Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[UGottaB]

How and when did you first become exposed to the analyses of Leroy Blevin? Do you live in the USA or Canada?

USA. I remember that a Leroy Blevins was involved with searching for Noah's Ark. I saw some of the photos several years back and didn't see anything unusual. Shadows on steep hills from outcrops play games. As the sun or view moves shadows change shape rapidly due to the elongation. The last thing that I seem to recall is that he could not get permission to go back to Turkey or wherever the ark was supposed to be. When someone mentioned his name in an earlier post, it struck a chord but I didn't give it much thought. Is this the same person you are asking about? You seem to be giving him a hard time. Did he strike a nerve or simply annoying?

I got interested in the bigfoot subject when the national news talked about the Jacobs' pictures. Then F&S offered the award for a picture of a bigfoot. More hoaxes than Kelloggs makes corn flakes.

I disagree with you assessment of the white blaze. It definitely is a horse. The bridle strap across his face shows up distinctly in the enhanced version and the same blaze appears to be on the horse that Bob H. is supposed to be sitting on. May be coincidental but appears the same.

I'm beginning to think that Patterson was shooting some sort of western movie. People hiding and such. Could have been used in an ad for a dude ranch or other western adventure type of resort.

 

[GT/CS]

This is the tree we're talking about isn't it?

 

[Vortigern99]

I disagree with you assessment of the white blaze. It definitely is a horse. The bridle strap across his face shows up distinctly in the enhanced version and the same blaze appears to be on the horse that Bob H. is supposed to be sitting on. May be coincidental but appears the same.

I'm beginning to think that Patterson was shooting some sort of western movie. People hiding and such. Could have been used in an ad for a dude ranch or other western adventure type of resort.

This is silly. If that were a horse it would be gigantic -- far larger than any horse on record -- and floating in mid-air.

[Danny McBride]I can't even believe that's somethin' that's real.[/Danny McBride]

 

[JcR]

Three Wise Men?



So Biblical


Oh! But why only two left feet?

The burning Bush



I think Blevin forgot a few Blazes

 

[kitakaze]

Sir, you have been missed.

 

[SweatyYeti]

It seems there is an error...(actually, there are a few )...with the 'Frame 72 foot-ruler' calculation of Patty's 'walking height'.

Using a later frame from the film.....the 'foot ruler' gives a substantially higher figure for Patty's walking height...

Since we have to add at least 3, or 4 inches to the walking height to get Patty's actual, standing body-height....the 6'6" figure would translate into a 'standing height' for Patty of approx. 6'9". ....well outside of Bob Heironimus' range.


Besides the obvious "blooming" effect of Patty's foot, in Frame 72...(which is why the foot looks 'blocky')....there is an error due to the foot being slightly closer to the camera than the rest of her body....and an error due to 'vertical foreshortening' of her body, due to the fact that Roger was on a lower level of ground than Patty was....and, one other potential source of error could be a small amount of vertical movement of the foot, within the Frame.

 

[River]

You're of course assuming a few things here. For one: the feet of the subject left the imprints that were cast. Two: the frames that you were using as references show quite different size foot when in comparison to the percentage of body height. In other words, is the foot stretching/shrinking? Perhaps the films ability to enlarge a subject of that size (in relation to the full frame percent) as well as factors such as motion blur could account for a substantial variant in a height estimate that only uses the "foot as a ruler" method of getting a height estimate.

One of the classic problems with this film is that using photogrammetry to get scale on the subject (using distance from camera to subject, lens focal length and percentage of full frame) have not been corroborated by the "foot as a ruler" method. Many people have done the same experiment you attempted above with the measuring of pixels and compariing them to the 14.5 casts taken from the film site. Some of the estimates are much lower than yours (from 5' 10" to 6' 3" standing height) using the "foot as a ruler" method. The problem is using the distance from camera to subject, focal length and full frame percent does not corroborate these numbers. In fact it would put the subject seen on film well within human range, and even below Heironimus height. It would put the height right around the range of Patterson and Gimlin both though. Interesting isnt it?

The foot as a ruler should corroborate the other photogrammetry method. (distance, focal lengh, percentage of full frame) It doesnt. This would imply that the trackway may have been fabricated. Another good indicator is the track depth. Without going into detail, the tracks were too deep to have been left by a subject of that size. To quote Gimlin "Deeper than the horses tracks" and he goes on to describe the size of the horse and estimates the weight. The rest isnt very hard to figure out.

Heres a great article by Michael Dennet that goes into a little detail about that for you.


Theres also the little issue of Patterson mentioning to Krantz that he had filmed himself just days before casting a fake bigfoot track. (which according to the timing of it - must've been in the bluff creek area) So wheres the other film of Patterson casting this fake bigfoot track? There are scenes of what appear to be Patterson casting bigfoot tracks, but those were represented as "real" from the subject seen on film by Patterson. Funny enough, many have speculated that this film may have been shot at an earlier date than reported. Maybe a few days earlier? A week? How long would it have to be to match up with what Patterson told Krantz? Interesting little tidbit about footprints and matching them up to the subject seen on film

 

[Drewbot]

Also remember that the white vertical foot is over exposed. (per Gigantofooticus/Odinn)

If we accept your pixel count, we have to also assume that Patty has NO TOES, and NO ACHILLIES TENDON.

 

[William Parcher]

There are scenes of what appear to be Patterson casting bigfoot tracks, but those were represented as "real" from the subject seen on film by Patterson.

Are you sure of the bolded statement? Are you sure that Patterson personally declared that the plaster pour scene (which we all have seen) is that of the Patty trackway? Do we have any accounts of him talking about this exact bit of footage?

Question to keep in the back of your mind: Did others (not Patterson) declare or assume this to be the Patty trackway?

 

[William Parcher]

I'm beginning to think that Patterson was shooting some sort of western movie. People hiding and such. Could have been used in an ad for a dude ranch or other western adventure type of resort.

A dude ranch? Are you sure about that?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm curious as to why blockfoot isn't explained as mud? Roger is casting a print in mud, and mud would easily explain the blockfoot frames.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Also remember that the white vertical foot is over exposed. (per Gigantofooticus/Odinn)

Yes, that's what I meant by "blooming".

In Frame 72, the foot appears to be over-exposed....causing the foot to appear larger than it actually is, and also causing the toes to 'disappear'.

The same thing happened with Patty's left hand, at one point in the film. I'll post an image of her over-exposed hand, later on tonight.

If we accept your pixel count, we have to also assume that Patty has NO TOES, and NO ACHILLIES TENDON.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make there, Drew.

 

[SweatyYeti]

You're of course assuming a few things here. For one: the feet of the subject left the imprints that were cast. Two: the frames that you were using as references show quite different size foot when in comparison to the percentage of body height. In other words, is the foot stretching/shrinking? Perhaps the films ability to enlarge a subject of that size (in relation to the full frame percent) as well as factors such as motion blur could account for a substantial variant in a height estimate that only uses the "foot as a ruler" method of getting a height estimate.

One of the classic problems with this film is that using photogrammetry to get scale on the subject (using distance from camera to subject, lens focal length and percentage of full frame) have not been corroborated by the "foot as a ruler" method. Many people have done the same experiment you attempted above with the measuring of pixels and compariing them to the 14.5 casts taken from the film site. Some of the estimates are much lower than yours (from 5' 10" to 6' 3" standing height) using the "foot as a ruler" method. The problem is using the distance from camera to subject, focal length and full frame percent does not corroborate these numbers. In fact it would put the subject seen on film well within human range, and even below Heironimus height. It would put the height right around the range of Patterson and Gimlin both though. Interesting isnt it?

The foot as a ruler should corroborate the other photogrammetry method. (distance, focal lengh, percentage of full frame) It doesnt. This would imply that the trackway may have been fabricated. Another good indicator is the track depth. Without going into detail, the tracks were too deep to have been left by a subject of that size. To quote Gimlin "Deeper than the horses tracks" and he goes on to describe the size of the horse and estimates the weight. The rest isnt very hard to figure out.

Heres a great article by Michael Dennet that goes into a little detail about that for you.


Theres also the little issue of Patterson mentioning to Krantz that he had filmed himself just days before casting a fake bigfoot track. (which according to the timing of it - must've been in the bluff creek area) So wheres the other film of Patterson casting this fake bigfoot track? There are scenes of what appear to be Patterson casting bigfoot tracks, but those were represented as "real" from the subject seen on film by Patterson. Funny enough, many have speculated that this film may have been shot at an earlier date than reported. Maybe a few days earlier? A week? How long would it have to be to match up with what Patterson told Krantz? Interesting little tidbit about footprints and matching them up to the subject seen on film

I don't have time to respond to your post right now...Riv...on my lunch break...but I will later tonight.

 

[GT/CS]

A dude ranch? Are you sure about that?


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/d52ab491.gif[/qimg]

How could you miss the tree octopi? Good gawn, I see dozens of them!

Sadly, they are nearly extinct now but apparently they were quite plentiful in Northern California way back then.

 

[River]

Are you sure of the bolded statement? Are you sure that Patterson personally declared that the plaster pour scene (which we all have seen) is that of the Patty trackway? Do we have any accounts of him talking about this exact bit of footage?

Question to keep in the back of your mind: Did others (not Patterson) declare or assume this to be the Patty trackway?

There were definitely interviews done with both Patterson and Gimlin regarding what sort of footage was shot at bluff creek. Gimlin describes details like how this "second reel" (as it has been so deemed) contained footage of his boot prints next to the subject seen on films prints and also showing the horse prints next to them. Patterson went on tour around the country (there was also a showing in BC at a univeristy) with a fake Bob Gimlin showing the film and describing the events that took place. There has never been a second piece of footage shown publically that depicts Patterson casting tracks from the bluff creek area. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that sees this as suspicious. (to say the least)


Patterson mustve represented those images as "the trackway" left by the subject as seen in "reel 1". Otherwise, it wouldve never been mentioned as such by Gimlin during later interviews as well. (i'm positive there are interviews with Gimlin available on the net that mention this) I've never seen a specific piece of text online saying Patterson represented that exact piece of footage as "the real" footprints. Perhaps to be clear someone should show that segment to Gimlin and ask if its the "real footprints" or if its the footage that Patterson described to Krantz.

This would eliminate any assumptions certainly. (even though it seems pretty obvious, the "2nd reel" footage supposedly depicts the "reel 1" subjects footprints/casts) For me personally, I've already come to conclusions about this film so I'm not really looking for new evidence or hopeful about convincing others. I do find it interesting to participate in the debates surrounding this film and its circumstances though.

According to these facts surrounding the casting and filming - there should be at least two scenes depicting Patterson making casts. One of fake bigfoot tracks, and one of the subject seen on "reel 1". Apparently all of this is mute point because the camera originals have either disappeared or have been hidden away for whatever reasons. We have no out of camera original to examine. This in itself makes any successive copies questionable. Especially so considering the circumstances, and what the film allegedly represents.

 

[kitakaze]

There were definitely interviews done with both Patterson and Gimlin regarding what sort of footage was shot at bluff creek. Gimlin describes details like how this "second reel" (as it has been so deemed) contained footage of his boot prints next to the subject seen on films prints and also showing the horse prints next to them. Patterson went on tour around the country (there was also a showing in BC at a univeristy) with a fake Bob Gimlin showing the film and describing the events that took place. There has never been a second piece of footage shown publically that depicts Patterson casting tracks from the bluff creek area. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that sees this as suspicious. (to say the least)

Good points, Ben. A wild Bigfoot chaser guy gets koo koo for the William Roe encounter story, jacks an illustration of Morton Kunstler's depicting it in a wildlife magazine, and puts the account and his re-drawing of Kunstler's illustration in his book along with another of his drawings of a female Bigfoot. Elsewhere in the book he illustrates male Bigfoot's as gargantuan behemoths that could wear you like a thong...

Oh mama...

Then the very next year while in failing health and with dwindling funds for a documentary he is making on the subject of Bigfoot he apparently films an encounter with a Bigfoot that looks just like the one depicted in his book from the previous year. An apparently female Bigfoot that is much closer to human size than the behemoth males he conceives in his drawings. Not only that, the first published description by Patterson in newspapers of the creature and the encounter match nearly verbatim the William Roe account in his book.

This is on top of the fact that the horse of the only man ever to claim to have been in the suit was actually there at the time the alleged Bigfoot was filmed. The man himself, Bob Heironimus, can actually be seen on Patterson's footage and was a known associate.

Add to that that Patterson for reasons he never explained at the time paraded Gimlin around as Indian tracker, complete with wig, only to replace him with a look-alike that he presented as Gimlin himself while promoting the film around the country.

Top it of with the fact that no one before or since has ever provided any unambiguous images of Bigfoot nor any reliable evidence...

So how much smoke does one need to see before they shout "FIRE!"? What kind of creduloid funk do you need to be in to not have any issue with these things? Are they Munnsters or what? If it was 1968 and I saw a bewigged, "how" spouting non-Gimlin at a Patterson Bigfoot showing and I said, "Hey, man, you're not Gimlin and your wig's on crooked," would Patterson scoot over and tell me that while that was just because of presentation schedule conflict, don't fret, the film is the real McCoy?

If Bob H walked down nine houses to Bob G's place and asked him to borrow his rake, would Bob G say no?

I want to know these things.

 

[kitakaze]

It seems there is an error...(actually, there are a few )...with the 'Frame 72 foot-ruler' calculation of Patty's 'walking height'.

Using a later frame from the film.....the 'foot ruler' gives a substantially higher figure for Patty's walking height...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattyFootRulerComp11.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, no, no. That second image just shows Patty's floppy feet toes curling on the ground...

No... I'm just funning you, Sweaty. That is simply Patty morphing the molecular properties of her feet to match the substrate she is crossing so as to increase locomotion efficiency. She can morph all over the place, but we know you don't like to talk about that...

 

[JcR]

I see I can buy Krantz's Big Foot-Prints book for about 2 dollars.
I bought a coffee, now I can't...

To add - a Fake Patterson Quote
"I even made a few fake tracks by pokin my fingers around the dirt; digging and flattening it all out; pounding the dirt with my fist. Looked all good to... Then I filmed me casting it for my Bigfoot Documentary I was making. Well Then a few days later...Gosh darn it!
I stumbled over real one, a real Bigfoot. Too bad I ran out of film; wastin it on my fake stuff."

 

[kitakaze]

I see I can buy Krantz's Big Foot-Prints book for about 2 dollars.
I bought a coffee, now I can't...

Wow, they've really expanded Krantz's wiki entry. Say what you will about Krantz and his kooky Bigfoot ideas, this gets respect...

On Valentine's Day 2002, Krantz died in his Port Angeles, Washington home from pancreatic cancer after an eight-month battle with the the disease.[2][3][4][6] At his request, there was no funeral.[3][4] Instead, his body was shipped to the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility, where scientists study human decay rates to aid in forensic investigations.[3] In 2003, his skeleton arrived at Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and was laid in its final resting place in a green cabinet, alongside the bones of his three favorite Irish Wolfhounds—Clyde, Icky, and Yahoo—as was his last request (See "Epilogue" by Dave Hunt of the Smithsonian in Only A Dog).[3]

In 2009, Krantz's skeleton was painstakingly articulated and, along with the skeleton of one his dogs, included on display in the Smithsonian's "Written in Bone" exhibition. His bones have also been used to teach forensics and advanced osteology to George Washington University students.[3]

Science was in his bones.

 

[JcR]

I rather liked all the kookiness.
Thumbs up to Clyde, Icky,Yahoo and Krantz.