• 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.
Dfoot wrote:

Hey, don't let that stop you from finishing-up your suit, Dfoot!
It shouldn't take you too much longer to wrap-it-up, and show us something as realistic-looking as Patty! :D (In Motion)

Fortunately, here it is understood that providing a suit would prove nothing, and is not a requirement.
 
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia, concerning the question of Gigantopithecus' locomotion....

Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favor bipedal locomotion, most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but it should be noted that this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully-erect spine like modern humans, rather than roughly behind it, like great apes.

While there is no proof that Giganto walked upright....there is evidence for it. The widening of their jawbones at the rear indicates a certain 'degree of probability' that they did walk upright.

It's a real shame...for the skeptics...that there is actually strong evidence that a 'very large upright-walking primate with BIG feet' (the basic description of Bigfoot ;) ) did exist in the past.

It kinda makes their possible existence today seem not so implausible.


Sweaty, if the evidence is so strong, why are the majority of experts in the field not convinced by it? Gee, I wonder if Krantz's favorite hobby-horse had any influence on how he interpreted the Giganto remains?
 
Last edited:
The existence today of Bigfoot is extremely implausible.

Looking at definitions of the word "plausible"....

"1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable..."

"1. Seemingly or apparantly valid, likely, or acceptable; credible:

" The person or thing that is plausible strikes the superficial judgment favorably; it may or may not be true: a plausible argument (one that cannot be verified or believed in entirely)"

So "plausible" only means that a certain thing has some "degree of likeliness, or probability" of being true....not that it necessarily is true.
Even something with a small degree of likelihood still qualifies as "plausible".


It is so extreme that I am quite confident that they do not exist. Of course, that's just me.

From Wikipedia:

"Approximately 100 Million acres are designated as wilderness in the United States. This accounts for (only) 4.71% of the total land of the country..."

... 46% of the world's land mass is wilderness.


So....William is quite confident that there are no other unproven large, upright walking primate species anywhere in the millions....and millions....and millions of acres of wilderness areas around the globe!

You must have one of those magical crystal balls that Santa uses to see all the little boys and girls....all around the world, William! :p


I say that because nobody has shown that they exist. Too much time has passed without any confirmation.


William says...."Time's up!! :rolleyes: ....everybody go home!"


BTW...this just in....

"24 New species found in Suriname...."

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/04/newspecies_ani.html?category=animals


I consider it quite ridiculous to entertain the idea that Bigfoot is out there.

Given the combination of the large amount of evidence for the creature....and the extremely large amount of wilderness for it to exist in.......it's not really so ridiculous to think it may exist.


I think that lots of people pretend to believe because it's so much fun to do that.


I think you believe it's implausible for Bigfoot to exist somewhere within the many millions of acres of pure wildernesss, around the Earth.....because you prefer to.

For you, it's simply a "preferential belief"....and nothing more. :)

As for me...I don't blindly "believe" Bigfoot exists.
Instead, I think the weight of the evidence indicates a high degree of probability that Bigfoot exists.

The true weight of the evidence is certainly debatable....but to simply dismiss it all as "weightless" is absurdly idiotic....and closed-minded.
 
Last edited:
Looking at definitions of the word "plausible"....

"1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable..."

"1. Seemingly or apparantly valid, likely, or acceptable; credible:

" The person or thing that is plausible strikes the superficial judgment favorably; it may or may not be true: a plausible argument (one that cannot be verified or believed in entirely)"

So "plausible" only means that a certain thing has some "degree of likeliness, or probability" of being true....not that it necessarily is true.
Even something with a small degree of likelihood still qualifies as "plausible".




From Wikipedia:

"Approximately 100 Million acres are designated as wilderness in the United States. This accounts for (only) 4.71% of the total land of the country..."

... 46% of the world's land mass is wilderness.


So....William is quite confident that there are no other unproven large, upright walking primate species anywhere in the millions....and millions....and millions of acres of wilderness areas around the globe!

You must have one of those magical crystal balls that Santa uses to see all the little boys and girls....all around the world, William! :p





William says...."Time's up!! :rolleyes: ....everybody go home!"


BTW...this just in....

"24 New species found in Suriname...."

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/04/newspecies_ani.html?category=animals




Given the combination of the large amount of evidence for the creature....and the extremely large amount of wilderness for it to exist in.......it's not really so ridiculous to think it may exist.





