scene of solo Roger on horseback pulling a packhorse does appear to be in the same type of setting as Patty. It looks like a washed-out area of Bluff Creek itself. It could even be the same general area that they filmed Patty.
 
Well, we've only seen a few seconds. I'm thinking of how long it would take to film the trackway, the casting, the depth shots, etc. Given that Gimlin had to be operating the camera some of the time, and given a mistake or two, I can easily see a whole reel being used up.

Now we know that there were 4,000 frames per 100 foot reel and:

4,000 frames at 16fps = 4 minutes and 10 seconds
4,000 frames at 24fps = 2 minutes and 46 seconds

We now know there was no 18fps setting from the pictures and docs about the camera.
I just found some great shots of the camera which show that it did have a tripod socket.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Cine-Kodak-K-10...oryZ4691QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
 
William Parcher said:
That is a worthless counter-argument to BH's claim. You still haven't presented graphic proof of your "head won't fit" idea.

This has already been explained to you, but your own head won't accomodate reality. The inside of the headpiece reminded BH of an old-style football helmet. This is a thick leather cap and something like that must have been used by Roger. Don't think hard plastic shell - think leather padding. It probably gave structural rigidity to the head, unlike the floppy latex heads of cheap Halloween costumes. Bob said that his own eyes were at least an inch (I think he said inch or two) from the eye holes in the mask. This puts his whole head at a rearward bias inside the costume head. Presumably Bob's nose, cheeks, mouth & chin are also this distance from those features on the mask. You cannot proceed with trying to evaluate the "head fit" if you think that his own face was flush with the face of the mask. Someone could do a cut-away graphic that shows Patty's head with Bob's own head inside. His head only occupies a portion of the internal "volume" of the costume head. There is none of Bob's own head inside of that saggital crest dome thing.
Click to expand...

Here is a human-proportioned head inside Patty's...

PGside3.jpg


Since the human eye-socket is centered vertically in the skull...I started by placing a dot where the eye is, and then placed equally-spaced red dots at the top and the bottom of the skull....to get the maximum size of a humanly-proportioned head that could fit inside Patty's.
It's a good percentage smaller than the overall size of Patty's head.

If you put an old-style leather helmet on it....the head would have to be even smaller to fit inside.

The sharp angle of Patty's head, from a frontal view...

patty3d.jpg



Sorry....but Bob's story is, well......crap.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom