Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Crowlogic]

Citation ? What would that prove?

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



... wrong..

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

[qimg]http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/hear-see-speak-no-evil1.jpg[/qimg]


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

You expect us to take seriously the miming of obviously 3 fake Chimps? Pretty good suits though. Wonder if dwarfs or children were wearing them for the photo shoot.

Seriously gives a decent look at hair density and pattern. Cute little buggers too.

 

[kitakaze]

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

 

[Bill Munns]

Mangler:

Excellent research.

I've got some inquires out to various people, no replies yet.

Bill

 

[mangler]

LTC8K6,

It's getting close, they're in the same story.

http://www.anorak.co.uk/strange-but-true/188470.html



Thanks Bill.


m

 

[Uncle Effort]

If this thing exists then why hasn't anybody bagged one of these animals yet? Armed humans have been in the Pacific Northwest in numbers since the middle of the 19th Century. We've prospected for gold, lumbering off the forests, and even today we're in the forests. We're out there in it's supposed habitat everyday.

Considering the violent history of humanity I don't buy the excuse nobody would shot one because it's too human-like. That's an excuse that many of the proponents of Sasquatch profer to explain why we don't have proof yet. But we don't have any problems killing off the Mountain Gorilla or any of the other primates that are slowly disappearing. Hell, we are slaughtering our own daily in conflicts that span the globe. Why would Bigfoot be any different? If the Bigfoot was real we should of had a corpse by now.

I am still intrigued by the Patterson-Gimlim film. When I was a kid I thought it was real. Now I know that it's just a guy in a suit. We may not be able to debunk it, but we know what it is. Just like any other Bigfoot film that comes our way...it will always be a guy in a suit.

I say to the Bigfoot believer's...put up or shut up. Quit wasting our time. If you really want to prove Bigfoot, go out a shot one and bring back the body. I would love to proved wrong. Seriously.

 

[manofthesea]

I say to the Bigfoot believer's...put up or shut up. Quit wasting our time. If you really want to prove Bigfoot, go out a shot one and bring back the body. I would love to proved wrong. Seriously.

I took that thought a step further at BFF and suggested that after they had the body strapped down on the hood, they should also tie antlers on his head and call it a sasqualope. That way if they get pulled over, they can tell the cops that sasqualopes don't exist and then be on their merry way. But I'm a believer.
Fun thread at BFF, "best gun for bigfoot" (or something). No wait, it was "If I Shot a Sasquatch", even better thread.

Think this thread is moving along fine though.

 

[Spektator]

If this thing exists then why hasn't anybody bagged one of these animals yet? Armed humans have been in the Pacific Northwest in numbers since the middle of the 19th Century. (snip).

Armed white humans, yes. Armed Native American humans have been there a lot longer...without bagging one, either.

 

[LAL]

By the time Roger got hold of the camera he had to run after the sasquatch to get close enough for a good picture, and that's what he did. He tried to film as he ran, getting only a series of blurs and losing his footing as he crossed the creek, but finally he got within about 80 feet and stopped. The animal had ignored him while he was running, but almost as soon as he stopped it turned its upper body sideways for a single stride and looked straight at him. Roger stayed right where he was after that.

"You know how it is when the umpire tells you 'One more word and you're out of the game!'" he told me once. "That's the way it felt."

Roger got clear pictures of of only about nine paces before the creature started to pass behind some trees.........

- John Green, The Apes Among Us, pg. 116

I watched the LMS extras footage about five times last night. He was not pursuing her after she gave him the look. The camera pans, then he picked her up again between trees. She's considerably father away. I've read he moved about 10' trying to get a better position, but I can't substantiate that. He does not get significantly closer from what I can see.

On the next page John mentions the film of the tracks that "seems to have been lost somehow" and that he saw it only once.

Owen Caddy's work shows Bruce Bonny's color separation doesn't give a true picture of her expression.

Bruce Bonney, BTW, examined the original with a 50x microscope. In a letter to Bayanov he said he saw the whites of the eyes.

Bill, do you know John Napier once stated a photo taken in northern India could not be of anything but a yeti and that he'd become a yeti devotee?

It turned out to be a rock.

 

[kitakaze]

Bill, do you know John Napier once stated a photo taken in northern India could not be of anything but a yeti and that he'd become a yeti devotee?

It turned out to be a rock.

Lu, do you have a link to the source of that anecdote?

 

[LAL]

Lu, do you have a link to the source of that anecdote?

No. See Dmitri Bayanov's America's Bigfoot: Fact, not Fiction, pp. 193 & 194 for the story of the photo and direct quote of Napier's from BBC Wildlife, September, 1986, Pg.422.

Bayanov and Dahinden were still on good terms when the Cibachromes were made and he corresponded with Bonney, Mangler. Maybe he could supply more information on the "rumor".

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, just out of curiosity, Lu, do you believe the Bigfoots there in North Carolina are the same species as the Bigfoots in Washington state or are they different?

 

[Correa Neto]

Armed white humans, yes. Armed Native American humans have been there a lot longer...without bagging one, either.

For a bigfoot body reach us this way, not only the Natives would have to bag one; they would have to preserve it or parts of it untill nowadays and then deliver the material to someone who would recognize its importance.

Probably there are Native American tales of sasquatch being killed, but this would be as anedoctal as the current lore of bigfeet being killed or found dead.

My money for the best odds for obtaining a specimen (if they were real) would be when lots of people with guns started to wander around North America. Probably sometime after the 1800's. "Go West", gold rush, etc.

And as each day without a bigfoot body passes, the gap where they could hide becomes smaller.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...........................
I watched the LMS extras footage about five times last night. He was not pursuing her after she gave him the look. The camera pans, then he picked her up again between trees. She's considerably father away. I've read he moved about 10' trying to get a better position, but I can't substantiate that. He does not get significantly closer from what I can see.....

You said:

....He did not try to get closer after that

So now you are backpedaling , without admitting you were in error..

The fact that you cannot see something is hardly compelling evidence it did not happen..

It is easy to see the trees between Patterson and the subject get larger between the ' look ' and the closing shots, so Patterson was moving toward the subject. So while he did not get any closer, he was trying ..

The point is, the idea that he was spooked by the ' look ' is Pattycake nonsense; and you have not addressed the fact that he was in no position to discern facial expressions on the subject, he did not have the benefit of examining the film microscopically frame by frame..

P.S.

Look at LMS frame by frame .. Tell me how many 1/30th's of a second Patty is facing the camera ...

 

[GT/CS]

If Patty wanted to scare Patterson she would have stopped, turned to face him, and raised her arms to show him how big she was compared to him. Her other option would be to throw something at him, and since there were no pigs handy, she would have thrown a log.

The turn and look was most likely Bob making sure neither of his "friends" had a rifle pointed at him.

 

[LAL]

The lab was Canawest Films in Vancouver. John had the original in his possession for some time after he bought the lecture rights to it. (The Apes Among Us, pg. 129)

He took it to Disney Studios in 1969.

Bayanov dubbed her "Patty", BTW - Patty Bigfoot.

 

[LAL]

You said:



So now you are backpedaling , without admitting you were in error..

I don't think I'm in error; I just found more on it, that's all.

I cited Green (who could be wrong) and found a statement from Kulls (who could be wrong - I don't where he got 10'). I can't be totally sure what happens before and after the big smear, but I can try to line up the foregrounds. I've done a number of captures which I'll get into Photoshop for comparison in my copious free time. Roger was apparently trying to get more footage (he ran out of film soon after he told Bob to cover him), but he could have just lowered the camera for an instant while looking for her. The camera may have been in motion without Roger moving anywhere.

Dahinden spent three years doing background checks and found nothing to indicate P&G were hoaxers. Green was one of the first to see the film and talk with Roger. Both had been to the area weeks earlier. I tend to think they might have known more about it than nitpicking posters over 40 years later.

It doesn't matter how good your points are, Greg. They get lost in your juvenile attempts to humiliate the enemy.

 

[Crowlogic]

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:

[qimg]http://www3.sympatico.ca/raygavel/patty001.jpg[/qimg]

When what he saw was more like this:

[qimg]http://www.gatzstuff.com/images/Bigfoot/352.gif[/qimg]

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..