I think you believe it's implausible for Bigfoot to exist somewhere within the many millions of acres of pure wildernesss, around the Earth.....because you prefer to.

For you, it's simply a "preferential belief"....and nothing more. :)

As for me...I don't blindly "believe" Bigfoot exists.
Instead, I think the weight of the evidence indicates a high degree of probability that Bigfoot exists.

The true weight of the evidence is certainly debatable....but to simply dismiss it all as "weightless" is absurdly idiotic.

Sweaty I don't disagree whith the informatin you've culled concerning Giganto. But sadly you're casting pearls before swine here. I've managed to have a chuckle or two even as my kind of skepticism is being called into question because it dosen't fit the "official" brand of skeptism here at the church of JREF.
 
Looking at definitions of the word "plausible"....

If you can't show that Bigfoot exists... just grab a dictionary instead.

So....William is quite confident that there are no other unproven large, upright walking primate species anywhere in the millions....and millions....and millions of acres of wilderness areas around the globe!

I didn't specifically say that. When I use the term "Bigfoot", I'm talking about our North American Biggie. But it doesn't matter much to me if the focus swings to Yeti, Almas, or Malayasian Whatever...

bfprint-3.JPG


The true weight of the evidence is certainly debatable....but to simply dismiss it all as "weightless" is absurdly idiotic....and closed-minded.

Your arguments are silly and have their own "weight". This endless stockpile of desperate excuses and worthless "theorizing" given by Bigfootery would need to be weighed on one of those highway truck scales.
 
Last edited:
Scathing article about the scientific methods used in Bigfootry. Includes some PGF information as well. Also includes info about the scrambling Bigfooters had to do when the Giganto theory became adopted. i.e. Patty is obviously bipedal, yet Giganto was a Quadreped. etc...

Unfortunately, Grover Krantz also accepted the Patterson Film. This film of 38 seconds (some say 39.2 or 39.7) shows a hairy gorilla-like man walking away from the camera. Its footprints, cast by the man who took the film, Roger Patterson, show that it had large human flat feet— though they are remarkably different from the Bossburg Cripple. Here, too, Krantz would not believe that an ex-rodeo rider like Patterson had the know-how to fake all that he read into the film. In 1975 Krantz declared: “I’ve checked just about every possible measurement of that film, having looked at it, oh, at least 50 times now. I don’t think there is any way that Patterson could have figured this all out.”

Now based on enlarged human feet and a film of a completely bipedal “gorilla-man” Krantz proposed a bipedal Gigantopithecus. Dr. Krantz’s criteria for authenticity appears very much to be the finding of evidence he believed could not be faked. And Grover Krantz insisted he could not be fooled. Following such a subjective standard, his armory of casts would eventually include dozens of varying feet, indicating logically that perhaps as many as 15 species existed, if all were real. Uncovering dermal ridges on the feet was enough evidence, no matter how different the feet. It was beyond hoaxers’ skill. A “higher primate” was afoot. To gaze at Krantz’s collection is to gaze at a strange contradictory world of comic feet.

Dr. John Napier, the primatologist of the Smithsonian, was right when he examined the differences between Patterson’s Bluff Creek Bigfoot feet and the Cripple Foot. He said if both were real, then it indicated more than one species was afoot.

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/gigantopithecus--_the_jury-rig.html
 
Last edited:
There are some potentially contradictory arguments on BFF concerning the 'Bluff Creek logging road' at the actual Patty walk theater and the general area near there. This is mostly coming from Lyndon in an attempt to justify the findings and testimony of Bob Titmus, and also to match those same things with those of P&G. The argument is that the logging road was too "hard-packed" to reveal tracks made by crossing it or walking on it (Patty using the road itself as a 'pathway'). This argument is being used to make sense out of Titmus' testimony that he couldn't actually see Patty tracks leading to the point where P&G first saw and filmed her. Lyndon says this is because she used to road (won't show tracks) to make her entry to the sandbar.

In 1992, Bob Gimlin told John Green in interview about this logging road and its significance in relation to their search for Bluff Creek Bigfoots. Gimlin describes to Green what they did after arriving at Bluff Creek and setting up camp (Louse Camp?). He says that during the daytime, road crews were using bulldozers to improve the logging road. BG says that they (P&G) were looking for Bigfoot tracks on the road while on horseback as well as with BG's one ton truck. During the day, the crew's equipment would block the road and prevent passage of their own truck. This caused them to switch to nighttime searches for tracks using the truck because during the night the equipment was off the road.

