Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Patty's knees do lock when she walks. I remain mystified where these claims come from.

Also, when you are wearing a suit, it's bulkiness or bagginess can make it seem like the leg does not straighten out.

However, as far as I am concerned, Patty walks just like a human being.

The idea that she does not, is a recent construct, as far as I can tell.

What qualified observer thought the walk was not that of a human at the time the PGF was released?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

"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."

Considering that I posted that poll data to back up my earlier point about how many proponents at the BFF's initial opinions changed over time, "argumentum ad populum" doesn't apply.

Atomic, while you're surfing BFF check out my last conversation with wolftrax after he claimed I cropped a photo to support my POV.

What thread would that be?

I do not read his posts.

Would you look at the pictures if I linked to them?

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.

Do you have any proof? I ask because, without it, your comments have no real weight in the matter.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

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.

Thanks for the info; fascinating stuff.

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.

Definitely.

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.

Indeed. Especially since sloppy research is an all too common thing in the world of Bigfoot research. The whole Skookum Cast incident is a great example of this sloppyness in action, which also has some parallels to the PGF. Instead of descending into a hot spot for further researh, the researchers left and tried shopping their new "evidence" around to selected experts hoping to get a "hit," not unlike now Bluff Creek was virtually ignored (with the exceptions of some curious locals and Bob Titmus) while the PGF was being shopped around.

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

Correct, but this was after he got loads of loot from the PGF.

Patty's knees do lock when she walks. I remain mystified where these claims come from.

I can't find it right now, but I once posted a link to an old Bigfoot documentary clip on Youtube. In it, a Bigfoot proponent made that claim and it wouldn't surprise me if that's what started the claim. Well, that, and the difficulty of defending "Of course it walks like a human" against Occam's Razor.

As for this "unlocked knee" nonsense, well, I'll let the links speak for themselves.

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.

crow, I think you should try people-watching more. If you do, I think you'll eventually see some people "Patty-walking" down the street.

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.

It's been noted in the past that artwork of prehistoric humans at the time often showed them with bent knees and as apelike beings. Patterson had a scrapbook called "Giant Prehistoric Men." You do the math.

Finally, I think that our new member cbussey will enjoy these links.

 

[LAL]

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.

What's your source that the were "big time hunters"? I've never seen that claim before.

Roger was convinced they were some kind of early human and was adamantly opposed to shooting one. He and Gimlin had an agreement they would not shoot unless threatened.

There had been a tracking dog (White Lady) in the area weeks earlier. John Green tried to get scientists to come to the area in that event and after the filming. Even Don Abbott from the BC Museum took a let-me-see-the-film-first attitude although he'd gone to California to check out the Onion Mountain/Blue Creek Mountain trackways on the Ryerson job. John spent so much time and money calling he couldn't go to Bluff Creek himself. He and others assumed (at first) there would be a capture within months.

The look she gave Roger stopped him in his tracks. He did not try to get closer after that. They did try to track her after Roger's horse was retrieved. Gimlin immediately started to follow but Roger called him back. He did not want to be there unarmed and alone. They thought there were others in the area. (There were three sizes of tracks at OM/BCM.)

They had gone to California to try to film tracks for the documentary, not to hunt and kill or even tranquilize a sasquatch.

Bill, Bob Titmus assumed she'd come up the creek. He didn't look to see where she came from; he looked to see where she went.

For a good book on the subject, see Chris Murphy's The Bigfoot Film Controversy. It includes Roger's book.

 

[Drewbot]

FYI, the fact that BobH's horse was admitted to be at Bluff Creek, as I expected has little impact on Footer's belief that the PGF is real.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23088

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The look she gave Roger stopped him in his tracks. He did not try to get closer after that.

More Pattycake BS ..

The ' look ' is less than a second and hardly anything that would have registered in the mind of someone looking through the viewfinder of the camera ..

Pattycakes want us to imagine Roger saw something like this:

When what he saw was more like this:

Besides it's clear from the film, Patterson continued to move toward the subject after the ' look ' ; so your claim that he did not try to get closer, is ignorant nonsense..