Greg have you ever looked through the viewfinder of a Kodack K-100? Human beings have two eyes and Roger Patterson is known to have had two functioning eyes. While its not uncommon to close one eye during camera work one can use the other eye to see unobstructed. We don't know if Patterson used is free eye to catch a direct glimpse of the film subject. He could have especially during the dramatic event of the head turn. Before the days of digital camers with led displays I frequently used to use my other eye to directly see what I was shooting. That said the experssion on the face of the film subject is not exactly a welcoming glance.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

As I noted over in my Minnesota Iceman thread, a PM from tube alerted me to the fact that Verne Langdon has started posting at the BFF. Not only has he revealed some more behind-the-scenes details about the creation of the Minnesota Iceman, but he confirmed that Jerry Malone's "iceman" was indeed made by John Chambers and is also offering his opinion about the PGF. You can read more about it here.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

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.

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up (and for all the other great information).

kitakaze:

I think of this every time you post that "Hang in there" picture.

The lab was Canawest Films in Vancouver. John had the original in his possession for some time after he bought the lecture rights to it. (The Apes Among Us, pg. 129)

Thanks for the info. I tried to see if the company was still around/if I could find their website, but what I've found so far doesn't seem too promising.

This .PDF file seems to indicate that there were two companies with that name

Canawest Film Productions Ltd. (Vancouver, British Columbia) Also known as Canwest Film Productions. A division of KVOS-TV (BC) Ltd. The company also maintained a branch office in Toronto. General Manager: Jack Gettles Executive Producer (1965/66 listing): Jack Lindsay

Canawest-Master Films Ltd. (Calgary, Alberta) Production and distribution company.

Entry #152 on this list of works whose copyright owners couldn't be located mentions a film that was produced in association with Canawest Films. On the other hand, KVOS seems to have an active website.

Dahinden spent three years doing background checks and found nothing to indicate P&G were hoaxers.

Personally, I think he didn't do a very good job, seeing as how he missed some gaping clues (the timeline not working, etc.) And as soon as he got his fingers into the film's profits, he'd have no reason to expose it as a hoax.
Come to think of it, isn't he supposed to have told Greg Long that he knew the film was shot earlier than Patterson and Gimlin claimed it was? I tried to verify this for myself, but all I've found is a quote apparently said by Mr. Dahinden to Greg Long:

There are real dumb t'ings I should have done. The problem is that ve didn't do our job.

I found it here (under "Bigfoot, Big Con").

 

[mangler]

No one is disputing the fact that all these people say they examined the master. The problem is they all say the same thing, Kodachrome. The master is supposedly Kodachrome II, (image below) that’s what they should be saying (Kodachrome II or Kodachrome Safety) if they examined the master. Anyone with any serious experience examining masters is going to give you a hell of a lot more information than the word Kodachrome, if they don’t you have taken it to the wrong people. The master should have a leader (full of information) on it unless privately processed, if it doesn’t that would be the first indication that there may be a problem, it would be mentioned.

Knights at one point tried to push the Technicolor thing, if the Technicolor process was used at anytime I’m fairly certain one could tell. Technicolor processing is pretty hard to mistake for anything else.

KVOS is/was the parent of Canawest, I think Canawest did a handful of projects. KVOS has got to be one of the worst/least professional PBS affiliates to date. IMO, taking a film to Canawest at that time for analysis would be like me asking my dog how to drive. Keith Cutler one of their illustrious leaders went on to a glorified career at Capilano University, lol, I’m sorry I’m just familiar with the institution.

I see no indication or reference to film type or editing/splicing in this write-up. What they seem to be implying has to do optical effects, masking, knock-outs, double exp. etc.

“The types of special effects we enjoy today at the movies, where any image can be seamlessly matted into another were not fully developed in 1967. In his quest to authenticate the film, Green offered the film for analysis to Canawest Films, Ltd. The technicians there firmly concluded that what was filmed at Bluff Creek that day was, in fact, plodding through the sand—no trick of the trade available at the time could have dropped the walking Sasquatch into the autumn scene from the studio. What we see on the film was there.”
Bigfoot Exposed pg.112-13

Lu, could you please provide in full what Green states in his book about this?

BTW, I have come across some information that seems to indicate that Kodak may have had a lab/office in Vancouver around the early or mid 60’s, I’m not certain of the date or if they processed Kodachrome, still checking.


m