Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[LONGTABBER PE]

WP,

These people weren’t even sure how to measure stride length and/or stride interval, heel to toe, toe to heel, heel-to-heel, toe-to-toe, its fricking ridiculous.

One of the major problems I have with the whole tracking thing and these supposedly great impression tracks is that nowhere do I ever read any words that remotely suggest that anyone involved had any knowledge of tracking, animal or tactical. No mention of transfer, scuff marks, trail width/straddle, nothing, ever. I would expect some mention of the tracks at and around frame 352 something like “look it, you can see where it’s whole upper body turned”. To place any credibility what-so-ever in the words of those on site people is very, very difficult for me to do.

Like LT is trying to explain the pressure release for the foot digits is simply wrong as well as pressure ridges not being where they belong. Plain and simple the impression (photos) and/or impression casts that we see are not from a large moving bi-pedal subject. When a subject is in transit it moves a specific way and leaves specific marks/spoor. By analyzing this spoor one can decipher what the hell is going on, how fast, how heavy, how tall, how tired, is it nervous, does it have a handicap, which way was it looking, etc.
Post #62 for other stride crap http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19769&st=33&p=402372&#entry402372
m

Mangler, thank you for that illustration you posted in the BFF. ( everyone needs to look at that) its obvious to me you have a high degree of experience in this as well. ( his illustration shows a template of how forensic podiatry starts with the apex angles starting behind the heel and then centerlines the path)

The prints in the alleged trackpath could NOT have been made by a walking BF or man in a suit or even an unsuited man wearing BF shoes because everything about them is wrong compared to what we know about how mechanics operates.

You cant fool physics and that concept of "for every action, theres an equal and opposite reaction"

The leg motions of the film subject show it would be impossible for that walk to generate those prints. ( they dont just not match on "any" point- they dont match on EVERY point)

I cant tell you what did make them but i can tell you what did NOT make them.

( before i saw Manglers post with his illustration, i emailed some people to get some illustrations from manuals on how this is done- when i get them, I'll post them)

The funny thing is, you might could get away with it on a hard surface ( like a carpet floor) because the foot would slide and the skin would flex but when those prints SANK- that skeleton would simply HAVE to turn in order for the thing to locomote and the print would record that.

 

[Crowlogic]

Or maybe the mime jumped into the hole left by the large uprooted tree we see in the film.
It's interesting that the film ends as the subject approaches that tree ..

Why do you defend the Titmus tracking story, when P & G said they tracked the creature beyond where Titmus said it squatted and observed ?

...And don't give me the " ... it must have back-tracked and did the squat thing later " story; because the Titmus tracking map shows the subject going directly from the film site, and up the side of the hill; in clear contradiction to both Patterson and Gimlin.

Why not defend Titmus? For as long as I've been coming to this forum there has been countless blatherings about how there must be this or that on those rolls of film. You know that. So if the entire film is suspect, and it is, then why not incorporate some of the other visual clues that others like Titmus found? Can you supply me with a reason, other than a supposed running out of film and the word of Bob Heronimus that the film actually ended there or that another shot wasn't staged of it going into the woods. Perhaps then Patterson and Gimlin must be believed that the film ran out and what you see is what there is. If its a fake, and you believe it is a fake, then all bets are off and all manner of alternative happenstances are open for discussion. So within that discussion there is the report of Bob Titmus saying that he found evidence that the creature
went to a spot, sat down and apparently oversaw the actions of P &G in the post filming minutes. Or conversely that the mime stopped at the end of the last film segment sat down and began removing the suit.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Let me try Crow ( I can do it with no opinion either way because I'm not even factoring his claim into what I'm looking at so I dont care if his account is right or wrong or even there)

>>>Can you supply me with a reason, other than a supposed running out of film and the word of Bob Heronimus that the film actually ended there or that another shot wasn't staged of it going into the woods.

1) Titmus is lying ( I doubt he is but thats the first logical negative conclusion)

2) he is telling the truth ( I discount that because now I'm convinced the PGF is a hoax whether BF is real or not and I cant accept RP and co went to that extent to fake tracks that far)

3) the middle ( kinda where I'm at) Titmus followed the staged patty tracks to the woodline- from there he might have followed "something" and found a spot for "something". i say that because if there were that many good tracks and a squat print, i cant see RP and co ( who "thought" it was a real BF) or anyone else not recording all of that either in pictures, a hand map, filmed it or something.

I havent seen what he "followed" and i dont know his tracking expertise so I dont know if he followed random "whatever", a hunters tracks, a bears tracks or anything. ( also because if they thought they were following an animal, logic would suggest they would be prepared for the real possibility of FINDING it)

I can see RP letting the film run out because it adds "realism" and the aura of a "happenstance" encounter to reinforce the hoax.

