Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Aepervius]

I wish I could make a new video of the stabilised walk version side by side with their skeleton cgi animation. I am no expert but it does not look alike at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thanks WP! It looks even more hilarious seeing it again!

I wonder how much they paid for that idiotic animation?

And why does anyone think it matches Patty's walk?

 

[Correa Neto]

First off, you are not privy to posts in Members Only areas. Your sample is skewed. You can probably find thousands more posts from creationists (from all over the world) on YouTube than you will on BF boards. Does this mean most people who frequent YouTube (where you can find all the episodes from PBS' series "Evolution"), are Biblical literalists?

Not necessarily. Are the posts at "Members Only" sections at bigfoot forums made by a diferent population than those at the public areas? All of them have "Members Only" sections?

Not to mention that your YouTube comparisson is not valid, since it contains materials about very diferent subjects, each one with its own public.

I think you need to conduct some surveys before coming to any conclusions.

Remember, its a qualitative observation. Its not quantitative.

Your attempts to portray all in the field as somehow impaired is pretty transparent. ...snip...

Sorry, but you not representing corretly what I said, possibly because you perceived it as an attack to a group of people which you like and include yourself within. Its not an attempt to portray ALL in the field as impaired. What I say is that there is a relatively great overlap between people who believe bigfeet are real and those who believe UFOs, Martian civilizations. I also say the number of people who believe more in the words of the Bible than in the words of science within bigfootery is not small.

I say this is because the belief in a fringe subject or in religions does not require evidence, it requires nothing but belief (or a personal experience). This can make individuals more prone to tender beliefs other in other subjects without requiring good evidence as a base. I based my conclusions on qualitative observations at bigfoot internet sites and in my personal experiences with people who believe in fringe subjects (BTW, it is not restricted to Brazilians).

I find the term "'footer" demeaning and offensive. I don't even like the term "bigfoot". "Sasquatch" works for me and I think "proponent' is a better term for those who think there's enough evidence already to warrant further investigation.

I don't consider it to be offensive, I try not to use it with offensive intentions and I will keep using it. Actually I even find it a bit tender and is by no means as offensive as some footers call us skeptics. "Proponents" quire often seem too PC for my taste and not rarely an overestimation (those who defended paranoirmal bigfeet deserve to be called proponents?). Maybe if the evidence and reasonings presented were a bit better, "proponents" would be better suited.

Sasquatch is a fabrication, IIRC. Its not a real native word. I tend to use it, however, for mythical entities from the Native North American folklore which may be correlated with the modern bigfoot lore. I use "bigfoot" for the "modern" lore (Patty, Ostman, Skookum, etc.). OT digression- Yep, I also don't like too much the "Native American" term, but I use it when writing or speaking in English. More than one time, Native Americans (from Brazil and one from Canada) told me they also don't like it.

 

[LAL]

I prefer the opinions of experts who saw the original film.

The fact is, Patty walks like a man, as opined early on by experts, and demonstrated many times by amateurs.

Patty does not, in any way, shape, or form, walk as shown in the LMS skeleton animation.

Picking and choosing your experts, aren't you? There were those who opined the gait was not human. Some of them even viewed the film more than once.

Is a first generation copy so different that now the gait is human? Or is it the same gait some said was human and some said wasn't? Is there something wrong with reverse kinematics?

Did you bother to look at Bob Heironimus' famous natural Patty gait head on?

 

[LAL]

Not necessarily. Are the posts at "Members Only" sections at bigfoot forums made by a diferent population than those at the public areas? All of them have "Members Only" sections?

Depends on the group. There are sections in some boards that are not viewable by the public. Several have an applications process with voting on who gets in. A few have dues. Applicants need to have some kind of qualifications, field experience, equipment.....They're not the folks who buzz by with a comment on something they know little about.

I don't perceive your assumptions as any more of an attack than the fond term "footer" (or wacko, credulloid or woo). I just think they're incorrect and another attempt to paint us all in different colors with the same brush. You think there's no good evidence, therefore we're fools for thinking there is. If you have some valid statistics, let's see them. Your impression does not impress me and I have not found it to be true.

I don't necessarily identify with any group or like people I've never met. You had me going to conferences a few years ago. I've still never been to one.

I'm sure a lot of Bible believers buy soap, too. So what?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Did you notice Bob's knees weren't rotating as he walks toward the camera?

If we approach the PGF from the "guy in a suit" angle, we must consider that parts of the costume (like knee pads) could move in a way thatt's different from the wearer's own body.

This kinda reminds me of a claim that Patty's legs swung out a certain way, only for someone to say that Bob H. did the same thing.
I could've sworn it happened here, but I could also be thinking of this BFF discussion.

By the way, I recommend visiting these links if you need a quickie refresher course on costume proportions masking the wearer's proportions.

Was that the bar where Bob was overheard planning to make up a story to sell to a tabloid for $50,000?

Not a clue. I should point out that I don't think Bob H. was the guy in the suit.

Dr. Swindler was a skeptic for thirty years (according to John Green), but he looked into it. Rick Noll said he must have watched the PGF a thousand times, shaking his head and saying, "It must be a hoax. It's got to be a hoax."

This is exactly what I was talking about (a fence-sitter being labeled as a skeptic). You and I both know that a person can think the PGF is a hoax and still be interested in Bigfoot (Take Cliff Crook for example. Yes, I know he's a hoaxer)

And since the BFF is open to the public, it's time for some poll quotes:

NO, absolutely a hoax! [ 101 ] [45.70%]
A chance, but not likely. [ 100 ] [45.25%]

Compared to the original poll:

0% [ 84 ] [67.74%]
1-20% [ 19 ] [15.32%]
21-40% [ 2 ] [1.61%]
41-60% [ 9 ] [7.26%]
61-80% [ 2 ] [1.61%]
81-99% [ 4 ] [3.23%]
100% [ 4 ] [3.23%]

Patty does not, in any way, shape, or form, walk as shown in the LMS skeleton animation.

As Wolftrax noted here (posts 99-100), the skeleton animation doesn't even match up properly with what's seen on the film.

 

[tyr_13]

Popular doesn't mean right.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Now that the BFF is open to the public again, I thought I'd bring up this interesting thread.

 

[LAL]

"argumentum ad populum -- This fallacy occurs when an argument panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials."

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm

Atomic, while you're surfing BFF check out my last conversation with wolftrax after he claimed I cropped a photo to support my POV. I produced the whole scan to show it was that way in the book. It was our last wrangle. I do not read his posts.

I'm still a member although I seldom participate anymore. They made a rule about reposting, which I'd forgotten when I posted one line of one poll. It was too late to edit the post when I remembered it.

You can save yourself the trouble of linking to BFF. If I need to check that board I do. Did you check to see how many times I posted on it? There are few discussions I haven't seen.

Do you think John may have known Daris longer than Jeff did? Maybe Jeff just meant he wasn't as hard-headed, close-minded and dismissive as most skeptics.

 

[mangler]

AMM,

Here is some info I sent to Munns I guess a couple weeks ago. I apologize for the rambling nature of it but between all the film info from the manurfacters and the lack of info. from the Patterson camp it simply confuses the hell out of me.

If you have any questions ask away, I have massive amounts of info, I just can’t put it into a statement that make sense. There are so many ways things could have happened and it bums me out that no one at the time asked the right questions. I can’t understand why Green, Dahinden etc. couldn’t have demanded a couple answers. This would have been a done deal had they just paid attention.

Anyway here it is.





Bill,

My original contact person regarding 16mm is presently unavailable. I sent the image to Paul Ivester. He wouldn't state for certain that it was 7387. I went ahead and did a bit of research on my own and between Pauls site and Brian Pritchard's site (Brian is a Motion Picture and Film Archive Consultant) as well as a few others I found some decent info.

I am not saying that this info is 100% accurate because it comes from other sources but I feel in all honesty that it paints an accurate picture. If some of it sounds confusing it's because I find some of it extremely confusing.


Refer to image that I sent.

1st on the left is the PGF, IMO this filmstrip is EASTMAN REV II SAFETY FILM: "Kodachrome" print stock 7387. Manufacture date 1967

2nd from left is also Eastman Rev Color Safety Film I can't tell what the date code is (image is from Paul Ivester he probably knows the date and can be contacted at films@paulivester.com) but note the date code location in reference to the PGF, seems to be a match.