Bob Gimlin said, "We would drive the roads at night real slow looking for tracks crossing the road."

This suggests that the logging road was such a good track-revealing substrate that P&G made special efforts to use it in their search. It must have been so ideal that they could look for Bigfoot tracks using their headlamps at night. It's important to read the details in the interview of how they were using this road in a strategic way. P&G were frustrated that crew equipment blocked their daytime ability to search for Bigfoot tracks on the road using their truck. During the daytime, they rode horses to inspect the road substrate and stayed away from the working crew.

One could speculate that there were areas of this road that were "too hard-packed" to hold tracks, and in this particular argument, that is speculated for the location of the filmed Patty walk. One could further speculate that the road wasn't ideal for holding tracks until after the bulldozer had passed through. But P&G were frustrated by their inability to drive "beyond" the road-hogging bulldozer to search the road itself for tracks. Whether driving "beyond the bulldozer" means encountering improved or uninproved road is not stated. But it is clear that they wanted to use the truck and horses to search for tracks on the road "beyond" that damn bulldozer. Throughout all of P&G's interviews and testimonies, this logging road is central to their search strategy. They always talk about riding the roads, and one could imagine them poking along looking down at the road surface itself. It's actually a decent strategy to use if the road itself does reveal and hold track impressions. If this thing interests you, I suggest you read that part in the 1992 Green/Gimlin interview.
 
Last edited:
Sweaty -- Ray Wallace lived in Toledo, Washington and was friends with Fred Beck. He continued to make fake tracks till he died. During his original track-making ventures in the 50's local law enforcement tried to inform the public what Wallace and his crew was up to.

IVAN SANDERSON wrote privately to his friends about what he heard, but in his public articles he continued the standard Bigfoot line that Wallace was a "pragmatic no-nonsense businessman" upset and bewildered by the constant problem of Bigfeet harassing his work sites and nearby locations.

GREEN wrote similar things even though today he claims he always knew Wallace was a hoaxer. He says the prints are real and that Wallace, years later, retroactively created the wooden feet to match them.

ANDREW GENZOLI, the editor of the newspaper originally printing the Wallace articles and investigating the PG film, said that in his opinion Wallace, Gimlin and Patterson were all a bunch of con men.

btw -- How do you know a good suit hasn't already been making appearances? A few creature fx guys have mentioned in the past that they thought it would be fun to stir up things in the way Patterson did. Remember, not all of Patterson's hoaxes were on film or even cast in plaster. They were "witnessed" and recalled later by excited people who glimpsed something. And so it will continue.... this I can assure you:D

Once again: DFoot never promised anyone a suit. He said he'd share his progress and use the materials he had in his garage. He said he didn't plan on buying a bunch of stuff. THAT is what has been turned into the "you promised us a suit" drivel. It's nonsense... YET I have graciously offered to spend my time doing it if the BFF would pay for it.

Roger had $700 ($4400 in today's money) from the Radfords. That doesn't take into account anything DeAtley might have given him. I told them to kick in $10 each and come up with $1500 (that would be around $230 in 1967) and I'd build it from the ground up. Patterson's suit parts were already made and ready for alteration. Seems to me I'm going way out of my way already. It also appears that it's easier for them to whine the same mantra over and over than face up to actually doing something real.

kitakaze -- Over at the BigFoot Forum Paul has words tagged at the end of his own posts that reads: "DFoot: "I pulled a hoax..."

What he's doing is an example of what has kept this thing alive so long; taking things out of context and changing the meaning and intent. What I did was the same thing JAMES RANDI does when he shows some URI GELLAR believers how the spoon trick works.

First, you find that you cannot simply give the info because they're already busy typing a counter-attack without understanding what you've tried to explain. So... you have to perform the "trick" in front of them and then show them just enough so that they'll realize that this is how the con man (Uri Gellar in that case, Roger Patterson in mine) is able to fool them.

The full meaning of what I said and did gets lost because it's re-written or taken out of context in little bites. This is an immoral, deceptive practice and because I told Paul and the others this while answering his private emails to me, he has decided that I must be permanently barred from sharing any more information. This is precisely how Scientology and other cults maintain control over their flocks. (*Yes Paul, although mentioning a cult is not allowed over at BFF, here you can call it as you see it.)

"Revising Reality" should be the name of any of the Meldrum monster-laden shows. This stuff is popular and I can understand why. I love it as well. It's fun. But twisting things in order to lie and abusing the faith of people who don't have the ability to see through such schemes is what bothers me about this.

In the end, if it looks like an Elk butt - maybe that is just what it is. If a shady thief is trying to sell you a Bigfoot film, then maybe he really is capable of lying about it being real. Yet even when those involved in the actual hoaxing (Heironimus, the Wallace family, etc..) come forward, a way must be found to discount and even attack them. This is how cults form and myths are born.

Maybe I should get involved in a little myth-making of my own. Ya never know.... Patty Junior may be coming to a wooded area near you in the future. Woooo:cool:

Better make sure that's really a Bigfoot and not some kid running over a hill and taking off his gorilla mask during the next Memorial Day Footage event. Otherwise you'll be standing there like DDA with that look on his face when he's being told that "the creature" wasn't seven feet tall (it was 5'4") nor did it run faster than any human (it ran the speed of a kid jogging).

At least you can always do what Meldrum and others have done. Don't like the fact that motion capture reveals Patty is just a guy and there is nothing special about the gait? Just do it over and have the person stand perfectly still while your own experts talk about how "unhuman" Patty must be.

What's the alternative? Facing up to the fact that hoaxers can fool you? Naww. Dr. Krantz says they don't have the intellect or understanding to fool him. Magicians, psychics and con artists take note.


Suitniks take note of the green shading I've added. It is informative.

I only stopped by over at BFF this holiday season because someone told me a poor make-up man was being dragged into the mess and didn't know what was coming. I figured dropping some real world info in a thread would help all who were interested in the PG FILM from the skeptical side in order to achieve some balance.

If it truly has become a cult, then that cannot be allowed to exist and any excuse must be found to change the meaning of it or erase it. And through it all none of the questions I raised were even answered. Distraction by attack was used. Same method employed by the Scientologist security PR staffers. Some see through that.

Some, however, have seen through the barrage of attacks from panic-stricken people watching a phony con artist's world implode. That's made it all worthwhile.

Next up... the Unicorn.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone notice how deep Roger's right toe is dug into the soil? Even allowing for the bend, it seems to be dug in there quite a bit.

Does anyone think this is flipped? Wouldn't Roger use his left hand to spread the plaster?

frame%20from%20mastercopy.jpg
 
Last edited:
At the risk of making an appeal to authority, I must remember again that unfortunately for footers, it seems that the Gigantopithecus=bigfoot line is not accepted by Ciochon... He is quite possibly the world's top expert in the genus and is also the guy behind Bill Munn's gigantopithecus rendering.

This is another "small detail" wich is quite often (conveniently?) forgotten by many a footer.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me like his toe is in a depression.

I'm right handed and I would pour with my right hand and spread with my left, but everyone is different and you may do it the other way.

I'm a bit confused why flipped pictures off of the internet or from a book contribute to the argument that the film has been altered, publishers take artistic license all the time.

Don't get me wrong I think there is enough on the record to discount the validity of the film including, but not limited to, the time line, the missing footage and the conflicting stories, not to mention the lack of an actual specimen.
While it's a good exercise to speculate about what may or may not have been flipped or altered from the original unless there is something to back up the speculation that's all it is. I don't understand where that particular argument is going.

Noll seems to think he's had the best access to John Green's copy and he claims that he's seen very little of the full roll(s), but Noll has a habit saying he's holding things close to the vest even though what he claims he has would validate his assertions. Funny thing, huh?
It seems to me nothing would be lost by releasing everything available that Patterson shot unless it shows something incriminating, I don't understand why some think that it isn't important.

Actually I do understand and I was only being rhetorical.
 
I'm a bit confused why flipped pictures off of the internet or from a book contribute to the argument that the film has been altered, publishers take artistic license all the time.

They don't, unless they are flipped in the film itself, which is why I asked about a couple of frames earlier.

Now, if we only had that film of Roger pouring the casts, we might know what's what regarding flips... :D

If the still of Roger kneeling and pouring is flipped, it would explain why we can't see the plaster stain when he is holding up the casts, for example. The stain would then be on Roger's right pants leg and boot.
 
They don't, unless they are flipped in the film itself, which is why I asked about a couple of frames earlier.