I'l just speculating for you because i actually have "no" opinion of Titmus' account, positive or negative. Its just 'there" as far as I'm concerned because theres nothing to verify it against.

 

[RayG]

Besides, if you discard eyewitness testimony. the world of BF will cease to exist like being sucked into a black hole because there isnt a single solitary piece of scientifically conclusive forensic or fossil evidence that supports the existence of such a creature.

Yes, but there are sketches...

RayG

 

[Crowlogic]

The PGF was filmed earlier, BH wasnt there that day because they were just faking tracks and pouring plaster. ( they knew the rain was coming)

They had to get the scene right so those who came looking could find something

Its beginning to seem that Bluff Creek was quite a hopping place, not exactly in the heart of the wilderness. But consider that Roge and Bob film on Oct 15 why then didn't anybody notice the queer tracks etc then. It seems there were enough people around to notice something. Roger did have tracks to film regardless of when the film was shot in the form of the feet from whoever or whatever was the hairy thing in the film. Seems its getting lost in the shuffle that the hairy thing did indeed have feet of its own. Why is there no mention of weird "fake bedroom slipper type tracks on the sand bar? Tracks made on the 15th would have still been visible on the 22nd since the rain came on the small hours of the 21st. And how did they "know the rain was coming and how bad it would be? There were drought conditions at the time. Weather forcasting in the mountains is precarious now and back then even worse. When I was researching in the Adironcaks I more then once got heavily rained on only to go into town still wet to find it bright sunny and not a drop all day. Were they phoning the weather service from a booth in the woods?, Were they traveling to the general store or were they listening to the radio in Bob's old Half Ton truck. If said Half Ton had an AM radio its doubtful that it would have pulled in anything at all. Remember how bad AM radio was for reception?

 

[Crowlogic]

Let me try Crow ( I can do it with no opinion either way because I'm not even factoring his claim into what I'm looking at so I dont care if his account is right or wrong or even there)

>>>Can you supply me with a reason, other than a supposed running out of film and the word of Bob Heronimus that the film actually ended there or that another shot wasn't staged of it going into the woods.

1) Titmus is lying ( I doubt he is but thats the first logical negative conclusion)

2) he is telling the truth ( I discount that because now I'm convinced the PGF is a hoax whether BF is real or not and I cant accept RP and co went to that extent to fake tracks that far)

3) the middle ( kinda where I'm at) Titmus followed the staged patty tracks to the woodline- from there he might have followed "something" and found a spot for "something". i say that because if there were that many good tracks and a squat print, i cant see RP and co ( who "thought" it was a real BF) or anyone else not recording all of that either in pictures, a hand map, filmed it or something.

I havent seen what he "followed" and i dont know his tracking expertise so I dont know if he followed random "whatever", a hunters tracks, a bears tracks or anything. ( also because if they thought they were following an animal, logic would suggest they would be prepared for the real possibility of FINDING it)

I can see RP letting the film run out because it adds "realism" and the aura of a "happenstance" encounter to reinforce the hoax.

I'l just speculating for you because i actually have "no" opinion of Titmus' account, positive or negative. Its just 'there" as far as I'm concerned because theres nothing to verify it against.

LT let's consider this and its being overlooked in the phony track scenerio. Don't loose sight that the film object was leaving tracks of its own. It was after all a solid object with weight, mass and capable of movement under it's own power. If it moved through the woods beyond it would have left its own trail with or without Pattersons design. So it can't be dismissed that Roger made some tracks to cast and film but that wherever the "hairy thing" went it too was leaving a trail.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Very well Crow

>>>But consider that Roge and Bob film on Oct 15 why then didn't anybody notice the queer tracks etc then. It seems there were enough people around to notice something.

Sure but only if they were at ground zero ( or within eyesight) and then only when action was going on

>>>Roger did have tracks to film regardless of when the film was shot in the form of the feet from whoever or whatever was the hairy thing in the film. Seems its getting lost in the shuffle that the hairy thing did indeed have feet of its own.

Yeah and its equally possible that the ground that wouldnt hold his prints wouldnt hold the mimes either. Theres also no way to show the alleged trackway was made by the film subject. ( or even in the same location)

>>>Tracks made on the 15th would have still been visible on the 22nd since the rain came on the small hours of the 21st.

we dont know the 2 areas are the same. If there were 50-100 meters apart then nobody saw the others

>>>And how did they "know the rain was coming and how bad it would be? There were drought conditions at the time. Weather forcasting in the mountains is precarious now and back then even worse. When I was researching in the Adironcaks I more then once got heavily rained on only to go into town still wet to find it bright sunny and not a drop all day. Were they phoning the weather service from a booth in the woods?,

Maybe they were surprised, maybe they called the radio station- either way, it doesnt disqualify ( or confirm) their actions

None of the above alters the fact the "claimed" trackway doesnt match the patterns seen on the PGF.

Its one of those cases where I dont know exactly what they did or why but I know what didnt happen based on the prints.

 

[mangler]

Negative on the half ton truck Logic. One ton with a horse van on it. Come-on get it together.


m

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT let's consider this and its being overlooked in the phony track scenerio. Don't loose sight that the film object was leaving tracks of its own. I was after all a solid object with weight, mass and capable of movement under it's own power. If it moved through the woods beyond it would have left its own trail with or without Pattersons design. So it can't be dismissed that Roger made some tracks to cast and film but that wherever the "hairy thing" went it too was leaving a trail.

Sure and if it could be established the trackway claimed came from the film subject.

The problem is that the film subject was around 6 ft or under- those feet are NOT 14.5 inches and the claimed trackway was NOT made by the subject walking in that film.

OK, maybe "it" made tracks ( if the ground allowed) but we dont have those tracks to look at

When "it" went into the woods, now we have different soil, vegetation and a completely different set of circumstances with no record whatsoever of what was tracked or by who. We dont know if Titmus was following a man, bear, pig or just bent blades of grass.

Theres nothing to measure his claims against. Did he discover patty squatting, another Skookin elk lay impersonating a BF butt print or a fat guy resting?

 

[makaya325]

i really dont think we can assume for sure the skookum cast was that of an elk. it seemed to be much larger than elks.

the pgf subject turned out to tower over mclarin, whos 6ft 5

 

[Crowlogic]

LT I mention the object's own tracks as a means of giving Titmus a trail that he could have legitimately followed on his own as having been part of the proceedings on the direct filmsite. Also Al Hodgson (SP) the general store owner does not mention Patterson being in the area in a time frame that would have allowed 2 seperate shooting events. Nobody else mentiones that either yet we've learned there were people in the area in the weeks surrounding the filming event/events.

 

[Crowlogic]

Sure and if it could be established the trackway claimed came from the film subject.

The problem is that the film subject was around 6 ft or under- those feet are NOT 14.5 inches and the claimed trackway was NOT made by the subject walking in that film.

OK, maybe "it" made tracks ( if the ground allowed) but we dont have those tracks to look at

When "it" went into the woods, now we have different soil, vegetation and a completely different set of circumstances with no record whatsoever of what was tracked or by who. We dont know if Titmus was following a man, bear, pig or just bent blades of grass.

Theres nothing to measure his claims against. Did he discover patty squatting, another Skookin elk lay impersonating a BF butt print or a fat guy resting?

LT lets think about this from the hoaxers standpoint. Roger is going to make a hoax about a hairy giant hominid yet he crafts and films something that's hardly going to impress even the average of height, let alone make envious the NBA? Not only that but he makes several long journeys into the mountains of Northern California to film his "dwarf Bigfoot?" My money is on at least 6'5"

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

i really dont think we can assume for sure the skookum cast was that of an elk. it seemed to be much larger than elks.

the pgf subject turned out to tower over mclarin, whos 6ft 5

Yes we can, it all fits and review Yetifans, WTs and Tubes work- its an elk lay

The PGF film subject has no established height but most of the examinations put it between 5-6 ft tall ( hardly inhuman)

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT I mention the object's own tracks as a means of giving Titmus a trail that he could have legitimately followed on his own as having been part of the proceedings on the direct filmsite. Also Al Hodgson (SP) the general store owner does not mention Patterson being in the area in a time frame that would have allowed 2 seperate shooting events. Nobody else mentiones that either yet we've learned there were people in the area in the weeks surrounding the filming event/events.

We dont know for certain those ARE the film subjects prints ( and they arent) and we dont know for certain the tracksite is the film site.

How would Hodgeson know what RP was doing ( or when)?

People "in the area" means little to nothing unless those people were at ground zero

>>>>LT lets think about this from the hoaxers standpoint. Roger is going to make a hoax about a hairy giant hominid yet he crafts and films something that's hardly going to impress even the average of height, let alone make envious the NBA?

If he filmed it in 2009 I would agree, he didnt

>>>Not only that but he makes several long journeys into the mountains of Northern California to film his "dwarf Bigfoot?" My money is on at least 6'5"

That may be true ( Patty's height is a guess) but what isnt is the alleged trackway and something of her width and pelvic structure and the way she walked ( filmed) didnt make those tracks.

They dont match ( in any area) so theres the hoax right there

 

[Crowlogic]

Yes we can, it all fits and review Yetifans, WTs and Tubes work- its an elk lay

The PGF film subject has no established height but most of the examinations put it between 5-6 ft tall ( hardly inhuman)

It can be 8ft tall and still be witin the range of human. However when accepting to refusing certain claims of who wore the suit height is important. Seriously 5ft is a joke. Nobody would have even gotten out of bed a second time to view the movements of a 5ft mime in action. Did Patterson put wife Patrica in the suit perhaps? Lets also not loose sight of the fact that whether we like it or not other learned eyes before us have viewed and measured this thing and while the giant nature of it can be suspect dwarfism of 5ft has never beent put forward as a serious dimension. IMO expending energy on measuring to postulate 5ft tall is a waste of time for anyone. Better to consider the flaws in how a figure of 5ft might arise.

 

[Crowlogic]

We dont know for certain those ARE the film subjects prints ( and they arent) and we dont know for certain the tracksite is the film site.

How would Hodgeson know what RP was doing ( or when)?

People "in the area" means little to nothing unless those people were at ground zero

>>>>LT lets think about this from the hoaxers standpoint. Roger is going to make a hoax about a hairy giant hominid yet he crafts and films something that's hardly going to impress even the average of height, let alone make envious the NBA?

If he filmed it in 2009 I would agree, he didnt

>>>Not only that but he makes several long journeys into the mountains of Northern California to film his "dwarf Bigfoot?" My money is on at least 6'5"

That may be true ( Patty's height is a guess) but what isnt is the alleged trackway and something of her width and pelvic structure and the way she walked ( filmed) didnt make those tracks.

They dont match ( in any area) so theres the hoax right there

Al Hodgeson himself (I believe)
states that Patterson entered his store after the filming and said to the effect. "Al I got the son of a buck!" Roger is addressing Hodgeson in a manner that implys that Al Hodgeson is somewhat versed in Roger's purpose for being in the area. Patterson didn't have to stop to explain to Hodgeson what Bigfoot was and that Patterson was in pursuit of it. Patterson may have avoided Hodgeson's place during the actual pre OCt film date. Also how was it that Al and Roger were on such familiar terms about the object of Patterson's pursuit? If Hodgeson is still alive its worth asking him how many times before Oct 20 1967 he met Patterson.

 

[Crowlogic]

Negative on the half ton truck Logic. One ton with a horse van on it. Come-on get it together.


m

Does the weight of the truck affect the potential reception of a radio is so equipped? and if so how? Having seen a photo of Gimlin's truck I find it rather heroic that he could have driven that thing with horses in the back through the mountains and back to Yakima in under a day and a half let alone the time stated.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

It can be 8ft tall and still be witin the range of human. However when accepting to refusing certain claims of who wore the suit height is important. Seriously 5ft is a joke. Nobody would have even gotten out of bed a second time to view the movements of a 5ft mime in action. Did Patterson put wife Patrica in the suit perhaps? Lets also not loose sight of the fact that whether we like it or not other learned eyes before us have viewed and measured this thing and while the giant nature of it can be suspect dwarfism of 5ft has never beent put forward as a serious dimension. IMO expending energy on measuring to postulate 5ft tall is a waste of time for anyone. Better to consider the flaws in how a figure of 5ft might arise.

Crow,

we might have a simple misunderstanding here and nothing more. I'm specifically and only referring to the film subject ( and its walk) relating to the proclaimed trackway it allegedly left. That has nothing to do with height or weight of whatever was in the film. It could be 5ft, 8 ft or 80 ft but it didnt leave that trackset.

Those "learned' eyes dont meet my standard of professionalism or training or expertise. I dont take anything they say as accurate unless they show me training and expertise in forensics and explain how they came up with their measurements. See, I DO have "learned eyes" and a pedigree to back it up and I dont accept what they are saying on its face.

>>>Al Hodgeson himself (I believe)
states that Patterson entered his store after the filming and said to the effect. "Al I got the son of a buck!" Roger is addressing Hodgeson in a manner that implys that Al Hodgeson is somewhat versed in Roger's purpose for being in the area. Patterson didn't have to stop to explain to Hodgeson what Bigfoot was and that Patterson was in pursuit of it. Patterson may have avoided Hodgeson's place during the actual pre OCt film date.

fine and it may be true. Occam says it was part of the hoax but forgetting Occam, the story still doesnt fit the evidence

>>>Also how was it that Al and Roger were on such familiar terms about the object of Patterson's pursuit? If Hodgeson is still alive its worth asking him how many times before Oct 20 1967 he met Patterson.

Doesnt matter- lets assume they were intimate lovers, RP was orchestrating a hoax so unless he trusted him and planned to use him as a witness- it wouldnt matter

 

[makaya325]

i think occams being used a little to much on patty

 

[Skeptical Greg]

LT lets think about this from the hoaxers standpoint. Roger is going to make a hoax about a hairy giant hominid yet he crafts and films something that's hardly going to impress even the average of height, let alone make envious the NBA?

How do you determine from looking at the film, how tall the subject is ?

How do you ( the audience in 1967 ) know ( prove ) the subject was not three feet tall and only ten feet from the camera ?