3rd from left is Ektachrome EFB 7242, note that it has the same date code as the PGF, 1967, also note that it was manufactured in France, date code is the same for USA, UK, Canada and France.

4th from left is an Ektachrome maybe 7386 or 7388; again this one is from Paul Ivester.

5th from left is a Kodachrome again from Paul Ivester.

6th from left is Kodachrome KM Safety, note that it is from Harrow England, it also uses the word Film which I believe I stated Kodachrome did not include. Also note date code of a single box indicating 1937, 57' or 77'.

7th from left is Kodachrome 1950. The authors date does not coincide with the Eastman/Kodak Date Code Symbol Chart. He stated that his reference was from personal notes.

The next two are 8mm Kodachrome, I added these two because I feel it helps reinforce my opinion that Kodachrome ll does not "box" on the edge code lettering.


Let me try to articulate why I find this interesting Bill. I find it difficult to interpret the chronology of events when it comes to determining what this film went through from in-camera to the time the working prints were made (continuous or step contact, continuous or step optical, wet-gate or a combination of different printers). It's important/vital to understand the implications here. There are three scenes (possibly four, I'm on the fence about the fourth) within the 952-53 frames that are said to have come from one continues strip of film.

The first question is obvious, where was the film "KODACHROME II SAFETY FILM", processed? The logical place would seem to be Palo Alto. There was no K-12 (ECP-2) process in Seattle, none in Wash. St., or anywhere else on the W. Coast that I am aware of. Alpha-Cine might of done 7302 or equivalent but that's a D-97, 19, 11 or 8 and is primarily used for the sound track or title sequences (B&W).

Chris Murphy Quote;

"Al De Atley picked-up the film at the Seattle airport on the morning of Saturday, October 21, 1967. He had the film processed at the Alpha Cine laboratory in Seattle and returned to his home in Yakima that same day. Patterson and Gimlin arrived at Yakima sometime on Sunday morning, October 22, 1967. During this time, John Green arrived at De Atley's home and the two men awaited Patterson's arrival. When Patterson arrived, De Atley took him alone to the basement of his home and showed him the film. The film was then shown to John Green. Bob Gimlin was not present. We are told he was at home resting."

Rick Noll states (below) in a BFF thread, I'll provide you with a link if you like. Forde is a film-processing house in Seattle. EASTMAN REV II SAFETY FILM for all intent and purpose is Kodachrome.

"On the west coast, Palo Alto was most likely the only place that could develop Kodachrome (could the plane the film was put on have been sent there first? Then on to Yakima?). Forde Motion Picture in Seattle recently told me that they processed Anscochrome and Ektachrome but even they, a proffessional lab, sent Kodachrome to Palo Alto. They also told me that they remember two guy's coming in to their business with the Patterson/Gimlin film and had two copies made, one going to UBC. That was in 1967. They have been in busnieness since 1958. The man I talked to said he was there, looked at the film and that it was definately Kodachrome".

Here is a quote from John Green. I personally don't think they had the Master. I believe him and Dahinden are the two guys' referred to in the Noll quote.

"René [Dahinden] and I had the original film, from which a master copy was made directly and then work prints such as the one I loaned for LMS made directly from that, all on the same day."

I don't know for certain what the edge code on Green's copy is I would have to assume it states Ektachrome.

Patterson does not project the entire film during the initial viewing at DeAtley's home, nobody recalls seeing anything other than the Kodak box. From a hoax point of view I think they are already looking at a duped film. I say this for a particular reason. John Green's copy of the film supposedly came from the Master, on his film (the part that I have seen) there are a few fames of trees before the creature image, the film goes straight from tree frame to creature frame, IMO. The creature scenes all have a break (a few white frames between) which to me would indicate that the camera stopped instantly for the tree scene but had a gradual wind-down for the creature scenes. I suppose one could imply that during the scuffle with the horse somehow the camera was damaged, but that seems a bit too convenient, there is also the fact that we don't see wind-downs on the second roll of film (of course all of that could be spliced). There are so many different things that would have had to have happened in a certain order to make sense of the film being one continues piece, or, it simply could have been edited prior to anyone seeing it.

Here's another Chris Murphy quote,

"Dahinden and McClarin arrived at Al De Atley's home at about 3:00 p.m. the same day (Sunday, October 22, 1967). Upon their arrival, Patterson showed the film to all present and the group discussed how Patterson and Gimlin should go forward with the new evidence. Patterson did not show the group the general movie footage he had taken (i.e., the first 76-feet of the first roll). Nor did he show the other footage on the second roll if he did, in fact, have the developed roll. Nevertheless, the film of the creature apparently impressed the researchers. Nothing appeared to indicate that Patterson and Gimlin were being untruthful. . ."

I'm trying to give you the short version here Bill, I apologize for failing at this attempt.

Moving on. They show the film in Vancouver on I believe Oct. 27, nobody bites. Life magazine fly's Patterson and group back to N.Y. within I believe two weeks, give or take. Life and Look Mag. bailed, could it be as simple as Patterson's refusal to supply the Master?

Now here is where you know far more than I do, it's stated that Life Mag. makes 12 out-takes, but are they referring to the 12 frames that we see in the photo from the Time-Life series or is this an indication of duping the film clip 12 times? What I'm getting at is, if they (Life) duped the clip then that is probably what we see in the photo, they could have duped to that film (7387) and processed at Rochester, mystery solved, kind of, see now there are 12 more copies of this thing.

Ivan Sanderson quote,

"LIFE Magazine had viewed the Film at a private showing for scientists in Canada since no Americans would look at it and had paid the party's passages to New York and made a dozen 'out-takes' of the best frames from the Film."

If they didn't dup the clip at Rochester and this was the film Patterson was packing around and claiming as the original, mystery grows. As I stated EASTMAN REV II SAFETY FILM 7387 is a duping film, it didn't have an ISO rating per se (somewhere between 10-25), it was very seldom shot in camera and last but not least we run-up against the K-12 (ECP-2) processing problem again, when and where were these two frickin films processed. See, now we have to figure out not only where was it originally processed (KODACHROME II SAFETY FILM) but also when and where was it duped (EASTMAN REV II SAFETY FILM), this really screws up their timeline.

One final point there was a study in which this film was analyzed this study is somewhat representative of all bigfoot studies, which is, not very scientific. The study was called,

Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon
J. Glickman, Diplomate, American College of Forensic Examiners
PHOTEK, 209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202, Hood River, Oregon 97031, USA

Quote from the report,

"The original of the Patterson-Gimlin film is believed to have been photographed on Kodak Kodachrome film. The camera used was a Kodak K-100 16mm movie camera. A first generation copy of the film was made on Eastman 78 Safety film on November 8, 1968, a little more than one year after the original was shot. This first generation copy was first examined by the author in October, 1993 for shrinkage and brittleness to ensure it could withstand digitization. The film had been in storage for twenty-five years in the controlled environment of a bank safety-deposit box and was in excellent condition. The data in Table 6 was extracted from the film (as of October, 1993)."

I'm going to end this here Bill if you have any questions don't hesitate, most of this information is from memory so feel free to correct me if you like, also be aware that this is an abridged version.

BTW, I'll bet you 5 bucks you can't find any information on Eastman 78 Safety Film, what's up with that?



m

 

[Bill Munns]

Mangler and I had discussed this privately awhile back, and on this remark:

"BTW, I'll bet you 5 bucks you can't find any information on Eastman 78 Safety Film, what's up with that? "

I just wanted to add for all interested that I got a copy of the ASC Manual, edition 2, published 1967, and it listed all known Eastman film stocks, and "Eastman 78 Safety film" seems non-existant.

So we have a curious error in the reporting of people who Mangler cited, who mention this film. Might be worth further inveswtigation. A thought.

Bill

 

[Aepervius]

It seems you are right Bill, but I would nor be surprised somebody simply dropped a few numbers :

(source film stock)

EKTACHROME C SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome Commercial 7255
EASTMAN ECO SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome Commercial 7252
EKTACHROME SAFTEY FILM: Ektachrome ER 7257
EKTACHROME B SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome ERB 7258
KODAK SAFETY FILM (color stock) Ektachrome MS 7256
KODACHROME SAFETY FILM: Kodachrome Daylight, or Kodachrome Duplicating Film
(with edge numbers): usually Kodachrome Commercial 5268
KODACHROME A SAFETY FILM: Kodachrome Type A
KODACHROME II SAFETY FILM: Kodachrome II
KODACHROME II A SAFETY FILM: Kodachrome II Type A
EKTACHROME EF SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome EF 7241
EKTACHROME EFB SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome EFB 7242
EASTMAN REV SAFETY FILM: "Kodachrome" print stock 5269
EASTMAN REV II SAFETY FILM: "Kodachrome" print stock 7387
KODAK N SAFETY FILM: Black & white negative
KODAK R SAFETY FILM: Black & white reversal
KODAK SAFETY POSITIVE: Black & white release positive stock
EASTMAN SAFETY FILM: Might be anything of recent manufacture including
EFB 7242, 7387, 7389, 7390. Must be identified by examination.
EKTACHROME REV PRINT SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome print stock 7386
EKTACHROME R PRINT SAFETY FILM: Ektachrome print stock 7388

 

[Bill Munns]

Aepervius:

"It seems you are right Bill, but I would nor be surprised somebody simply dropped a few numbers : "

That would be my assumption, but it certainly would suggest the persons reporting "Eastman 78 Safety Film" (dropping two of the four numbers) might "drop" a few other facts as well. That's my concern.

Side note, for others seeing the film list:

anything starting with "5" is a 35mm film, and anything starting with a "7" is 16mm film.

Bill

 

[cbussey]

I think I have been a skeptic from birth. Although before I go on I should say that I don't hold to the apparent "rules" of skepticism some here hold (the ONE rule comes to mind).

Math always came easy to me. I don't recall ever being challenged by any math teacher up through college. I found most of them dull and slow to get to the point. I've always considered my strong points logic and analysis.

English and vocabulary came much more difficultly to me. While I was excellent at spelling due only to good memorizations skills, I constantly obsessed over the complete lack of logic involved in the spelling of english words. You english majors will notice most likely that I have only a basic grasp of punctuation. Usually I'm just faking it, guessing a comma should go there <----.

I don't know where a new paragraph should start so I usually just start one when the last one looks too long. It makes no sense to me at all that bow (as in the tie, or the weapon) and bow (as in the verb) should be spelled the same.

I remember in grade school not believing the big bang theory. We moved every 6 months, my dad was in the army, so I remember it was a male teacher but not sure what grade I was in. He had stated this theory as two gases coming together and exploding. I remember asking him where the two gases came from. I don't recall his answer but I remember not believing the theory was a very good one. I remember that I never saw an explosion that resulted in a bunch of round things. I mostly find burnt up things and shrapnel, decidedly not round, after explosions.

I took algebra II my junior year and had a teacher that demanded we show our work. I hated that. The answer was usually easy, showing the work took time. We took a semester test and I noticed the test didn't say anywhere on it "show your work", so I didn't. He gave me a 50. I asked him why and he said because I had to have cheated but he couldn't prove it. I pointed out the test didn't say show your work. He acknowledged that. I challenged him to test me on the chalkboard and he did. He gave me problems and I wrote them on the board and then figured them in my head and wrote the answers. He changed my grade to 100.

Anyway, math is my strong suit and I believe analysis and logic along with it. My weak suit language and I have always felt emotionally weak. I don't bond with people well. I usually don't recognize when somebody is making some kind of emotional plea or statement to me, I just don't understand what they are talking about. I hardly ever recognize sarcasm.

I think this is my first post here, that's why I said all that.

I think I was around 8 when I first saw the Patterson Gimli film. I don't remember ever believing it was for real. I thought it was COOL, but I also thought it was a fake. I always loved the IDEA of such a creature being around, I still do.

I don't remember why I didn't believe as a kid, but here are my reasons for SKEPTICISM at the age of 46. I will admit first that I have absolutely NOT read every post here or anywhere in favor of it's authenticity. I'm positive I have not seen every shred of evidence that exists that supports it's authenticity. I have looked for that evidence though, and I have studied it. I also have to say that I have absolutely NOT read every post here or anywhere in favor of it being a hoax. I'm positive I have not seen every shred of evidence that exists that it is a hoax.

See this is where I am MY kind of skeptic, and not the kind of skeptic that some people claim have exlusive rights to the title. I'm skeptical. I know I'm skeptical. I've looked the word up in the dictionary and said "yep that's me alright". I am capable of determining that I've gathered enough evidence, for and against, to draw a conclusion, consider the case closed, and move on to another subject. I can even do that and STILL keep an open mind that sometime in the future NEW evidence (to me) may be presented that may make me change my mind completely. I didn't stop being skeptical, I was just proven wrong. I was skeptical ABOUT THAT all the way up to the point it was proven true to me. I don't want to be any other kind of skeptic. I'm a skeptic that is open to being wrong. Because that just means NOW I'm right again. )

Here is the list of problems I have with the film. They are not listed in any order of importance, so the numbers are merely to set apart one from another.

1. Patterson and Gimli were both big time hunters. People have mentioned they could have shot the thing in the leg. I say even more, tranquilizer darts were not unknown then. Both of them considered great shots, one of them even well known to be a "trick shot". They SHOULD have had darts and easily could have tranquilized it. Ok so maybe they were drunken morons who packed up horses, went WITH WEAPONS to search for bigfoot, and nobody thought tranquilizer darts would be a good idea. Don't buy it.

2. The thing strolled away, clearly unconcerned. It didn't dart off like pretty much the entire wild kingdom that is shy of humans would. And they couldn't load up another roll of film and get some more? Don't buy it.

I'm examining human logic here, normal human behavior. Ok, so it got away for whatever reason. I know I ME <------ THIS GUY, have more filming to do even if the never before filmed creature is gone. I'm fixing to start zooming in on the tracks, going to look for and film broken folliage etc,. etc. etc...

3. It's pretty much all the things they didn't do that bother me. Have big game hunters like these guys never heard of tracking dogs? They are standing on the trail of a bigfoot. They have filmed it. They are looking at the exact spot it actually stepped. One or the other of them, since they LET it get away NEEDS to go back to town and get a tracking team. If a bigfoot strolled by there, there ARE dogs that could track it down. Anybody wanting to dispute this FACT, please attempt to do so. I mean heck, there are PEOPLE that could have tracked it, I am pretty sure I could since I track deer that weigh a few hundred pounds less and leave much less evidence,, but dogs no way it could have avoided forever,. They didn't think of that? I don't buy it.

3. So maybe they were afraid (armed to the teeth) to follow it, a beast which is exhibiting not only no aggressive behavior at all, but in fact non-chalance. Chasing something in order to capture it is NOT always the best idea. Ever heard of BACKTRACKING? Even if they decided for whatever reason to not follow it, why not backtrack it to see where it came from? What would be their reason for not doing that? That would be an excellent way to eventually trap it. Find out where it came from dude. Don't buy it.

4. I've seen a couple "scientific" experiments where the alleged purpose was to duplicate the gait. In each experiment they used a human that is unemcumbered by a suit of unknown weight. Terribly unscientific. A guy in a tanktop and shorts CAN NOT, I repeat CAN NOT repeat the "gait" of a man who is carrying a 75 pound rucksack on his back, and numerous other encumberances various other places along his body. Both of the ones I've seen were stupid and completely unscientific.

This is one where the believers just want to believe and are accepting something that can't be proved. The skeptics are right on this one in just being skeptical. Not being able to reproduce the gait is NOT proof because we have no idea of the dimension, weight, or physical construction of the suit, if there is a suit. The gait of astronauts on the moon is impossible to reproduce by ANY human in shorts and a tank top in any earthbound laboratory. That is NOT evidence that astronauts are not human.

4. These guys failed to do a whole lot of things I consider it would be normal human nature to do.

5. There are a lot of other reasons I believe bigfoot is most likely escaped gorillas and orangutans but I took this thread to concern the pg film.

6. I don't believe it even mostly concerns liars, though that occurs also as the georgia cop recently proved.

7. Eyes can play tricks on people. Ask anybody that's ever been convicted of a crime they were innocent of.

8. I was living a ways in the woods when I was in my early 20's and my car broke down. So I had to walk down this sand road about ten miles to work. I had to be there at 6 so I would leave at 4. I was poor so this went on for several weeks. One morning I was walking to work, it was still dark and I heard something following me off the road in the woods to my left. This is northeast Texas. I was pretty familiar with the game, and knew there was very little large game danger. I would stop and listen and every time I did, what was tracking me stopped too. Knowing there were no big game type predators in the area I realized a human was tracking me. I became scared and starting walking again, this time looking hard to find a weapon along side the road. The sky was beginning to blue as it neared dawn. I still continued stopping every so often, faking like I was looking at something, and every time I did, my tracker would stop too. I finally found a big stick, which was totally rotten. I figured he had no way of knowing that and I turned brandishing it ready to fight for my life. Chills ran up and down my spine as I saw clearly the dark sillhouette of a man peeking out from behind a tree at me, knowing I was holding rotten wood. I was terrified. I was sure enough petrified and I just stood there. The guy just kept looking at me. I brandished my rotten branch. Then I heard a loud noise of movement through the woods, but the guy kept looking at me not moving.

An Armadillo went by, and the "guy" didn't look like a guy anymore and was just folliage. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, had I not stood my ground and ran like I wanted to, I would believe to this day an axe-murderer, or a "shadow person" had stalked me that morning. Instead, it was just an armadillo and my imagination combining to scare the hell out of me in the wee hours of the morning.

 

[LTC8K6]

1. Any thing about them being great shots is probably hype. Tranquilizer guns are a whole other thing.

2. They do claim to have loaded up another roll of film and pursued, and they also claim to have filmed the tracks.

3. They do claim to have asked for tracking dogs...but from Canada instead of local...There is also the general claim that dogs won't track bigfoot, but that may be a recent idea. As far as tracking, Titmus tracked the creature and was unable to find where it entered the area, so it had no backtrack. It's tracks just began in the area and did not come from anywhere. The explanation for this is usually that the creature walked in on the hard packed road surface and therefore left no tracks on the way in...but that's hard to believe for several reasons.

4a. The gait has indeed been duplicated with and without a bulky suit on.

 

[Crowlogic]

Cbussey

It is unreasonable to assume that Patterson could have used tranquilizing darts. He wasn't a professional animal handler or Veterinarian and would have lacked the credentials to acquire tranquilizing drugs.

 

[LTC8K6]

Patterson did have a "Net Gun" at some point, I believe.

Which makes little sense given the reported strength of bigfoot at the time.

 

[kitakaze]

Maybe I misunderstood the point of this statement of yours, kitty.....

Meow.

Can you elaborate on exactly what your point was?

It's pretty self-explanatory. My point is that you were using incomparable images and your 'body contour' talk is hooey.

Since you mentioned the differences in 'size and quality' of the images in my comparison.....what are you saying is the significance of those differences, as they would relate to the validity of the comparison?

That they don't facilitate a valid comparison. I think if one is going to make image comparisons with the PGF it would be ideal to try to match film, distance, and lighting conditions at least.

Why does "body contour" need defining?? Don't you understand what that phrase means?

'Body contour' needs defining because your use of it in regards to the PGF is ambiguous. Your arguments for Patty McLumpy sound like a feminine hygiene product ad.

Do you see any distinct contour on the back of Patty's legs?

On the back McLumpy's back leg I see two distinct lumps.

Proof vs reliable evidence, unicorns, and Gimlin's admission about Heironimus' horse after its discovery are on your dance card.

 

[kitakaze]

LAL wrote.....and I quote:



Oh, I'd say.....about 4.5 billion years old....give or take a millenium, or two.

Hey, Sweaty, how old is Martian Civilization? We can bring that thread back if you have some more pictures of rocks to boggle our minds with.

 

[Crowlogic]

Patty walks just like a man. Just like Osman Hill and other experts said oh those many years ago when they watched the PGF.

QUOTE]

Well no Patty does not walk just like a man/human. Different posture and yes the unlocked knees are hard to miss. Can humans walk like patty? Lots do when the circumstances calls for it. Lots of bent knee locomotion in Native American dance and ritiual movement. But on the film not a human locomotion. The McClaren film shows this to great effect especially the upright stance of the human in the McClaren film. So an observer can look at the PGF and say one of two things. 1) mundane human walk/gait 2)unusual gait. Those with the better eye are more likely to go with #2. Experts can say lots of things but experts can be wrong and even experts are partial to their personal position.

Now then if we're going to go with Bob H in the suit then we need to accept Bob's explaination that Roger showed him how to walk that funny/strange walk. Even Bob admits that he moved in a contrived/purposeful manner.

Now Martian civilization hasn't started yet. Give it another 30 years or so until we get some folks put up there to get the ball rolling.