Now, if we only had that film of Roger pouring the casts, we might know what's what regarding flips... :D
Yep, unfortunately I doubt that anyone else will ever see the original again.

If the still of Roger kneeling and pouring is flipped, it would explain why we can't see the plaster stain when he is holding up the casts, for example. The stain would then be on Roger's right pants leg and boot.
It would but it wouldn't explain the incredible beard growth.
If those two stills came off of the same reel they couldn't have been taken the same day at Bluff Creek, the beard growth is just one thing but the casts Roger is holding up have already dried, cured and had any extraneous material trimmed away from the foot imprint itself.
 
Does anyone think this is flipped? Wouldn't Roger use his left hand to spread the plaster?

frame%20from%20mastercopy.jpg


We see lots of distinct scratches on this film. It may sometimes be possible to use scratches as a kind of forensic evidence. Scratches (seen as lines) may sometimes be used as a kind of film "DNA" for limited purposes. Their relative positions on the celluloid could sometimes be used to determine if individual frames or series of frames (filmed scenes) have been flipped as compared to the rest of the film strip.

This "film DNA" could be used to determine the relatedness of various copies. Unlike actual DNA (which mutates), film retains any scratches it receives and these may be transferred to subsequent copies. So, film accumulates additional scratches over time, but does not lose or alter any previous scratches it has recorded (that would be more like mutation).

Rick Noll has speculated that Roger may have had some grit in his camera that scratched and possibly caused other damages to the true original film. If this is true, then any possible true first generation copy might be expected to show the damage found on the original - as well as sharing that copied damage with other first generation copies.

During a recent lecture, Paul Vella said this: "On Sunday 22nd October, with Gimlin ill in bed, Patterson, Green, Dahinden and McClarin watched the film over and over again - damaging the film in the process through constant re-running."

If that was the true original film being run through that projector, then we might expect any subsequent copies of it to show similar damage.

You can see various PGF footages and still frames that seem to be devoid of scratches. You often see occasional momentary 'blob' artifacts, but prominant scratches are not common. The "Dahinden Cibachromes" made by Bruce Bonney around 1978 do not show scratches, and these prints remain as some of the sharpest still frames from the film that we can see. Noll talks about these Cibachromes here, and speculates that Bonney may have used a product (Scratch-All) to remove the scratches.

Green's copy, which was used for the LMS: DVD has a least one prominant scratch that runs down near the center of those cropped and enlarged frames.
 
Last edited:
Seems odd that running the film would damage it much. Seems odd that they'd risk damaging the original film if they really had just filmed a sasquatch.

Then again, dropping your camera in the sand is not a good thing for the film, either.

Does DeAtley get a copy made at the same time as he gets the film developed? How much longer would that take?

Would you bother asking for a copy to be made before you'd seen the film?

If the whole roll is developed and given to DeAtley, Patty is at the end of it, so he can't just pull a few feet out and see Patty and decide to get a copy made right then.

AFAIK, no copy was made immediately. DeAtley only had the one roll developed, and it was edited somewhere shortly after it was developed, because it had already been edited when DeAtley first showed it.
 
Judging from the crush of the hat brim the pour cast photo as it normally appears is flipped correctly.

 
Seems odd that running the film would damage it much. Seems odd that they'd risk damaging the original film if they really had just filmed a sasquatch.

It's also odd that Vella would just say this in his lecture as if he knows it to be true. Has this ever been mentioned in a book or anything?

AFAIK, no copy was made immediately.

Could it be that it was never reported by anyone?
 
I'm right handed and I would pour with my right hand and spread with my left, but everyone is different and you may do it the other way.

In actuality, Roger doesn't pour the plaster into the track. He dips into the vessel with his right(?) hand to remove plaster, then slops it into the track and spreads it.

LTC said:
If the still of Roger kneeling and pouring is flipped, it would explain why we can't see the plaster stain when he is holding up the casts, for example. The stain would then be on Roger's right pants leg and boot.

In the plaster pour scene his jeans are filthy dirty, including the back of the lower right(?) pant-leg. In the cast display scene, his jeans are wrinkled but hardly dirty at all.

If that plaster pour scene is truly from the Patty encounter (the PGF story), and that cast display scene was taken afterwards - then we could probably assume that those are different jeans or they were laundered. But those clean jeans also have a prominent plaster spot on the upper right thigh.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom