Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Logic,

You just don’t get it; someone had already watched the film before Patterson and Gimlin laid the tracks. Calling about dogs was a great idea, everyone knows dogs have never been able to track bigfoot, ever. If they shot it early as Diogenes suggests they would have known that Laverty and company as well as most logging crews went home early on Friday for the weekends so they lay the tracks on Saturday. There were at least three southerly ways out of there so getting to a phone at night without being noticed would have been a piece of cake, fairly short trip to Orleans out Cedar Camp Road about the same out the other roads to Weitchpec.

Maybe Patterson or BH sent the film to Kodak in San Francisco and Kodak sent it to DeAtley. Couple weeks later Patterson calls DeAtley to verify if it’s worth going for a hoax. Maybe Patterson gave Kodak the shipping address of someone who was going to edit the film then run it through an optical printer, and then DeAtley got it. Christ at this point any story makes more sense than the Patterson version.

I have to question whether the master even made the trip to Vancouver. Did anyone other than Bonney ever state for certain that they actually saw the proper code numbers on the film? Anyone have an answer to that? There are so many Red Flags associated with piece of film it’s like watching Al Harris play football.


m
 
Shooting early makes less sense than the time frame given. Does anyone know of a case pre PGF where dogs wouldn't or couldn't track a proported Bigfoot? We know now because of the lore but who 40+ years ago tried to track one with dogs. Please furnish proof. Additonally even if Patterson had layed down the most exquisite tracks ever seen how was he going to produce the so called scent that dogs won't track out of fear? This is even more rediculous. The dogs would have stood there, wagged thier tails and looked at those guys wondering why those jerks were trying to get them to follow either sentless tracks or tracks with Patterson's own scent. The dogs if they could speak would have said "we have found Bigfoot and it is Roger" Get real!
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Time to repeat my theory that I lay out every 100 pages or so..

I suggest this footage was not the result of a pre-planned hoax..

Patterson was trying to make a documentary about hunting for Bigfoot ..

The screenplay called for the scenario we see in this film, along with the backstory..

i.e. .. Horse fell, bent stirrup, decision not to shoot, tracked for three+ miles, etc., etc., etc ..

Patterson had put together the costume, not initially intending to film it, and claim it was the real thing.

He films the encounter, perhaps a few weeks earlier than Oct 20..

When reviewing the film, he decides - Hey ! This is just blurry and jerky enough that I might get away with claiming I filmed a real Bigfoot .. Tour the country - sell the rights to multiple parties - and clean up ; without going to the trouble of actually putting together the documentary that may or may not pay off..

He put together the Oct 20 fiasco - the principles like Green were hooked - and the rest is history ..

It was like the Emperor's new Clothes ... The people who wanted it to be a real Bigfoot were not, and will not, admit they were suckered in..

If no one had swallowed the bait, Patterson could laugh and claim that it was all a joke after all, and continue on with his Bigfootery nonsense ..

I don't think there was more than one take, or much fore footage tahn waht we see in the 60 seconds we see today ..

If we are going to believe BH, it was filmed in one take.. If anything was edited out, it would be more stuff like the lumpy left leg seen in only a couple of frames , and maybe BH jumping into the hole at the end of the take..
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is the scenario that is the best fit for the events. Many of the apparent logical contradictions, in their actions and explanations, seem to make (at least better), sense this way. It also works well with what is available in the footage of the copies. A radical change in plans, from a movie, to amazing "real life" documentary, prior to October 20 is practically shouting from the accounts, actions and footage. With movie monster switching to "actual monster".
 
Last edited:
mangler said:
Logic,

You just don’t get it; someone had already watched the film before Patterson and Gimlin laid the tracks. Calling about dogs was a great idea, everyone knows dogs have never been able to track bigfoot, ever. If they shot it early as Diogenes suggests they would have known that Laverty and company as well as most logging crews went home early on Friday for the weekends so they lay the tracks on Saturday. There were at least three southerly ways out of there so getting to a phone at night without being noticed would have been a piece of cake, fairly short trip to Orleans out Cedar Camp Road about the same out the other roads to Weitchpec.

Maybe Patterson or BH sent the film to Kodak in San Francisco and Kodak sent it to DeAtley. Couple weeks later Patterson calls DeAtley to verify if it’s worth going for a hoax. Maybe Patterson gave Kodak the shipping address of someone who was going to edit the film then run it through an optical printer, and then DeAtley got it. Christ at this point any story makes more sense than the Patterson version.

I have to question whether the master even made the trip to Vancouver. Did anyone other than Bonney ever state for certain that they actually saw the proper code numbers on the film? Anyone have an answer to that? There are so many Red Flags associated with piece of film it’s like watching Al Harris play football.


m
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Logic,

Prior PGF. Do some research. Seems all the dogs that can track bigfoot have handlers that don't own cameras. Go figure.

Look at that doggy go, NOT!


m



 
mangler said:
Logic,

Prior PGF. Do some research. Seems all the dogs that can track bigfoot have handlers that don't own cameras. Go figure.

Look at that doggy go, NOT!




m

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826447d33ff8110a5.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826447d340055a415.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Who are those guys and when what the photo taken? Seems if they are on the trail of Bigfoot and are not willing to follow its scent than hmmm maybe there is something to this Bigfoot thing after all. Better hope there isn't. However assuming those photos are Bigfoot related if they are on the scent of hoax tracks (and I bet they are) then why track when there's nothing to track. As for cameras not being in the possession of Bigfoot track dog handlers this seems to blow that cozy notion out the window does it not?
 
RayG said:
What better way to 'run out of luck' as it were, than to run out of film? If the original film has disappeared, any claim can be made.

...Forty years of claims and counter-claims about the film, and what's the end result? Diddly squatch. People can argue seams, and materials, and angles of the sun, and beard growth, and wigs, and motives, and accomplices, and IM indexes, and guesstimates about height/width/girth, and even baby bigfoot catching a ride, and we still have no bigfoot, no suit.

Kind of reveals the state of bigfoot research.

RayG
Click to expand...

Salient points.
 
With the boredom with this thing reaching a level that I find hard to rationalize and a date with someone half my age waiting I'm submitting my own version of how the PGF came into being. I trust that the vultures will pick it apart down to the last ounce of marrow in the bones but hey vultures have to pick at something so eat hearty. So after bouncing back in forth between forums and listening to every point of view pro, con and in between I’ve drawn a few conclusions worth putting through some paces.

1. Maybe Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed a flesh and blood Sasquatch just like they claimed.
2. Maybe Roger Patterson scrapped together some fur and made himself a Sasquatch suit stuffed Bob Heronimous into it and cranked out a
real hum dinger of a Sasquatch film that made his home made Biggie look super. You know smile baby the camera loves you. Yeah the camera loved that suit. Odds are way against it.
3. Maybe Roger “the dodger” Patterson, big bucks Al Atley, Sasquatch Bob Heronimous and honest Bob Gimlin had nothing to do with the making and backing of the film that made them famous. Maybe the entire enterprise was the brainchild of the regional tourism bureau as a means to generate tourism and commerce in the region. Heck the PGF sure has spawned enough Bigfoot tagged enterprises in Oregon Washington and Northern California. So the regional tourism board got together and very inconspicuously got a good costume maker to do up a suit and maybe even hired a good mime to wear it (sorry Bob H) and then hired Roger to be the dedicated Bigfoot hunter to run the Kodak 16MM. Suit gets made Roger films suit. Roger makes a few dollars hawking the film and the PNW suddenly is a magic place where folks come from all over the world to catch a glimpse of Bigfoot and the rest is history. Think about it there’s money behind it and motive. After all the real winners in this thing is the tourism
 
Crowlogic said:
Shooting early makes less sense than the time frame given. Does anyone know of a case pre PGF where dogs wouldn't or couldn't track a proported Bigfoot? We know now because of the lore but who 40+ years ago tried to track one with dogs. Please furnish proof.
Click to expand...

According to Bigfoot Encounters:

1860s / Northern NV / A large party / Pursuers saw'the object' carrying a club and a rabbit; bloodhounds refused to chase it (see ch.l) / New York Tribune report repr. Lansing, MI, Republican 4 Aug. 1870, located by Tim Church & quot. STAAU pp.39-40.
Click to expand...

You might be interested in these book highlights as well.

If my copy of Strange Creatures from Time and Space wasn't in storage, I could probably get you even more cases involving the use of dogs in investigations rather than sightings involving dogs.

Additonally even if Patterson had layed down the most exquisite tracks ever seen how was he going to produce the so called scent that dogs won't track out of fear?
Click to expand...

He wouldn't. He could just "spin" the dogs not following the tracks as it being due to them being afraid. Dogs noticing his scent wouldn't be a problem either, because (according to him) he was near the tracks/casting at them after the alleged sighting and it'd be expected that his scent would be nearby.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
But as a Bigfoot researcher, Patterson should know the whole "dogs don't track Bigfoot" excuse. And as other have noted, there's nothing to lose for a hoaxer if your "Bigfoot" is out of state when the tracking dogs are called in...
Click to expand...

I've been the judge on many a coon hunt. I didn't always see a coon but you couldn't prove you didn't.
 
I emailed a guy who was trying to sell an old Kodak cine k-100 camera on Ebay in late Februrary and asked him a couple of questions about the camera.

