Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Geno]

Dfoot, I'm enjoying your postings on BFF and watching the mosh pit in progress. I have never before seen some of the stills that you posted today, nor the source of those stills. I've posted your 'stack of still frames' below. I'm again intrigued by the identification of riders and their horses.



How do you know who is Patterson and who is Gimlin? I believe we have established that the guy riding to the left in the 3rd frame is Roger 'riding up to a stop'. These stills are not very clear, but the guy and the horse in the 1st frame looks a lot like the guy in the 5th frame. Is that Gimlin?

[qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=28214[/qimg]

The stills shown here are from John Green's copy that he showed for the X Creatures BBC show. The flipped scene is there so John did not get a copy of the unedited orginal. As far as I know Green only has one copy of the film.

 

[William Parcher]

The claim is being made that Green's copy does not have flipped scenes, and that X Creatures BBC must have flipped them. That can only be properly resolved with a public examination of Green's copy. Not a copy of that, but the actual reel that Patterson handed to Green.

The flipped scenes are one of at least two issues. The other is the apparent edits or camera stops during the actual Patty walk. More than one person has found three instances of this. Roger said he never stopped filming until that reel ran out. Maybe that is true, but something happened to that film (during her walk scene) and there are people who would like to work towards an understanding of that. Actually examining Green's copy would seem to help if it was done in a forensic sort of way.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let me know what you think about the new question I raised over at BFF ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21716

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I'm a bit confused about the instant beard thing. Did Roger P or Bob G claim these clips were taken hours apart? I thought only Murphy claimed this.

There's also the possibility that those scenes are actually from "demo" casting scenes that Patterson filmed using tracks he had (supposedly) dug into the ground by hand. If this is the case, then it's extremely suspicious that Patterson's fake tracks look exactly like Patty's. Th eothe roption (and the one most proponents seem to subscribe to) is that those scenes were shot when he returned to Washington. However, there could be a problem if Patterson tried passing those scenes off as if they were filmed immediately after casting the tracks at Bluff Creek.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Forget the P/G footage...

These videos are the greatest pieces of Bigfoot-related footage ever made. Yeah, the red thing is a Bigfoot. Oh, and the very ending of the first video is kinda NSFW...

 

[William Parcher]

Another thing that will muddy the waters even more. If you are in the process of making a 'documentary' or a movie which you are shooting background footage for over the course of months. You are probably only going to have one outfit, but multiples sets of it.

Why? There is no pretense to your audience that all scenes were shot on the same day.

I'm guessing Having Gimlin wear the wig and the Guide get-up was so if they end up using some B-roll scenes shot in July in the final documentary, which much of which was shot in October, then they are wearing the same get-up.

I'm guessing Roger put Bob in a wig because he wanted to have him represent something he is not. Bob is part N/A anyway, so its true in one respect. But Gimlin never was a "tracker" or "guide", and he didn't wear long hair so those parts are false. Bob's wig may have been the only bit of wardrobe that truly had to be worn at all times on film. Suddenly having short hair would be a major continuity error whether a hoax is in the making or not. This is why I'm asking and an so curious about scenes showing Bob Gimlin at Bluff Creek. I have yet to see a single scene that can be confirmed as Gimlin at Bluff Creek.

much of which was shot in October

What allows you to say that?

I'm sure Patterson wore basically the same type of clothes whenever he was out filming. He was probably thinking ahead to the grand finale.

If you pay attention to this thread you know that Roger changes jackets. He seems to favor a red plaid shirt, but there are scenes where the shirt can't be seen beneath the jacket. I can place him on at least three different horses, FWIW. Some have said that the PGF has been analyzed so thoroughly that there is not much left to say or learn. We know from reading this thread and others that that is simply not true. If his grand finale was well planned... then he blew it with the instant beard and plaster-stained jeans.

 

[Drewbot]

How long was the movie that went out for showing at theatres?

Wasn't the film allegedly shot in October?

 

[William Parcher]

Wasn't the film allegedly shot in October?

What do you mean by "the film"? Are you speaking of all riding scenes as well as the Patty encounter?

You mentioned on BFF that Roger filmed wildlife as part of his documentary. I haven't seen this. What animals did you see that he filmed?

 

[Drewbot]

Sorry, I might be thinking of Marx or Bossburg, when they show the Bear and Deer at the beginning. Is that what I'm thinking of?

 

[William Parcher]

Is that what I'm thinking of?

How should I know what you are thinking? I already feel like a janitor mopping up behind you.

Lu and others have mentioned Roger filming wildlife as well. Where can we see this?

 

[kitakaze]

Sorry, I might be thinking of Marx or Bossburg, when they show the Bear and Deer at the beginning. Is that what I'm thinking of?

Marx.