 

[LTC8K6]

IIRC, Titmus did try to backtrack Patty, but found nothing to follow, so gave up. He didn't assume anything until he found nothing, and the assumption was that she came up the hard road, and that prints would not be left there. (by a 500 pound biped)

I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his
tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not
come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the
hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar.

 

[LAL]

Considering that I posted that poll data to back up my earlier point about how many proponents at the BFF's initial opinions changed over time, "argumentum ad populum" doesn't apply.

I was referring to the comment that popular doesn't make it right. The opinion polls on BFF reflected some hope that it might be real, not necessarily a widespread belief among posters that it was. Any conclusions, pro or con, without more evidence were premature.

Some of us were hoping it was real so we could get on with the next phase.

What thread would that be?

It was one on the wooden feet. Wolftrax was posting 3D animations trying to show they fit. I don't have time to look for it, but it should show up on a quick search of my posts. I didn't post much on BFF after that.

Would you look at the pictures if I linked to them?

No. I'll check to see what the topic is, but if it's the one I think, I was following the discussion at the time. I don't need to go over it again.

Do you have any proof? I ask because, without it, your comments have no real weight in the matter.

No, and you don't have to take me so seriously. I asked a question. From John's keynote address at WCS 2003:

"Dr. Swindler, whom I have known for more than 30 years, has appeared in documentaries on this subject in the past as the obligatory skeptical scientist. Now, after careful examination of the best heel print in the Skookum cast, he has expressed the conviction that it is the heel print of a large unknown primate - and he would be here with us today if his health permitted."

I don't know how long Jeff knew Daris. Do you? Did they meet before Daris examined the Skookum cast?

I haven't had time to listen to the show. I may have to download it and take it to work. Daris was a giant in his field. His opinion had weight, and it's pretty obvious it changed.

 

[LAL]

Besides it's clear from the film, Patterson continued to move toward the subject after the ' look ' ; so your claim that he did not try to get closer, is ignorant nonsense..

Citation to follow when I get home and then I'll probably put you back on filter.

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Everyone involved in bigfootery knows a lot about the subject?
Again, I disagree. I've seen plenty of cryptofolks with little knoweledge of their own interest subject. And if we look at other related non-fringe subjects... Some may know well bigfoot lore but their knoweledge regardig other areas is basic to say the best. There are skeptics here better aware of bigfoot lore than many footers.

Of course, there are footers which are well informed about science and bigfootery. But those are a minority. And this is what I am saying.

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.

I would greatly appreciate if you could avoid such sweeping statements. I am not lumping all people who believe bigfeet are real in the same pile. On the contrary- for example, at BFF there are at least a couple of posters who consider them as real whose posts I do enjoy.

Here's, again, my position:

...snip...people with a reasonalby good level of knoweledge in science (and scientific methodology) are outnumbered by those who also believe in other fringe subjects. Its good enough for me to suppose that probably they are also outnumbered by those who trust more in the words of the Bible than in the words of science.

I don't think this is painting everibody with the same color. Perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote about my position.

Please try not to fall in to a trap like that "skeptics say you are all liars and crazy" line. Sometimes I have the impression you get a bit too emotional when facing a position which you do not agree with.

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.

As I wrote before its a qualitative evaluation. If I had stats, it would be quantitative.

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

Well, it means its likely they take baths.
Now, if someone tenders a belief (pick one without requiring the backing of solid evidence, don't you think its likely he/she will be more prone to acquire other beliefs without requiring solid evidence?

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu always seems to be talking about a different bigfoot film.

There must be another PGF that I haven't seen.

Shortly after glancing over its shoulder, the creature walks behind a grove of trees, reappears for awhile after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point, then fades into the trees again and is lost to view as the reel of film ran out.

This is clearly what happened when you watch the PGF. Diogenes has remarked on it many times. Roger moves and then waits for Patty to reappear. It appears staged.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Citation to follow when I get home and then I'll probably put you back on filter.

Citation ? What would that prove?

Anyone can look at the film and see that Patterson moves toward the subject..
This makes your statement :

He did not try to get closer after that

... wrong..

As far as putting me on filter ... Good for you..

It's certainly a lot easier than actually supporting your claims ..

 

[RayG]

They did try to track her after Roger's horse was retrieved. Gimlin immediately started to follow but Roger called him back.

Yes, if we are to believe Patterson, he claims they followed Patty for 3.5 miles, yet this is not supported by the evidence that Titmus finds at the film site only days later.

Green, Krantz, and Meldrum all refer to the Titmus findings in their books but never point out the inconsistency between the two accounts.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

 

[mangler]

A bit more about the film.

Dropping two digits is fine, it’s done all time but the issue that remains is there are no 78’s, there is no 7800 series that I am aware of. The two-digit number could represent the prefix number on the out side of the film box. The 73, which simply represents an acetate base 16mm/35mm film could have been misread as a 78, problem is there is no excuse for a mistake like that, it almost seems to indicate that Glickman never read the edge code. Another possibility could be bleed-through during the dupe but again I am not familiar with any film code/prefix that uses 78. There is one other possible scenario, I almost hate to even mention this one but I suppose the possibility exists of a Kodak test batch. The problem with that scenario, and this is the part that I hate to mention, test batches usually went to professionals, lol.

IMO, what matters is that the film Bill showed us is not Ektachrome and Glickman clearly states the film he inspected is Kodachrome. Green clearly states…

"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."

…which leads me to believe that the below Green statements refer to the same time frame.

"Green: But you know René 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.

Gimlin: Was it supposed to be on the same role of film?

Green: Oh no!

Gimlin: It was just a different role of film then?

Green: Well, I don't remember now if he brought a lot of little boxes or whether this film had already been spliced…."

If the film was duped and processed at a Seattle Lab it would have to be Ekatachrome (Alpha-Cine Lab), or Anscochrome (Forde Lab). Again, where did the Kodachorme come from? I don’t claim to know much about film so it makes no sense to me that Glickman would know less. I can maybe understand a mis-read for the 78 and I can maybe understand a mis-take about Kodachrome, but both, come on what are the odds?

Until someone can prove me wrong I’m going to say that Mrs. Patterson has the first generation copy of the creature film and Green duped from that film. I may very well be proven wrong but something is not right here.


A bit more on film.

I’m not sure how many people are aware of the fact that the Dynacolor Corp. manufactured a film called Dynachrome, which was processed with a K-11 and K-12 type knockoff.

Anscochrome also used a somewhat same type of process and it was processed in Seattle. I am not insinuating that anyone used Anscochrome to process the Kodachrome II what I’m talking about here would be for duping and possible bleed through.

The dynachrome I’m not 100% on, a couple former Kodak (Rochester) engineers developed it so it’s possible that it could have been used for a cross process. Dynachrome was developed soon after Kodak lost their patent for the K-11 or 10 can’t remember, this is from memory so don’t quote me at this point (I’m too lazy to check my notes). There is also Agfa to look it

One other point I’d like to make is that all of these films have been processed by hand. Too many people claim that it couldn’t be done, not only could they be processed by hand, they were.

Anscochrome sold home brew kits, I’m not sure about Dynachrome and kits, but the couplers and formulas seem to have been available (or so I have been told by a few sources, I’m still checking on this).

Kodak research labs developed Kodachrome by hand quite often when working with small amounts of film in regards to differing variables, time etc.. What I’m getting at here is if the Dynachrome process (K-11, K-12 knockoffs) was anywhere near the Kodachrome someone could have tested and developed a cross process (really is no big deal) then processed the original Kodachrome II at their home or a lab, or where ever.

The couplers and formulas are the key, granted it would be very time consuming and the temps. would have to be spot-on. Anyone who has ever work (manually) with film processing and/or printing knows that consistency is where it’s at, basically it’s just a bunch of numbers, change the numbers and the final result will change, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

IMO, the development/process of this film is somewhat under pare to other Kodachrome of the time period that I have seen, my opinion, it's also under pare to most professional labs.

All right enough confusion for now I’m off to the Patent office for a quick search.



M

 

[mangler]

Had I just not been so lazy and checked my notes and links in the first place.

"Dynachrome shared the same K11 Kodak developing process as the early Kodachrome (Kodachrome II, introduced in 1961, used a new Kodak process called K12, which itself was replaced by the K14 process in 1976). Martin recalls that the formulation for the K11 process was given to Gratispool by Dynachrome, whose founders had all worked previously for Kodak. He comments "Kodak may not have been relaxed about it, but the anti-trust laws in the US stopped them from doing anything about it. By that stage, they might as well make some money and keep tabs on our progress by selling us (and Dynacolor) the wherewithal to do it."

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Gratispool.html

So it is the same process, now we just need to find out if the couplers and formulas were available. BTW, this will only prove something I'm fairly certain all of us have had in the back of our minds, which is, yes the original film could have been processed, edited and duped by amateurs.


m

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting stuff M ...

Much better than " ..... Someone in some lab, examined the film and assured us it hadn't been edited .. "

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It was one on the wooden feet. Wolftrax was posting 3D animations trying to show they fit.

Oh, that one. Yeah, I read that a long while back.

No, and you don't have to take me so seriously. I asked a question.

I'm just trying to avoid what's known as "Bigfoot band-aids," aka a situation where a proponent comes up with a scenario that explains away a problem for them, but has nothing to back it up. Here's an example of how such a "band-aid" could go:

"Okay, Patterson and Gimlin may have planned a hoax, but they probably ditched their plans after filming the real deal!"

From John's keynote address at WCS 2003:

"Dr. Swindler, whom I have known for more than 30 years, has appeared in documentaries on this subject in the past as the obligatory skeptical scientist. Now, after careful examination of the best heel print in the Skookum cast, he has expressed the conviction that it is the heel print of a large unknown primate - and he would be here with us today if his health permitted."

Thank you. Did he ever indicate what documentaries Dr. Swindler appeared in?

I don't know how long Jeff knew Daris. Do you? Did they meet before Daris examined the Skookum cast?

I'm afraid not. In that interview, he only mentions Dr. Swindler being converted from a fence-sitter as a result of seeing the Skookum Cast.

Daris was a giant in his field. His opinion had weight, and it's pretty obvious it changed.

Would his opinion have any weight if he had said it wasn't evidence of Bigfoot?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Interesting stuff M ...

Much better than " ..... Someone in some lab, examined the film and assured us it hadn't been edited .. "

Oddly enough, John Green discussed that during his appearance on "Let's Talk Bigfoot," which can be found here. At about 29 minutes or so into the show, he said that he had access to the original due to his having Canadian lecture rights with Rene Dahinden and had lab look at it and made copies. The lab, which he doesn't name, supposedly said that it was the original film. Around 17 minutes in, he basically says that only the PGF itself is important and he wouldn't need the story surrounding it and he talks a bit about his visit to Disney.

More Pattycake BS ..

The ' look ' is less than a second and hardly anything that would have registered in the mind of someone looking through the viewfinder of the camera ..

In this Youtube clip, Roger Patterson claims that Patty turned and looked at him several times (2:10-2:34)!

If the film was duped and processed at a Seattle Lab it would have to be Ekatachrome (Alpha-Cine Lab), or Anscochrome (Forde Lab).

tube found a citation for the film being brought in to Alpha-Cine for copying. For what it's worth, the former employee claimed that the film was Kodachrome.

Bruce Bonney apparently handled the original film and said it was Kodachrome as well. I wonder if it would be possible to contact him?

Again, where did the Kodachorme come from? I don’t claim to know much about film so it makes no sense to me that Glickman would know less.

Ivan Sanderson gave the earliest references to Kodachrome that I could find. This is the earliest article about the filming, but no reference to the film stock is made (although LTC8K6 made some good insights regarding the film and that article).

I can maybe understand a mis-read for the 78 and I can maybe understand a mis-take about Kodachrome, but both, come on what are the odds?

I've found Mr. Glickman's website. Perhaps you could contact him about the matter?

this will only prove something I'm fairly certain all of us have had in the back of our minds, which is, yes the original film could have been processed, edited and duped by amateurs.

Do you know about how long would it take to develop Kodachrome film using such a kit?

 

[mangler]

AMM,

I know both the guys at Alpha as well as Bonney refer to the film as Kodachrome. The problem is both Eastman reversal and Kodachrome II were/are referred to as Kodachrome. They both are Kodachrome, they both use the K process. None of these guys are specific, edge codes are there for a purpose, and this scenario illustrates that fact.

Maybe one reason no one would take the film seriously is that Patterson wouldn’t produce the master, wouldn’t say where it was processed. Maybe that’s what Dahinden and Bonney had their falling out over Dahinden found out it wasn’t the master. Bonney fell off the face of the earth after that. Is there anyone other than Davis who can verify that Bonney had the master? Noll says it’s a rumor.

“There is a rumor that Bruce Bonney used the original film to make the 12 Cibachromes that Rene Dahinden wanted made. But that is about it that I know of. I remember that Rene told me that he had to go to California and pick up the film right before the UBC conference in 1978. The book that came out of the conference, “Manlike Monsters on Trial,” used the Cibachromes as plates in it.” Rick Noll

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/interview-with-rick-noll.html

I can’t find anything on Bonney and I have pretty much burnt my bridges with anyone who may know. I tried Glickman once but got no response, I guess I’ll try him again, unless someone else would care to, anyone, don’t all jump at once. Hey, Bill, how about you? You might have better luck than me.


Kodak never made a kit, but here is some info on times. I’ll check and see if Dynachrome had a home brew in the future sometime.

The big official old time K-Lab Processor did film (K-14) in I want to say 15 or so min. That machine had all the bells and whistles and then some; it also took several thousand square feet of floor space to run it. The newer K-Labs extended that time to an hour. By changing the agitation method etc. they were able to slow the speed down, by slowing the film speed down they could use smaller pumps therefore making a K-Lab that only took up a couple hundred sq. feet. I know, who cares.

Processing K-12 in all honesty is not much different than the six bath E-6, what’s different is the developing process itself, confused yet? Ektachrome E-6 has its colors in the film emulsion. Add a developer, wash, like K-12 it also needs to be exposed and/or fogged that’s your reversal bath, then color developer, pre-bleach, bleach, wash, fix, wash, rinse, dry.

With the K-12 the only things that are really different would be you would have to manually remove the rem-jet backing (colloidal silver) and you would have two reversal exposures (red and blue) instead of one and then your fog. You would develop twice, color develop three times instead of one adding your three dye couplers (the colors cyan, magenta and yellow are in the dye, not the film) the black comes from the film positive, bang you got your four colors. Every thing else is basically the same. Total time 1.5 – 2 hours depending on who is doing it. Temperatures are critical to .5 degrees, and I would bet big that you would have to trash a few rolls before you got the flashing and/or reversal exposure time right. Remember you are dealing with 100’ feet of film so you would need help during the exposures, or at least be very creative.

Hey, look it, I just found this, wow I wasn’t sure how close I was, not bad. Too funny, he’s lazy about looking things up just like me.

“The process is essentially, Rem Jet removal, wash, MQ, wash, red exposure, cyan developer, wash, blue exposure, yellow developer, wash, fog, magenta developer, wash, bleach, wash, fix, wash, dry. It takes about 1.5 hours or so. I could look it up, but I'm very lazy and I can't remember it exactly.

The process uses 3 couplers and 2 color developers. CD3 is for the C and M, and CD6 for the yellow. I believe it runs at 85 deg, but that may have changed since I last looked.

I know it can be done in a common ordinary darkroom, as I said, it is just that the chemicals are hard to come by.”

Ron Mowrey


http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/009ajI



m