• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonder what happened to this evidence found while looking for that escapee?

The most recent development came to my attention as I was writing this
story. On August 16, 1959, two men, John W. Green of British Columbia
and Bob Titmus of Berkeley, California, found more Bigfoot tracks 23 miles
up the new road.

They also found a great number of long, dark hairs, ranging from one to
10 inches in length, stuck on the trunks of fir trees at a height up to
6 feet 4 inches above the ground, plus many piles of droppings which contained
small bones, fur, and the residue of various vegetation.
Click to expand...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/true1959.htm
 
Crowlogic said:
I'm kind of looking for a "unified feild theory". Something that either puts purpose to the details that some of the post filming researchers/spectators claim to have found. In other words its easy to say Titmus was a dufuss and didn't know his ass from his elbow but this thing has a universe populated by a few too many dufuss's and a potential web of cohorts in on it to have floated this long with only Bob Heronimus coming forward with his own sketchy and questionable admissions.

But since you're leading the charge in this current round of speculation we should include the grandaddy of them all Ray Wallace who told Roger where to to go at Bluff Creek in the first place. Why? If not for sport, and why since Wallace was hoaxing down there didn't he do something to spill the beans on Patterson? Patterson the hoaxer took the word of another hoaxer then hoaxed his own film. What would a criminal investigator have to say about the interplay between Patterson and Wallace? Secretly Wallace could have had himself a good laugh but why couldn't Patterson sniff Wallace out?
Click to expand...


>>>In other words its easy to say Titmus was a dufuss and didn't know his ass from his elbow but this thing has a universe populated by a few too many dufuss's and a potential web of cohorts in on it to have floated this long with only Bob Heronimus coming forward with his own sketchy and questionable admissions.

As i said earlier, I dont have an opinion of Titmus ( one way or the other) but the simple answer is that only those 3 were "in on it" ( defined as the plan to fake a bigfoot)- also people like PP, Deately had a vested financial interest in it too. ( follow the money)

>>>we should include the grandaddy of them all Ray Wallace who told Roger where to to go at Bluff Creek in the first place. Why? If not for sport, and why since Wallace was hoaxing down there didn't he do something to spill the beans on Patterson? Patterson the hoaxer took the word of another hoaxer then hoaxed his own film. What would a criminal investigator have to say about the interplay between Patterson and Wallace?

It could be as simple as Wallace was yanking RP's chain ( maybe even putting some tracks there for him to find) and completely unaware of what RP intended to do.
 
makaya325 said:
Well, ray, the link you sent me justifies the fact that the crew casts dont match the wallace tracks
Click to expand...

Heres one of the pics a guy sent me who really has a heavy involvement in forensic podiatry. This shows the footcone and standard measuring points for any given foot. ( these are inkings but the process is the same.

These measurements combined with depth measurements and longitunal forces of mechanical motion are used to determine gait,height and even weight ( to a reasonable degree of accuracy) of a subject. It can also identify injuries in some cases. For walking, the standard estimates ( acceleration,strike etc) for weight estimation are the print represents 110% to 125% of the actual weight and up to 150% when running. ( stats the FBI uses)

One thing on the footcone and digit centerlines is looking for the mechanical motion ( adapting to the dynamic forces of locomotion both forward and lateral and then comparing them to the toe push off of the trail foot)

All prints shown in the pictures indicate a "static" foot rather than a live moving foot ( a stamping) and its not from what you "see' but whats NOT there that should be. These are a series of "still" prints
 
makaya325 said:
longtabber, when i saw patterson talk in an interview, he sounded like some hick. he was dumb as dirt. if it were a hoax, patterson got fooled, not the other way around
Click to expand...

Hey, now! Just because somebody don't talk all fancy don't mean they aren't clever.

Which reminds me of a joke.

A fancy city feller comes up to the woods to look for Bigfoot and he gets lost. After driving around a long time he meets up with this Mountain-Man walking along the road.

And the city feller says, "Hey - do you know how to get back to the highway?"

The mountain man pulls on his beard and looks up for a bit before saying, "Nope."

"Well, do you know how to get to the nearest gas station?" asks the city feller. He's getting a little angry now.

The Mountain-Man scratches his head and squints before replying, "Nope, I reckon I don't."

"Well, you don't know much do you?" the city feller complains loudly.

"Maybe not, but I ain't lost," says the Mountain Man with a sly smile.

----------HERE ENDS THE NORMAL JOKE-----------------

Director's cut alternate ending: And the city feller drives off all angry, and Bigfoot takes off his "Mountain-Man" outfit and lopes off into the woods.
 
Diogenes said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Greg put up you copy of the PGF and watch it. As Patty is moving across the camera field you'll notice that midway through the film she appears behind that fallen tree/log. Now Mr Log is pretty big and nestled pretty nicely in place and Mr log even gives us a very nice second performance in the McClarin film of early 1968. Oh and Mr Log is right there when later photographers show up to take measurments in 1972.

Yes of course a tiny figure can me made to look bigger by strategic posing it in a camera field. However in the case of the PGF (and we are talking about the PGF on this thread are we not?) the hairy thing is behind that pesky log so a mini hairy is out of the question. Critical thinking? Bah ha ha ha ha!
 
But we don't know where the subject actually is, in relation to the log.

Green's ( and whoever's ) measurements are only guesses; and guess what that gets you..


( No, Crow - I don't think the subject is 3 feet tall .. I'm just pointing out that the film alone cannot provide that information; and the only real piece of evidence is the film.. )

I'm pretty sure the subject is about - uhh, -- how tall do they say Heironimus is ?
 
Anyone need a new signature line? :D


"I do know that some of the so-called "skeptics" who participate there (JREF) are complete hacks, and are doing science and skepticism (at least on the bigfoot issue) a disservice." Saskeptic
 
Well, some tracks obviously are static, but dont other tracks elsewhere show consistency with a static print?
 
>>>are complete hacks, and are doing science and skepticism (at least on the bigfoot issue) a disservice."

I can think of a few PhDs and noted researchers on the BF side that fit that description as well.
 
Saskeptic has managed to keep on the BFF by being critical of evidence - but not too critical. He has to keep the powers that be on that board happy - or he looses his fanbase.

I'm sure that post was made for the specific purpose of playing to the masses to keep his status on the BFF secure.

Now - all he has to do is start naming names from the JREF and giving examples.
Perhaps someone who still has posting abilities on the BFF could challenge him to do so?
 
Lets not start an arguement rockinkt. Can we all agree to disagree and mind our own business?
 
makaya325 said:
Well, some tracks obviously are static, but dont other tracks elsewhere show consistency with a static print?
Click to expand...

Depends on what other tracks you are referring to. The majority of photographed "BF" prints appear to be stampings.

The key thing with the PGF is that we have the only "known" ( and i use that term loosely) setting where we have the tracks and a film of the legs that allegedly made them.

The film subject didnt and couldnt have made that trackway thats seen in those linear prints
 
rockinkt said:
Saskeptic has managed to keep on the BFF by being critical of evidence - but not too critical. He has to keep the powers that be on that board happy - or he looses his fanbase.( Not to mention posting priviledges LOL)
I'm sure that post was made for the specific purpose of playing to the masses to keep his status on the BFF secure.

Now - all he has to do is start naming names from the JREF and giving examples.
Perhaps someone who still has posting abilities on the BFF could challenge him to do so?(LOL I guess that wouldnt be 2 people I know)
Click to expand...

I do wonder who is being referenced specifically
 
makaya325 said:
Lets not start an arguement rockinkt. Can we all agree to disagree and mind our own business?
Click to expand...

When someone insults me - or others whose intelligence and knowledge I have come to respect - it is my business.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom