• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
WP, does anyone actually claim to have seen the stomp test footage?

Doesn't Murphy say that only one roll was shipped to DeAtley?

Only the 24 feet with Patty was shown that Sunday according to Murphy. I think we have already talked about the possibility of the film already being cut down to just that 24 feet.

The other roll was not finished and would still have been in the camera, wouldn't it?

Unless the second roll ran out too, or Roger developed it early, it might have been in the camera for a while for all we know.

I don't recall mention of the second roll running out.
 
Does Patty ever walk near enough to a stump for Gimlin's claim to be valid?

A 3 or 4 foot stump that Gimlin can jump off of and get his boot marks close enough to the trackway to compare and film?

She'd pretty much have to walk right by one, I'd think.

In the 1992 interview Green talks about the track footage being missing.
 
Last edited:
I have asked Rick Noll if Green's copy was more than ~ 23 feet .. ( the Patty footage )
He ignored me .. Why such a big deal ?

I also asked if Greens copy ( the source for LMS ) is zoomed like we see in LMS ..
Again, he refused to comment ..

Beckjord acknowledges his copy is ~ 23 feet ..


Footers claim ' it doesn't matter what the rest of the reel shows ' ...

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight ...
 
My question is. You are referring to the original as being 23 feet long, but I think the true original is 100ft long. I think the edited original is 23 feet long, but Isn't it standard practice to keep an unedited copy of any film before it goes to editing? Otherwise the deleted scenes are lost forever. So if this is the case, then there are 77' of deleted scenes. Are any of the scenes we have seen, such as the riding scene, from those deleted scenes or are we sure they are from another roll?
 
WP, does anyone actually claim to have seen the stomp test footage?

I thought so, but I could be wrong. Murphy wrote this:

The men then returned to the film site and examined the path the creature had taken along the sandbar. They observed and filmed (on the second film roll) the creature's footprints in the soil and later made plaster casts of the left and right foot. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured 14.5-inches long by 6-inches wide. Gimlin jumped off a stump to see how far his footprints would sink into the soil in comparison with the creature's prints. The results were that the creature's foot prints were deeper. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment together with footage of horse prints alongside the creature's prints, and the mens' cast-making activities.

Doesn't Murphy say that only one roll was shipped to DeAtley

Yes.

Only the 24 feet with Patty was shown that Sunday according to Murphy. I think we have already talked about the possibility of the film already being cut down to just that 24 feet.

Or the reel was loaded into the projector so that it would start at the 76' point (showing only the remaining 24').

The other roll was not finished and would still have been in the camera, wouldn't it?

Who knows? We only have what Murphy and Green say.

Unless the second roll ran out too, or Roger developed it early, it might have been in the camera for a while for all we know.

The first roll may have sat in the camera for a while. If the first roll contained both Washington riding scenes and the Patty walk it could have sat in there for months. But if the first roll was actually a complete 100' unexposed roll... then there is 76' filmed around Bluff Creek that is not fully accounted for. We are told that this is all riding and scenery, but I can only account for less than 15 seconds of that. It's the (Mysterious Monsters) scene of Roger leading a packhorse through what appears to be Bluff Creek and lasts about 14 seconds.

I don't recall mention of the second roll running out.

Right.

Does Patty ever walk near enough to a stump for Gimlin's claim to be valid? She'd pretty much have to walk right by one, I'd think.

You are asking this because Gimlin said he jumped off a stump to do the stomp test?
 
Patterson and Al DeAtley both lived in Yakima and Patterson mailed the film to him? Why not personally deliver the gold nugget worth millions to DeAtley when you get back to Yakima to avoid loss or damage by sending it by mail?

This may be explained in Murphy's History of the PGF:

Patterson was eager to get his film of the creature developed to ensure that he had in fact caught the creature on the film. On this point, Gimlin has stated, "We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sandbar and getting up and running...we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on the film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything." They therefore decided to airship the film to Al De Atley, Patterson's brother-in-law in Yakima, for immediate processing. It appears the mens' plan was to wait for word from De Atley as to what, if anything, was on the film. This information would dictate their next move. In other words, if they had not captured the creature on film, they would stay longer and try again. The men decided they would both travel to the airport to make the shipment. 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. Also, during this time Patterson telephone Al De Atley to inform him of the pending film shipment. Patterson shipped the film to the Seattle, Washington airport for pick-up by De Atley the next day.

Patterson and Gimlin then headed out to an air shipping facility and shipped the film to Al De Atley. As far as we know, only one film roll was shipped to De Atley. It is reasonable to assume Patterson still had the second roll in his camera with sufficient unexposed film for a possible second sighting. The two men then contacted a reporter for The Times-Standard newspaper at Eureka, to whom they related their experience in considerable detail. It is not known if this was a telephone contact or a personal contact. We do know, however, that it took place at about 9:30 p.m. The article appeared in the newspaper the following day, October 21, 1967. The men then immediately headed back to their campsite. By the time they arrived, bad weather was closing-in. By about midnight, it was raining heavily.

In the meantime, at Patterson's request, Al Hodgson telephoned Dr. Don Abbott of the British Columbia Museum of Anthropology and asked him to come down to the film site with tracking dogs. Abbott, however, declined stating that he would wait to see the film. After talking with Hodgson, Abbott informed John Green of events. Abbott also telephoned Al De Atley and requested that the film be brought to Vancouver, B.C., for viewing by scientists at the University of British Columbia. De Atley promised he would discuss Abbott's request with Patterson.

Back at the campsite, weather conditions had gone from bad to worse. Fearing a possible landslide on the Bluff Creek road, Patterson and Gimlin decided to get out of the area. They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.

According to Murphy, Roger wanted DeAtley to see if the film was good before he left Bluff Creek. We are led to assume that he ditched that plan when it started pouring rain.
 
WP, does anyone actually claim to have seen the stomp test footage?

Roger Knights says the ' second roll ' was seen in Vancouver within a week of the filming,....

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15846&view=findpost&p=423757

In this Post

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20056&view=findpost&p=408918

Knights quotes murphy as saying :

THE SECOND FILM ROLL was definitely shown at UBC [Univ. of British Columbia] on October 26, 1967.
Thats just 5 days later ..


Of course, I pointed out, that nothing has been done to establish when any of the film was shot, not even the Patty footage.

So, the roll numbering is meaningless ..
 
WP, does anyone actually claim to have seen the stomp test footage?

Green interviews Gimlin said:
Green: That movie that you took, comparing the depths of the tracks, that would be the one that you showed at the University of British Columbia?

Gimlin: Yes. That is the one shown in British Columbia.

Green saw the stomp test scene during the showing in BC.
 
I have asked Rick Noll if Green's copy was more than ~ 23 feet .. ( the Patty footage )

If the Patty walk is no more than 23', then Green does have more than 23'. Noll mentioned on BFF that Green has at least one riding scene. Add that to the 23' feet, and add even more if Green has the stomp test, plaster pour and cast display.

He ignored me .. Why such a big deal ?

LOL. Noll knows that you are a strong PGF skeptic. Nothing good can come from providing you with any information that has not already been given. You just use it to discredit the film.

Beckjord acknowledges his copy is ~ 23 feet ..

Then Green got more film than he did.
 
Dahinden was at UBC and he says the second roll was not shown.

Whether or not the second film roll was shown at these sessions is not clear. John Green, who was present, states this roll was shown; Rene Dahinden, also present, says it was not shown. Unfortunately, this roll vanished in the early 1970s.

Green asked Gimlin that question to win the argument with Dahinden, imo.
Green was just propping up the PGF by getting Gimlin to say the second roll was shown, imo.

Do any of the scientists who viewed the film at UBC make any remarks about the tracks, their depth, or how difficult it would be to fake such tracks?

Green says the film of the tracks was missing when he got the film, doesn't he?

But you know Rene Dahinden and I were the first people to make a deal for the use of the film itself. Al brought to Seattle the film of the creature and a great deal of footage that Roger had taken of the waterfalls and trees and various thing like that. The footprint film was supposed to be there but it wasn't.

Apparently Al DeAtley never saw any stomp test footage either...

Of course I asked Al de Atley about it and he denied having it and denied it ever existed.
 
welcome To That Last Sanctuary For Internet Predators Who Are Living In Denial Of Anything And Everything That Is Bigfoot Related. I Hope You Enjoy Your Stay. Come Back Soon.
 
The primate experts would have been very interested in all aspects of the tracks, and would have remarked about them if they'd seen film of them, imo.

Napier claims that he could not even see Patty's feet, which means he was shown a short clip.
 
No mention of filming Gimlin jumping off a stump to get a weight estimate in the Nov 67 radio interview, even though they talk about her weight and the depth of the tracks.

B: And she was heavy, although I had no way of estimating her weight at that time, and only guessed at it since then, but she turned and she stood there for an instant then she turned and started up over this bar .

Why didn't Gimlin mention the filming of the stomp test right then?

W: Now, okay, so you then gave up . you took the plaster tracks . How deep were these tracks by the way, in inches? . Inch and a quarter or .

B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil. These particular ones we took here were, weren't quite so deep because they were flatter tracks.

W: Alright now, many of the zoologists that were people you consulted, have they given you any idea of the weight of this creature? The height or the weight?

B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches.

Again, no mention that they did estimate the weight of Patty themselves with a test and they filmed the test as proof of that weight.

This is not long after the incident, and they are talking about the weight of Patty and the track depth, but they say nothing about the stomp test.
 
I wonder what a person would have seen and heard if they attended this...
 

Attachments

  • PGF ad.jpg
    PGF ad.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 23
I wonder what a person would have seen and heard if they attended this...

Oh, that's interesting.

IN FULL COLOR & SOUND

Makes it seem like there was sound on the PGF. I'm pretty sure that's not right and they're referring to some sort of narration added. Although, given the track record of bigfooters, I wouldn't be surprised if one came forward with digital enhancements of the soundtrack from Roger's camera.
 
What if the track casting and the stomp test, were performed next to fabricated prints, and were on the reel, BEFORE the patty scene? Then they had to edit them out, and either discard them, or put them at the end of the Patty sequence. From all viewers I've heard from, there is not a stomp scene.
 
Here is a segment from MonsterQuest - Bigfoot. From that link you can see the whole program.

Go to 5:03. Owen Caddy is showing Daris Swindler an animated clip from the PGF that is supposed to show a moving mouth. It doesn't. Caddy appeals to pareidolia in a grainy and altered enlargement and wants you to see a moving mouth.

But I want you to watch the ear instead. Ignore the mouth and watch what the right ear does. It dramatically changes shape and position. It might even be flapping like Dumbo.

Them Bigfooters sure do come up with some great stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom