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

The Patterson Film Prints & Casts

Crowlogic said:
But sometimes even after somethings been done 11 times the charm is in the 12th time.
Click to expand...


... and reoriented and flipped images adds the charm.


laverty2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I just got done mixing up Owen Caddy/ Owen Pate/ and Jim McLaren over at the BFF. And it was during a conversation with DDA, so I looked extra-bumbling.

Ray Wallace did confess to his family, so the idea that he didn't confess is kind of not true in a way.

CROW- Tag this thread with 'Bigfoot' Will ya please?
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
He did?
Click to expand...

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfisdead.html

He confessed to Mark Chorvinsky, and to his family it was common knowledge, so I guess a confession wasn't necessary.

"Ray told me that the Patterson film was a hoax, and he knew who was in the suit," Chorvinsky said.
Click to expand...

Michael Wallace said family members knew about his father's hoax but never let on.

"The family just sat back and grinned," he said. "He didn't mean to hurt anyone."

To them, it was just another one of Mr. Wallace's jokes. Like the time he dropped a powerful firecracker down the chimney of a bunkhouse while loggers played cards inside. Or the time he convinced his crew that wild cats with bushy tails were living in forest treetops.
Click to expand...
 
Crowlogic said:
A lot of discussion has been raised concerning the nature of the prints in the Patterson Film. Some of that discussion has centered around the "too perfect nature" of the casts and some of the prints.

However assuming that the tracks to be cast were imperfect due to soil flinging and material back filling the prints Patterson could have easily cleaned up the unwanted material. After all who was going to know? If Patterson did in fact stamp phony tracks how and why are some of the details discussed apparent in some of the tracks and not all of the tracks? The so called mid tarsal break has at times been attributed to the effect of nothing more than the big rubber costume feet of the mime in the suit. Lastly the film has been undergoing analysis for 40 years and why in those 40 years until now did nobody propose that the appearance of the prints look stamped? Its also worth considering that the operation of stamping the phony track line across the film site would have left a cluster of boot prints left by the hoaxers as they did their print stamping. Human activity around each and every print has never been mentioned while evidence of casting some prints has.

I've added these photos the Patterson site photos and some others which show some very nice clean prints made by natural walking by natural walkers. The fossilized print obviously was not a stamped hoax but sure preserved cleanly and if cast would raise a few eyebrows as to its nature. Also take notice of what appears to be a mid tarsal break in the human tracks across the beach.


[qimg]http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo269/CrowLogik/thum_79347ab2dc56368e.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo269/CrowLogik/laverty2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo269/CrowLogik/post-4722-1202581998.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo269/CrowLogik/post-4722-1202581898.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo269/CrowLogik/post-4722-1202581940.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

>>>If Patterson did in fact stamp phony tracks how and why are some of the details discussed apparent in some of the tracks and not all of the tracks?

Several reasons, not each and every print is photographed with a sequence number, theres a big difference between examining tracks in situ versus a picture and the way he stamped could have caused variations

>>>Lastly the film has been undergoing analysis for 40 years and why in those 40 years until now did nobody propose that the appearance of the prints look stamped?

You can attribute that to ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science. NOT THE FIRST PERSON to examine anything is a TRAINED and QUALIFIED "anything". I havent seen a forensic podiatry qualification ( or anthing really) from the bunch so what would you expect?

>>>Its also worth considering that the operation of stamping the phony track line across the film site would have left a cluster of boot prints left by the hoaxers as they did their print stamping.

Not at all- the ground could have been selected where a man wouldnt sink to give the stampings illusions of great weight

>>>Human activity around each and every print has never been mentioned while evidence of casting some prints has.

see #2 above LOL
 
I think these are all the same cast. I think this cast has been attributed to Titmus but was actually cast by Patterson and we see him doing it on film. Books say that Titmus cast 10 consecutive Patty footprints. I think he did fewer and that some were done by Patterson. I think this cast was not one of the two held up and shown to us by Patterson in the cast display scene.


775d3ee4.png
 
I wasn't sure anyone would agree with me. It's a pretty radical concept I'm putting forth.

Here is another connection which you've seen before. I think this (Titmus) cast came from this filmed track. But it may not have been poured by Titmus either. Patterson may have poured plaster into several tracks as part of the plaster pour session. The short clip we see shows only one being cast. This one here represents the "prior track"...


f41edbef.gif
 
Here is another somewhat radical idea. I think that these two casts were made in the same footprint. It's a footprint shown in the trackway pan (see above post). I think that Patterson poured plaster into this track creating the detailed cast shown on the left. Then later Titmus may have poured plaster into the exact same (now smoothed and weathered) track. So, instead of two consecutive left footprints... we have two casts poured into the same track.

ab22d96b.jpg
 
About tracks...

Not sure where the best place to put this is. There's been a lot of discussion of the tracks along the creek and road.

First this, posted by Parnassus:

bfWallacetracks.jpg



Oh my God, how horrifyingly stupid! It hurts!

Then a picture posted by William Parcher to learn a little bit about how a water body deposits boulders, gravel, and fines:

58cdb17f.jpg


I have a stream nearby my property that I use for sand, gravel, rock, and mud. I make concrete, masonry cement, gravel for the driveway and stones for a decorative garden there. The stream does all the sorting for me.

I know a little about placer mining (stream mining), and it's the same knowledge. The mechanical energy of the water determines the kinds of deposits in each area.

If you look at the picture, you see the largest visible rocks closest to or in the water itself. The fines are in a little higher ground in the middle of the picture.

That's because as high water subsides it deposits fines, especially on the slow-moving inside edge of the corners away from the main current.

That's the big picture, but there's a lot more going on than that. If you study a stream you will note that below a large obstruction there is always an eddy where the mechanical energy of the water is much lower. There will be much smaller-sized particles deposited there.

If there is a slough angled off somewhere that allows for standing water, then that is where you will find the flour-like silts - stuff that is really easy to leave deep tracks in once the water level drops or a standing pool evaporates.

In a scene like that depicted above you are going to have a surprisingly diverse set of ground conditions where the water has sorted for you every single kind of particle and substance found in the area. You can choose to walk across cobblestones, gravel, pea-gravel, sand, or muddy silts for some distance, and what you are doing is following a mechanical energy constant.

A hoaxer is going to do what you see them doing in the upper photo: pick the ideal conditions to lay tracks. In that photo, it is on the side of the road where there is loose soil and since no animals walk there and no vehicles drive there they will be preserved.

That's what they did at the P-G film site, in two ways: you are conscious not just about where you want to place the fake ones, but also conscious about minimizing your own human prints.

It is extremely simple to walk along gravel in your cowboy boots up to the perimeter of a silty area, remove your boots, slip on the Patty feet, and do the reverse at the end of the silt run. The only prints that remain to be seen are the fake ones.

You can make your tracks a little deeper by jiggling a little bit, especially if the material is water-sogged beneath the surface or has organics in it. What happens when you step into the muck at the edge of a pond? Right up to your knees. If you jiggle around you'll just sink deeper. Just a few feet away you are standing on hard ground that leaves no footprints.

The site they chose was ideal both for filming and by inspection for both laying down fake tracks and leaving no evidence of your ancillary movements.

Edited by LashL: 
I moved this post from another thread since it seems a much better fit here. Cheers, LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William Parcher said:
I think these are all the same cast. I think this cast has been attributed to Titmus but was actually cast by Patterson and we see him doing it on film. Books say that Titmus cast 10 consecutive Patty footprints. I think he did fewer and that some were done by Patterson.
Click to expand...


Here is an account of the "Master Tracker" Titmus by Peter Byrne:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/byrne_on_titmus.htm

I found this story absolutely hilarious and encourage people to read it - how they all conned Tom Slick out of cash.

Titmus didn't know the difference between horse poop and hominid poop, and was ethically challenged to say the least insofar as bigfootery.

Hard to trust whatever Titmus says.


Not too complimentary towards Rene Dahinden and John Greene as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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