• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
SweatyYeti said:
I know it doesn't tell us much, regarding whether or not Patty is a man-in-a-suit....but it does help give some perspective on Patty's overall size, compared to Jim's.
And that was the main purpose of Jim being filmed walking in Patty's steps.
Click to expand...

But who cares how Jim compares to Patty in overall size? Height-wise, I can understand why, but what does a thin guy being able to semi-hide behind a tree have to do with a guy in a bulky bigfoot suit being unable to do the same thing?
 
Jack in the Box at MABRC.


Jack D Davis said:
Patty is much shorter than McLaren. Go to my web site to see how tall I believe Patty is.
Click to expand...


Studying these two photo's, I noticed that they are not the same size.....note the two small trees bracketing the large tree. Either the McLaren photographer is further away than Patterson or they were not sized correctly. In my first overlay, PGF on top of McLaren photo, the two small trees do not match in each photo. Resizing the PGF to match up the trees in overlay2 they are now matched closely in size. Now notice in overlay3, the difference in size of each.
Click to expand...


overlay1.jpg
overlay2.jpg


overlay3.jpg
 
I think Jack has been fooled at least some by the horizontal compression in the McLarin demo film.

Or, Jack could be right, and there is no horizontal compression involved. But the film looks horizontally compressed to me, and I always thought the effect was to hide the fact that McLarin doesn't look quite that much skinnier than Patty.

Suppose you just widen the McLarin demo to make the trees line up? Then how wide would McLarin appear? Does that make McLarin look way off from reality?
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think Jack has been fooled at least some by the horizontal compression in the McLarin demo film.

Or, Jack could be right, and there is no horizontal compression involved. But the film looks horizontally compressed to me, and I always thought the effect was to hide the fact that McLarin doesn't look quite that much skinnier than Patty.

Suppose you just widen the McLarin demo to make the trees line up? Then how wide would McLarin appear? Does that make McLarin look way off from reality?
Click to expand...


You didn't go to the MABRC link, did you?


Jack said:
Vertical aspect was skewed as I suspected. Here is a corrected version....several points lined up in each photo and PGF rotated to correct camera tilt.
Click to expand...
 
LTC8K6 said:
IIRC, Patterson and Gimlin went to Bluff Creek because some tracks had been reported there. Somehow, those tracks at Bluff Creek were "all but destroyed" and "just globs in the mud" after a month.

Incidentally, can it be shown how long Roger and BobG were in the area? It was either 3 weeks, or a little over a week, depending on which accounts you read.
Click to expand...
-------------------------------------

Out-take from Patterson's 1968 newsletter, regarding how long they were in the area and the much debated
statement that they "tracked Patty 3 miles..." ...fwiw....

..
 
Yes, that's one claim, bobbie. Roger also stated that the tracks they went to see had been reported a month earlier, and the report was around Labor Day, and that would put them in the area in early October. Or about 3 weeks total...
 
SweatyYeti said:
In order to save myself 5 bucks......here he is...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim McClarin/WheresJim4.jpg


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim McClarin/WheresJim5.jpg


And here's Patty, behind the same tree...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim McClarin/PattyTree2A.jpg



Jim's slim build and posture allowed him to disappear behind that tree, but that's not the case with Patty.
Click to expand...


Which could also simply means that the camera angle is slightly different, patty is more in the foreground, mclaurin is slim patty's disguised guy more wide, etc...etc...etc...
 
Let's not forget that it was none other than Jim McLarin who called Ivan Sanderson that very night, before anyone had seen the film, to tell Sanderson that Patterson had filmed bigfoot, and to ask Sanderson for help to "handle matters".
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yes, that's one claim, bobbie. Roger also stated that the tracks they went to see had been reported a month earlier, and the report was around Labor Day, and that would put them in the area in early October. Or about 3 weeks total...
Click to expand...
----------------------------
Yes, I had heard that said before but I don't have a citation
for the remark.....do you have it by chance??
 
LTC8K6 said:
Let's not forget that it was none other than Jim McLarin who called Ivan Sanderson that very night, before anyone had seen the film, to tell Sanderson that Patterson had filmed bigfoot, and to ask Sanderson for help to "handle matters".
Click to expand...
--------------

Good grief, I don't have a citation for that either...help!!
 
William Parcher wrote:
"Jack in the box at MABRC")
Click to expand...


Thanks for linking to the thread over on the Mid-America Board, William.

Jack has posted another image, with "crayon" lines drawn all over it.....for anyone who's interested. :)
 
kitakaze said:
Bobbie, what do you think Gimin and Patterson did with Patty's carcass after they blasted her?
Click to expand...
------------------------
I surely do NOT believe they "tracked Patty 3 miles,"
(not from a medical point of view) that is nonsense, she had already stumbled once and falter another time before the film runs out....but there is an interesting photo showing tractor treadmarks on that sandbar, a dugout hole with a birm around it that might lend itself to your question. Al Hodgson also is quoted as saying the owner of that front loader, or whatever it's called, was furious with them over the use of it. I'd rather upload those photos and let you make that determination.... but it will have to wait until later today.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Thanks for linking to the thread over on the Mid-America Board, William.

Jack has posted another image, with "crayon" lines drawn all over it.....for anyone who's interested. :)
Click to expand...

Sweaty, I'm having a hard time understanding your Bigfoot enthusiasm. Why waste time doodling and noodling with the PGF. On its own it will never be accepted as reliable evidence. Who cares anyway? You're a member of the MABRC. Why don't you hook up with darkwing and driveroperator and get them to show you Skilleyville and some real Bigfoots?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom