Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[LONGTABBER PE]

I don't think he theorized that there was a second camera. I could be wrong. IMO, he seems to think that the 'blood puddle' was edited out of PGF copies for public view because P&G didn't want anyone to know that they had shot a bunch of Bigfoots and buried them with a backhoe. He doesn't seem to realize that the blood puddle is actually the flowing creek and can be seen (as the opening frames) in various programs. He implies that the frame (as transparency) given to him by PP is one that has never been seen by anyone before.

Forgetting MK's idiotic theories- it still begs the question. Was that "still" a part of the PGF or from a still camera. ( there are claims they had one)

Also, on the "mystery" second roll- many of those pictures "look" like they would have come from a still camera. ( and the "shadow' pic looks like a 3rd person holding the camera)

So, I guess the next question is: does anyone know when/where the 2nd roll was developed?

When was it shown ( separate or companion) to the PGF?

What was its final disposition?

 

[William Parcher]

Forgetting MK's idiotic theories- it still begs the question. Was that "still" a part of the PGF or from a still camera. ( there are claims they had one)

That still is a frame from the 16mm PGF. You watched the version with flipped frames. It rolls by in that one. You can also see it in the NG PGF.

Also, on the "mystery" second roll- many of those pictures "look" like they would have come from a still camera. ( and the "shadow' pic looks like a 3rd person holding the camera)

What shadow pic? AFAIK, there are no still camera shots from Bluff Creek.

So, I guess the next question is: does anyone know when/where the 2nd roll was developed?

When was it shown ( separate or companion) to the PGF?

Green says he watched the "stomp test" at the University of British Columbia, which was the first semi-public showing on October 26, 1967.

Portions of it can be seen in some programs, but they all lack the stomp test.

What was its final disposition?

It's said to be lost or unaccountable. I think the Dahindens have it.

Virtually all of your questions are answered in the 411 PGF.

 

[Crowlogic]

That one frame that Davis uses, with the "damaged mouth", sorta looks like what happens when you stop the film for just a little too long...

Sounds like your refering to projector burn. If it was that the color in the entire frame would have been tainted. Which its not.

 

[William Parcher]

Peyote Vision by MK Davis...

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

That still is a frame from the 16mm PGF. You watched the version with flipped frames. It rolls by in that one. You can also see it in the NG PGF.
What shadow pic? AFAIK, there are no still camera shots from Bluff Creek.
Green says he watched the "stomp test" at the University of British Columbia, which was the first semi-public showing on October 26, 1967.
Portions of it can be seen in some programs, but they all lack the stomp test.
It's said to be lost or unaccountable. I think the Dahindens have it.

Virtually all of your questions are answered in the 411 PGF.

>>>That still is a frame from the 16mm PGF. You watched the version with flipped frames. It rolls by in that one. You can also see it in the NG PGF.

Yeah, I've heard that, I've heard it was "removed" and several variants. Which witch is which? My problem is that if its truly "unaltered' it has different coloring than the rest of the PGF.

>>>What shadow pic? AFAIK, there are no still camera shots from Bluff Creek.

The one where RP is kneeling showing his cast with ( ostensibly) BG's shadow to the far left. ( with the camera at a different angle)

I'm just not fully convinced that all those stills shown come from a motion picture. ( trackways and such)

>>>Green says he watched the "stomp test" at the University of British Columbia, which was the first semi-public showing on October 26, 1967.

OK, if thats correct, where is the development/delivery trail for that one. ( Dont tell me the principles forgot how BOTH of them got developed)

>>>It's said to be lost or unaccountable. I think the Dahindens have it.

Why doesnt that surprise me. I dont believe its "lost" and I dont believe RD and family have it. ( thats my hypothesis based on what I'm reviewing now- but subject to change) I think its in the same place as the original.( for the same reason)

>>>Virtually all of your questions are answered in the 411 PGF

Maybe ( and I've read probably most of it as i lurked here about a year before I joined) but due to its size, its sometimes difficult to search then you have to read thru all the woos, arguments,obfuscations etc- its like trying to decipher Dr. Meehan's Duke DNA report.

 

[William Parcher]

Yeah, I've heard that, I've heard it was "removed" and several variants. Which witch is which? My problem is that if its truly "unaltered' it has different coloring than the rest of the PGF.

It's a frame from the PGF. It is altered because the creek water is so dark that it looks like blood (to Davis). I think he played with his graphic program settings to achieve that look. He has a habit of doing that.

The one where RP is kneeling showing his cast with ( ostensibly) BG's shadow to the far left. ( with the camera at a different angle)

I'm just not fully convinced that all those stills shown come from a motion picture. ( trackways and such)

Are you talking about the scene where RP is kneeling next to a track and putting plaster into it?

OK, if thats correct, where is the development/delivery trail for that one. (Dont tell me the principles forgot how BOTH of them got developed)

Man, there is no development/delivery trail for any of this stuff. All you have is various factoids like where/when things were first shown, what was shown, who saw it, etc. It's virtually all anecdote. Green says the stomp test was shown in BC on Oct. 26, and Dahinden said it wasn't. So you can even have disagreements with the factoids.

Why doesnt that surprise me. I dont believe its "lost" and I dont believe RD and family have it. ( thats my hypothesis based on what I'm reviewing now- but subject to change) I think its in the same place as the original.( for the same reason)

For the "2nd Roll", you can talk about the original and copies from the original. I do think the Dahindens have a copy of the "2nd Roll". It is possible that it is the original.

Maybe ( and I've read probably most of it as i lurked here about a year before I joined) but due to its size, its sometimes difficult to search then you have to read thru all the woos, arguments,obfuscations etc- its like trying to decipher Dr. Meehan's Duke DNA report.

You may have read most of the 411 PGF, but you are now asking questions that are answered in that thread. That thread is also rich in images, clips and links.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

to WP

>>>Are you talking about the scene where RP is kneeling next to a track and putting plaster into it?

yes

>>>Man, there is no development/delivery trail for any of this stuff. All you have is various factoids like where/when things were first shown, what was shown, who saw it, etc. It's virtually all anecdote. Green says the stomp test was shown in BC on Oct. 26, and Dahinden said it wasn't. So you can even have disagreements with the factoids.

I know and that alone is circumstantial evidence of a staged hoax.

>>>For the "2nd Roll", you can talk about the original and copies from the original. I do think the Dahindens have a copy of the "2nd Roll". It is possible that it is the original.

They may ( I dont know) but I think theres a good reason it went away too because it would blow the timeline and expose the hoax.

>>>You may have read most of the 411 PGF, but you are now asking questions that are answered in that thread. That thread is also rich in images, clips and links.

I would say more 'addressed' than answered and i do go back to it regularly- it just doesnt have much of what I'm looking for.

 

[William Parcher]

yes

When you see images of RP putting plaster into a track, you are seeing still frames from 16mm film. That shadow to the left cannot be the cameraman. It is most likely the shadow of a piece of wood sticking up from the sand. It does not look like the shadow of a human being. This was covered comprehensively in the 411 PGF.

The source footage can be seen here, along with the camera pan of the trackway. There remains a controversey about whether we are seeing RP pouring plaster into Patty tracks, or if this was a fabricated "Bigfoot" plaster-cast demonstration. RP told both Krantz & Dahinden that he had filmed a demonstration using fabricated footprints. He told Krantz that he did this at Bluff Creek before encountering Patty. I think this is a profound bit of information for at least two reasons. First, it means that RP had fake track-making tools with him at Bluff Creek. Secondly, it means there is a film of him demonstrating casting on a fake trackway. Is this that film?

 

[JcR]

LT...

"ALL people WILL lie or tell the truth AS IT SUITS THEM to gain or avoid "whatever" is important
to them REGARDLESS of what their "life history", "appearance", eye contact" or ability
to "look" honest say.
"Credibility" isnt a measurement of anything because its MEANINGLESS and UNDEFINABLE." ( Don't know why the Quote feature is not workin for me)
Hope I Quoted you properly.

If it were my court they better look good, look me in the eye and lie as best as they can
or try and recall to the best of their ability. Because this will effect any final decisions
I may come to. "Testimonies" if accompanied along with punctuality good procedure
and sound factual events, adds a lot of weight to one's thought processes, legal decisions,,, etc.
Credibility is a creature of many designs and is always factored in to final outcomes.
So lookin honest with just a story is just that, and not a definition of credibility.
Credibility is the weight I give to each person, event and physical evidence brought forth.
And if these Characters were weights, the scale would be tipping back and forth I would get dizzy.


Still pretty anxious with my mallet here.

 

[JcR]

When you see images of RP putting plaster into a track, you are seeing still frames from 16mm film. That shadow to the left cannot be the cameraman. It is most likely the shadow of a piece of wood sticking up from the sand. It does not look like the shadow of a human being. This was covered comprehensively in the 411 PGF.

The source footage can be seen here, along with the camera pan of the trackway. There remains a controversey about whether we are seeing RP pouring plaster into Patty tracks, or if this was a fabricated "Bigfoot" plaster-cast demonstration. RP told both Krantz & Dahinden that he had filmed a demonstration using fabricated footprints. He told Krantz that he did this at Bluff Creek before encountering Patty. I think this is a profound bit of information for at least two reasons. First, it means that RP had fake track-making tools with him at Bluff Creek. Secondly, it means there is a film of him demonstrating casting on a fake trackway. Is this that film?


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/8595bfaa.jpg[/qimg]

Is it just me, or does it not look like there isn't any footprints
in the area beyond the one RP is casting ? Maybe he is blocking the view
a little. Just expecting to see a left footprint next if he is casting a right one.
And he can sure grow scruff quick. Thinking of the picture were he is
holding up castings.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

>>I think this is a profound bit of information for at least two reasons. First, it means that RP had fake track-making tools with him at Bluff Creek. Secondly, it means there is a film of him demonstrating casting on a fake trackway. Is this that film?

Thats one of them ( cant get that video to play) and i agree he had them with him. ( probably a set of wooden feet and a hammer to pound them in with)

Also, how long from pour until he pulled the plaster? ( anyone know?)

Hopefully it wasnt there for all that rain that night

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT...

"ALL people WILL lie or tell the truth AS IT SUITS THEM to gain or avoid "whatever" is important
to them REGARDLESS of what their "life history", "appearance", eye contact" or ability
to "look" honest say.
"Credibility" isnt a measurement of anything because its MEANINGLESS and UNDEFINABLE." ( Don't know why the Quote feature is not workin for me)
Hope I Quoted you properly.

If it were my court they better look good, look me in the eye and lie as best as they can
or try and recall to the best of their ability. Because this will effect any final decisionsI may come to. "Testimonies" if accompanied along with punctuality good procedure
and sound factual events, adds a lot of weight to one's thought processes, legal decisions,,, etc.
Credibility is a creature of many designs and is always factored in to final outcomes.
So lookin honest with just a story is just that, and not a definition of credibility.
Credibility is the weight I give to each person, event and physical evidence brought forth.
And if these Characters were weights, the scale would be tipping back and forth I would get dizzy.


Still pretty anxious with my mallet here.

The majority of them can do just that

>>>and sound factual events, adds a lot of weight to one's thought processes, legal decisions,,, etc.

Thats where they all tank. Remember, in any given event- theres only 1 factual sequence or "true" account. You then either know it or you dont. ( if you dont, thats usually easy to spot)

When one knows it- theres a factor of personal interpretation, memory degradation and such. Theres also knowing it any lying about it.

Normally eye witness variations boil down to variations of a theme. ( so and so saw a guy in a red shirt, green shirt,army jacket etc) but the "guy" was there and was clothed.

Thats not what we have in the backstory. Sure, you can write stuff like BG thought it was X oclock and RP thought it was x+10 oclock and patty was over 7' or under 6 and stuff.

There are many contradictions in the chain of events and much more that call all accounts into question.

 

[JcR]

>>Thats one of them ( cant get that video to play) and i agree he had them with him. ( probably a set of wooden feet and a hammer to pound them in with)



Also, how long from pour until he pulled the plaster? ( anyone know?)

Hopefully it wasnt there for all that rain that night

I don't know how long he waited until he pulled the plaster.
But Gimlin said he went back to cover tracks with some bark he found.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I don't know how long he waited until he pulled the plaster.
But Gimlin said he went back to cover tracks with some bark he found.

So I've heard but I have reservations as to whether that account is true.

First, we dont know if he was referring to pristine prints or poured ones or how many.

I question the ready availability of "tree bark" in adequate size/volume to cover too many tracks or cover them well. ( theres no mention of skinning a tree)

Also, if the rain was as torrential as claimed, bark alone wouldnt have stopped any print from becoming saturated or filled/distorted/eroded or anything else.

If there was curing plaster during such a rain, that would have pretty much messed them up too. ( having plaster skin is one thing- saturating it is another)

That "stomp" test concerns me too. Its uncharacteristic to say RP "believed" science would accept BF on the basis of his film ( as many say) but felt the need to film a "proof' test for the prints. ( why would he need to do something to "prove" great weight when he made no effort to "prove" the height or anything else?)

What he probably did was find a spot where he didnt leave prints, took his wooden feet and beat them down with a hammer ( which might also account for why they are almost in a toe to toe straight line and so "ununiform)

( that hammer might be how that stirrup got bent after the fact too)

 

[William Parcher]

Thats one of them ( cant get that video to play) and i agree he had them with him. ( probably a set of wooden feet and a hammer to pound them in with)

You can agree that RP had tools with him at Bluff Creek, but it is anecdotal info, not fact. The PGF believers will not let that slide, especially considering that you seem to only want to work with facts. You will find that verifiable facts concerning the PGF and backstory are extremely rare things.

BH says that RP had plaster casts at Bluff Creek which he used to make fake tracks. I speculate that these could have been cement instead of plaster - for added durability.

Also, how long from pour until he pulled the plaster? ( anyone know?)

I asked that question in the 411 PGF and was told about one hour.

 

[JcR]

Thats not what we have in the backstory. Sure, you can write stuff like BG thought it was X oclock and RP thought it was x+10 oclock and patty was over 7' or under 6 and stuff.

There are many contradictions in the chain of events and much more that call all accounts into question.

I agree eyewitness testimonies will vary when one describes
an event or person (this case a BF). Descriptions of their height and placement
can carry little weight with me. knowing this is the case when eyewitnesses
testify, I will give this area a little wiggle room.
I would certainly hope the back story has more than just these variants
in description.

 

[William Parcher]

So I've heard but I have reservations as to whether that account is true.

First, we dont know if he was referring to pristine prints or poured ones or how many.

I question the ready availability of "tree bark" in adequate size/volume to cover too many tracks or cover them well. ( theres no mention of skinning a tree)

Also, if the rain was as torrential as claimed, bark alone wouldnt have stopped any print from becoming saturated or filled/distorted/eroded or anything else.

When Lyle Laverty showed up at the sandbar on Sunday, Oct. 22, some of the tracks he found were covered with pieces of bark. The "famous mid-tarsal break print" photographed by Laverty and later cast by Titmus was one of the ones covered with bark. Laverty put the bark back over the prints after he took the pics.

It's all in the 411 PGF.

 

[Crowlogic]

Did not Titmus and or Laverty comment that there was evidence of casting in some of the tracks? Had Patterson made other false tracks to cast would it not have been noticed at Bluff Creek if they were done at Bluff Creek. And why cast prints in the trackline if you're going to also cast prints unrelated to the track line? My guess concerning the plaster stained jeans Patterson is wearing in the cast pour photo is that they poured the casts and returned to camp while the casts set up and Patterson changed his pants. Did he not get them wet charging through the stream during the fiming? The photo where hi's holding the casts shows him wearing a jacket which coinsides with the drop in temperature. He's also filthy and unshaven as would be expected considering the mission. The casts he's holding have the grey cast of freshly set plaster. The pour photo could be staged but I'm of the opinion that the frames where Patterson is holding the casts is during the outing of the filming. Does it matter if there's film of Patterson demonstrating cast pouring? Only if we know its phony and only if the Bluff Creef casts are actually cast from the demonstration. No evidence of either.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

You can agree that RP had tools with him at Bluff Creek, but it is anecdotal info, not fact. The PGF believers will not let that slide, especially considering that you seem to only want to work with facts. You will find that verifiable facts concerning the PGF and backstory are extremely rare things.
BH says that RP had plaster casts at Bluff Creek which he used to make fake tracks. I speculate that these could have been cement instead of plaster - for added durability.

I asked that question in the 411 PGF and was told about one hour.

>>>You can agree that RP had tools with him at Bluff Creek, but it is anecdotal info, not fact.

true but they drove tent pegs,cut wood and stuff with something and many tools would beat a fake foot down in the hard ground

>>>The PGF believers will not let that slide, especially considering that you seem to only want to work with facts.

I would certainly "like' facts but one works with what one has

>>>You will find that verifiable facts concerning the PGF and backstory are extremely rare things.

The only "verifiable fact" i keep seeing is that nothing matches

>>>BH says that RP had plaster casts at Bluff Creek which he used to make fake tracks. I speculate that these could have been cement instead of plaster - for added durability.

I wonder if those were just Patty 1.0 test hoax prints

>>>When Lyle Laverty showed up at the sandbar on Sunday, Oct. 22, some of the tracks he found were covered with pieces of bark.

I've heard Sat, Sun and Mon- is Sun the correct one?

And I dont think it impossible BG covered some, I just wonder why

 

[GT/CS]

You can agree that RP had tools with him at Bluff Creek, but it is anecdotal info, not fact. The PGF believers will not let that slide, especially considering that you seem to only want to work with facts. You will find that verifiable facts concerning the PGF and backstory are extremely rare things.

BH says that RP had plaster casts at Bluff Creek which he used to make fake tracks. I speculate that these could have been cement instead of plaster - for added durability.



I asked that question in the 411 PGF and was told about one hour.

Sorry, but I need to nitpick here.

Cement is a fine powder so it can't be used as a track-making medium. If you mix it with water, and sand or gravel, you'd get concrete or mortar.