 

[William Parcher]

Patterson and Gimlin traveled to the Bluff Creek area in a truck, taking with them three horses. By the time the men arrived at their destination, rain had all but destroyed the tracks. After setting up camp near Bluff Creek itself, the men set out on horseback to explore the area. Patterson was intrigued with the scenery and autumn colors. He used 76-feet of the first film roll for general filming and shots of both himself and Gimlin.

So where are these shots of Gimlin at Bluff Creek?

 

[Drewbot]

How should I know what you are thinking? I already feel like a janitor mopping up behind you.

Lu and others have mentioned Roger filming wildlife as well. Where can we see this?

Yeah you have so many skeptics over here to deal with, I can understand your frustration at having to clean up my messes as well as counter all of their claims. You just must be a wreck, poor thing. I will try not to cloud your pristine thread with mistakes or poor recollection in the future.

 

[William Parcher]

Gimlin: Okay, I'll go back a little bit to the casting of the tracks. I rode the big horse. The horse that I was riding was around 1200-1300 pounds. I rode him along side the tracks with this new film in the camera, Roger took pictures of how deep the horse's prints were in the soil compared to the creature's tracks. Then I got up on a stump which was approximately 3 to 4 feet, you know? We didn't measure it, probably should have. Anyway I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the tracks as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my foot print went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. These were all things we did prior to leaving the scene...

Gimlin is saying that Roger filmed hoofprints alongside the Patty tracks, and then filmed bootprints alongside them. That suggests two different scenes with a camera stop in between (unless Roger kept the camera rolling while Bob dismounted, climbed a stump, then jumped). But when we watch the few seconds of the scene showing the trackway (clip), we do not see any evidence of a hoof test or a stomp test. The plaster has already been poured, but no depth test is evident in these 4 seconds. So according to Gimlin, there must be much more footage of this trackway. Where is it?

 

[Drewbot]

John Green calls him on it in the same interview, 'Are you aware that movie has been missing ever since?'

Gimlins basically says that Roger told him on his deathbed that DeAtley has it, and when asked, Deatley said it never existed.

Green then says but we saw it at the University of BC showing

Sounds as if, quoting Green: "Al lost it"
Gimlin: "Or sold it"

 

[LTC8K6]

Roger himself said he took 29 feet of film. This is from his newsletter of Feb 68. Says they tracked Patty for 3 miles and lost her tracks in rough terrain and heavy undergrowth. No mention of pine needles.

 

[William Parcher]

On October 26, 1967, the film was shown at the University of British Columbia (U.B.C.). Two screenings were conducted. The first screening was given to University scientists only. The second screening was to university scientists and Don Abbott and Frank Beebe (both of the British Columbia Provincial Museum). Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were at both sessions to answer questions. They also showed the audience the casts of the footprints found at the film site. 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.

IT IS THE POSITION OF THE SHOTS OF PATTERSON HOLDING CASTS IN THE TEN-FOOT SEGMENT THAT COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION. They had to be taken after the shots of the prints in a series because we see one of the casts in a print. But if there are any shots of Bluff Creek AFTER the shots of Patterson holding casts, then such had to have been taken at Bluff Creek.

Erik Dahinden has the ten-foot strip somewhere. ...

Is he talking about the complete "2nd Reel"? Or, does ED only have 10 feet of the "2nd Reel"? Remember that this reel is everything filmed after the Patty encounter.

If P&G are telling the truth, then the cast display scene (no matter when or where it was shot) must come after the hoof and stomp test, and the plaster pour scene. If ED has 10 feet of unedited "2nd Reel" footage and it also contains the cast display scene - then he must have the stomp tests and plaster pour on that 10 feet as well. How many seconds of viewing does 10 feet equal?

 

[mangler]

Drew,

When ANE originally obtained the rights to the PGF crap they did so in an attempt to bolster their films which were sucking at the box office, in other words they used it as, a promotional strategy. These films were basically wildlife films, Cougar Country, Cry of the Wild ... Clyde Reinke who worked for ANE at that time claims that Patterson was on salary as a wildlife photographer prior to the PGF film. If I remember correctly he actually claims that ANE told Patterson to fake a bigfoot film ( PGF? ). In this particular docudrama Worlds Greatest Hoaxes there is wildlife footage.


BTW Marxs used quite a bit of wildlife footage so that could be it also.


William don't bother cleaning up after me, I recycle.



m

 

[LTC8K6]

40 frames per foot, I believe. 25 seconds at 16fps for 400 feet.

Should be: 25 seconds at 16fps for 10 feet/400frames.

 

[William Parcher]

Roger himself said he took 29 feet of film. This is from his newsletter of Feb 68. Says they tracked Patty for 3 miles and lost her tracks in rough terrain and heavy undergrowth. No mention of pine needles.

Your attached article has Roger saying that they were "in the area a little over a week".

Murphy says "On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself."

Gimlin told Green that they were "down there (California) a total of three weeks".