He told me that the camera could not shoot at a speed intermediate between the pre-set speeds of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 fps.

The camera could be loaded in daylight, but not in direct sun. Shade was fine.

The camera didn't sell at his starting price of $400, so he plans to relist it next week with a starting bid of $200.
 
Logic,

One of the two trips to Bluff Creek area with dogs late Sept, 67'. Those were the tracks that got Patterson down there. Look at the doggy go, NOT! Dale Moffit, John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bud Ryerson, mostly the regular Canadian Circus of Clowns.

Again Logic, do the research.


“As for cameras not being in the possession of Bigfoot track dog handlers this seems to blow that cozy notion out the window does it not?” crowlogic


Logic you need to learn how to comprehend what you read.


“Seems all the dogs that can track bigfoot have handlers that don't own cameras. Go figure.” Mangler



m
 
Except on Oct 20 or 21 Roger calls for tracking dogs to be brought down and contacts the museum. Had the actually sent the dogs on Oct 20-23 boy wouldn't Roger have been caught with his pants down. No tracks and no scent. Dosen't wash.
Click to expand...

Nope. It rained hard that night. No chance of any dogs finding anything. What fool would call to British Columbia Canada for dogs if he really wanted dogs in a hurry?

The camera nust have been set at 16fps. Had it been set at 24fps, we wouldn't have so much motion blur. There's a chart of the shutter speeds that has been posted before.

He told me that the camera could not shoot at a speed intermediate between the pre-set speeds of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 fps.
Click to expand...

I believe we have already established that it could be set in between.

The camera could be loaded in daylight, but not in direct sun. Shade was fine.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem likely given the way it has to be loaded from spools and threaded.
 
Last edited:
If I am not mistaken you double the fps and that's basically the shutter speed. I personally lean toward 19.5 fps thou it could be a hair less. I never shot a good photograph shooting hand held low speed kodachrome at 1/60th.


m
 
drapier said:
I emailed a guy who was trying to sell an old Kodak cine k-100 camera on Ebay in late Februrary and asked him a couple of questions about the camera.

He told me that the camera could not shoot at a speed intermediate between the pre-set speeds of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 fps.

The camera could be loaded in daylight, but not in direct sun. Shade was fine.

The camera didn't sell at his starting price of $400, so he plans to relist it next week with a starting bid of $200.
Click to expand...

Drapier thanks for the enquiry, and info. Interesting.
 
Wow I don’t read this thread for a week and 20 pages break out and Bill Munns joins the fray. Nice.

WP and Worm

Something I just came across in regards to the leader/trailer cypher

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

In the second paragraph Glickman states that a first generation copy was made on Nov 8th 1968 on Eastman 78 Safety film so the leader shows 11-7-1968 clearly a date and the SF could be short for Safety Film. Hope that adds something

Drapier:

I also found In the above link Glickman states:

“Even if Patterson did know the setting, the Kodak Archives reports that the speed tolerance of the K-100’s film carrier subassembly was ±10% resulting in a range of film speeds from 14.4 fps to 17.6 fps when the film speed selection dial is set to 16 fps [Kodak 1995].”

So apparently there is ‘wiggle room” even if RP knew the frame rate


TSIG:

Is this info you are hoping Bill will comment on? I would be interested in reading this discussion.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/filmres.html

Rick
 
We were all over that camera a while back. I eventually found a photo of the dial set in between 2 speeds.

There were ads that said you could pick one of 5 speeds, and ads that said you could pick any speed from 16 to 64.

 
Last edited:
Film Expertise

If I am not mistaken you double the fps and that's basically the shutter speed. I personally lean toward 19.5 fps thou it could be a hair less. I never shot a good photograph shooting hand held low speed kodachrome at 1/60th.
Click to expand...

M

One thing I have not been able to find online in regards to the k-100 and kodachrome, I think Kodachrome was a reversal film not a negative, and had proprietary development process, did these come in cartridges similar to super 8 or did this need to loaded on a spool. I believe I have seen 16mm cartridges, but not sure if they where widely used.

Thanks
Rick
 
LTC8K6 said:
...That doesn't seem likely given the way it has to be loaded from spools and threaded.
Click to expand...

It seems to be mid 1950's model, and it does appear to be capable of reloading in makeshift conditions. A major asset of the type. I couldn't say specifically about this particular model, and spools- but what you can do, is not necessarily the same as what you should do. With relatively common subjects, and general purpose filmwork, a certain amount of risk is worth the convenience. But for specific projects, involving footage of singular, extreme high value content, the "daylight", open loading is to be avoided, wherever, and whenever possible. Know of combat cameramen that have lost footage, or had it compromised, due to such makeshift reloading. Again, I could be wrong. A cameraman with experience in this model would be the best judge.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom