Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[DennyT]

From Kit's link: "Here's where it got really weird."

So this guy is a USFWS employee who tells bigfoot stories? Nice. The training center in Shepherdstown is the big time for anyone with a wildlifey presentation. I sincerely hope Mr. Battson's presentation at some point promotes critical thinking, otherwise this would seem to be an embarrassment for the USFWS.

Battson is not FWS employee; he seems to be a freelance "wildlife educator". Might be worth crabbing at the FWS/training center. This is a ridiculous waste of time and money.

 

[kitakaze]

Paterson has an history of problem. Your friend is closing his eye to it.

It is not only my opinion, ask around, and it stops being an opinion when it is grounded in fact. Fact is that the story paterson said is inconsistent and changed with time. Fact is that the scene of the film is identical to a scene of Pat book is identical to a picture he copied shamelessly. And if my memory serve, fact is that Pat. got friction with the law enforcement. And I apss over many other. Those are undeniable fact. I come to the conclusion from those fact that what Pat said is very very suspect. You chose to assign that as an opinion. Your loss. But then your "opinion" that BH story is sketchy is registered and "neither right or wrong".

As for the rest, there has been enough stuff showed by people over time, forum member, for my opinion to be formed that a costume would be possible. Rhere has been NO DEMONSTRATION whatsoever that the actor in the film can indeed be a creature, a real one, ETA and from the biology perspective there is a lot of inconsistency, or even hint that such creature don#t EVER existed in the animal realm. Like unicorn. Or dragon. Or Leprechaun.-. None ever. In such case I will use the parsimony principle and say unless the proponent provide real evidence, then the most probable explanation *IS* that it is a costume. Who weared it I don't care, neither I am attached to a particular hypotheses.

Bottom line is anybody starting from an hypotheses other than hoax should really, really revisit their "neither wqrong nor right" opinion.

I'm addressing the bolded part from Aepervius' post in the Walking With Bigfoot thread as I just happened to have something in front of me that is an example of what he was talking about.

Here is Roger Patterson being interviewed by the man that sparked his obsession with Bigfoot with his Bigfoot articles in True Magazine in December 1959 and March 1960, Ivan T. Sanderson...

At three-thirty p.m. on the twentieth of October last year, two young men, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, were "packing" it on horseback into one of the last remaining great wilderness areas, northeast of Eureka, California. Their saddlebags contained, on one side, rifles and grub and, on the other, ready-loaded movie and still cameras and other equipment. They were following a creek which had been washed out two years ago in the terrible floods that devastated most of northern California. This was some twenty miles beyond the end of an access road for logging and about thirty-five miles in from the nearest and only blacktop road in this vast, as yet not fully mapped area of National Forest. I have been up this Bluff Creek and, as a botanist, I can tell you that it is rugged — four layers or tiers of trees, the tallest up to 200 feet, and a dense undergrowth. Also, the terrain goes up and down a gigantic sawtooth.

Roger and Bob rounded a sharp bend in the sandy arroyo of the creek. Then it happened. The horses reared suddenly in alarm and threw both the riders. Luckily, Roger fell off to the right and, being an experienced horseman, disengaged himself and grabbed his camera. Why? Because he had spotted what had turned their horses into mad broncos. About 100 feet ahead, on the other side of the creek bed, there was a huge, hairy creature that walked like a man!

3:30? Two movie cameras? How many horses? 35 miles from the nearest highway? Both Roger and Bob thrown?

The way Roger described it to me would not, I am afraid, make much sense to you; but then, Roger had been hunting this sort of creature for many years. What he actually said was: "Gosh darn it, Ivan, right there was a Bigfoot. And, fer pity's sakes, she was a female! Just wait till you see the film." Roger is a Northwesterner and he does not waste words, but what he does say, I listen to. This is what he told me:

On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall. Both Bob and I estimate — and this pretty well matched what others told us from examination of the depth to which her tracks sank into hard sand— that she would weigh about three hundred and fifty pounds. She was covered with short, shiny, black hair, even her big, droopy breasts. She seemed to have a sort of peak on the back of her head, but whether this was longer hair or not I don't know. Anyhow, hair came right down her forehead to meet her eyebrows, if she had any; and it came right up to just under her cheekbones. And — oh, get this — she had no neck! What I mean is, the bottom of her head just seemed to broaden out onto and into her wide, muscular shoulders. I don't think you'll see it in the film, but she walked like a big man in no hurry, and the soles of her feet were definitely light in color.

This last bit got me, as I have seen really black-skinned Melanesians with pale pink palms and soles. I don't want to sound facetious, but this whole thing gets "hairier and hairier," as you will see in a moment. Roger did something then that I have never known any professional photographers to do, even if his camera was loaded with the right film, he had the cap off the lens, the thing set at the right F stop and so on. He started running, hand-holding his Kodak sixteen-mm loaded with Kodachrome film, trying to focus on this "creature." What he got was just about what any amateur would get in such circumstances. But then he got a real break. As he puts it:

She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her.

7 ft? Black? You said brown before. Droopy breasts? She totally stopped to look at you?

"Okay," I said. "Tell me this, Roger — the hunting season was on, wasn't it?" "You're darned shooting right it was," Bob Gimlin chimed in. "And out that way, anything moving with fur on it is liable to get shot." But actually, there just aren't any hunters way up there, twenty miles beyond the only road, known as the Bluff Creek access. Could it be that this Mrs. Bigfoot knew all about guns but was puzzled by the whirring of a small movie camera? And another thing: everybody who says they have been close to one of these creatures or has found one of their "beds" has stressed the ghastly, nauseating stink they exude and leave behind. Was this what really scared the horses or did the horses scare the "Adorable Woodsman," which is my name for the lady?

(While we referred to this in the title as the "Abominable Snowman" for purposes of quick identification, the Bigfoot or Sasquatch, zoologically, has nothing to do with the Himalayan Abominable Snowman known for centuries in Asia and first brought to the attention of the western world in 1921. Our lady is a form of primitive, full-furred human. The Yeti, or Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas is some sort of giant, rock-climbing ape, in my opinion, and that of Professor Carleton S. Coon. The Yeti footprints found have an opposed big toe, almost like a hand. The Bigfoot has an unopposed toe, such as is seen only on human-type creatures.)

While Roger took the film, Bob got the horses calmed down and then rode over the creek. Roger was running again after the Bigfoot, still hand-holding his movie camera. Despite the logs and trash on the route she took — and it was not even a game trail — he got some parting shots which turned out to be of particular interest to the scientists. But we will come to that later.

They were right beside Bluff Creek Road. There was a bunch of loggers, trucks, rangers. We know the path that Patty walked was fairly even and not strewn with debris. The washout was between Patty and Roger.

At that point, I asked Bob — because he was then what is called "the back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly — "Just what was Roger doing?"

He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush.

"Did you see her, too?"

Yeah, Ivan, but way ahead and really taking off for the hills.

This brought me up sharp, because I had by this time viewed their film (and half a dozen out-takes, blown up, in full color as transparencies, which I had examined under strong magnifying lenses on an illuminated shadow-box several times and projected by three different projectors). In every case, the creature was — at standard speed for photos (twenty-four frames per sec) — as Roger said, at first just ambling along, swinging her rather long arms, not running scared, and even stopping for a brief look-see over her shoulder as it were; then ambling on again into the deep woods... Yet here was the back-up man saying that she had taken off for the hills. Roger, however, backed up his back-up man unprompted.

When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off-running, I mean — because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three-and-a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel. Man, she was running just like you and I do!

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/first.html

* W * T * F? * Roger ran up into the bush? What happened to Bob rode after her but Roger called him to come back because he was afraid other Bigfoots might be around? Patty started running? Whaaaaa??? 3.5 miles?

That's enough. None of these questions are new. I don't know how anyone can read that and not think they are clearly being lied to.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't know how anyone can read that and not think they are clearly being lied to.

PGF believers don't seem to care. To them, the differing and changing stories are not important enough to cause a change in belief. It's as if once a status of PGF belief has become established it's almost impossible to change. Take a look around. Can you point out people who have switched positions because of the range of stories given by P&G? I'm talking about people who went from genuine PGF belief to disbelief after being exposed to the wild stories that you just presented.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/chapters.htm

A slightly different version with more of Roger's own words is in Things. Scroll down to Wandering Woodspersons...

 

[William Parcher]

This is supposed to be a Patterson cast. Is it from Patty? Anyway, look at the size of that thing. Who in their right mind would think that such a creature is really out there with no specimen ever acquired? Oh yes - Bigfootery is not for your right mind. Bigfootery is for your fun.

 

[kitakaze]

It boggles the mind and I really do marvel at the absurdity of it, but my gaze keeps getting pulled away and all I can think about is trying to shut myself up from making some offensive generalization. I would like to talk about how the cast looks like some giant loaf of poorly baked something but my eyes keep drifting up to the distraction of the filthy, disgusting, grimy looking hobo socked foot. Jesus Christ Superstar, man, put that horrible thing away. Laundry... lauuunnnndryyy. You're choking me out. Put your sandal back on, take this $5, go to Target and buy yourself some socks, have shower, clean yourself up, and come back for your breathtaking comparison shot when you don't look like this guy.

 

[William Parcher]

It looks like a newer photo but the caption says it's circa 1969.

 

[HarryHenderson]

It boggles the mind...marvel at the absurdity of it...filthy, disgusting, grimy looking hobo socked foot...take this $5, go to Target and buy yourself some socks...come back for your breathtaking comparison shot when you don't look like this guy.

That's funny!

Applying but just a minuscule amount of AutoCad™, that casting is 2.25 times longer than the adjacent Odor Eaters™ spokesman's foot. Say 10" hobo foot, 22.5" cast. 12" hobo foot, 27" cast.

Where was that cast supposedly taken from? Not Patty/Bluff Creek, right?

ETA: Just read the caption and it says in part "...Here we see a plaster cast of the alleged creature's footprint." Implying it's from Patty, but I think he meant 'a' not 'the'. If not, that guy just added yet another contradiction. BTW, he's got some kind of 'disturbing fascination' with Ivan Sanderson. And apparently Roger Patterson had some degree of one too?

 

[William Parcher]

I don't think that's a Patty cast. It looks like this one here...

 

[LTC8K6]

This is supposed to be a Patterson cast. Is it from Patty? Anyway, look at the size of that thing. Who in their right mind would think that such a creature is really out there with no specimen ever acquired? Oh yes - Bigfootery is not for your right mind. Bigfootery is for your fun.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/167857cb.jpg[/qimg]

What a gulli-bull! To quote Bugs Bunny.

Why doesn't such a cast from Patterson raise the hoax flag? Even in believers that cast should raise the hoax flag. Not only is it huge, it's also thick as if it went in deep.

I suppose it actually must be raising the hoax flag, but the freedom for believers to say so is limited.

The first thing out of an objective person's mouth on presentation of this by Patterson as genuine, should be uncontrollable peals of laughter.

Followed later by the realization that the PGF must also be a hoax.

 

[Drewbot]

I don't think that's a Patty cast. It looks like this one here...

Is that one of the special Bigfoot-Dogs? It doesn't seem to be affected by the residual odor that would accompany a Bigfoot cast.

 

[William Parcher]

Is there anything that could happen during editing, such as splicing, cutting, that could be mistaken for a "camera stop/start" ?

I don't know. Bill says that the film shows evidence of stops not cuts. Something about frame overexposure right after a stop.

Did Bill notice that the subject was in the same place before and after the stop/starts? or was the subject in a different location?

I don't know if he has mentioned it but we can see that Patty and Roger are in different places after each stop. We already knew this years ago.

One issue with Bill's analysis is that it cannot be verified, replicated or double-checked by anyone. Only he has access to the Pat Patterson copy he is working on. Agreeing on various things is not the same as having another qualified person lay their eyes and hands on the same film copy.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is that one of the special Bigfoot-Dogs? It doesn't seem to be affected by the residual odor that would accompany a Bigfoot cast.

Alder doesn't have much of an odor...

 

[William Parcher]

Forget Patterson in his boots, check out photos that show Gimlin's horse standing next to the prints, and the horse barely making a dent in that sand. If a shoed horse in full tack (estimated 1300 lbs + IIRC) can't make hoofprints as deeply impressed as a flat-footed, fleshy-heeled biped, then said biped would almost have to be a good bit heavier than said horse...

In the photos, Patterson (and Gimlin's horse) doesn't sink very deep in the sand but the prints do.

Yo Shrike, did you dream that such photos exist?

 

[The Shrike]

Yo Shrike, did you dream that such photos exist?

Must be. We have just Gimlin's testimony of how deep the hoofprints went in comparison to Patty's?

 

[William Parcher]

Correct. We only have his words from an interview.

But we do have an image showing a print of a workboot tread next to the famous Laverty Patty print.

 

[The Shrike]

Correct. We only have his words from an interview.

Well that's better than a photo anyway, seeing as how ol' Bob G. is incapable of being untruthful.

But we do have an image showing a print of a workboot tread next to the famous Laverty Patty print.

Interesting. I guess we normally see this image cropped so that you don't see the workboot tread. I assume that's because the "bigfoot" print appears no more deeply impressed than the boot?

 

[LTC8K6]

 

[William Parcher]

Why assume they were looking for signs of forgery rather than just looking to collect data on the track? I'm confident that people like Titmus took measurements of individual prints, estimated depth, and estimated stride length. I'm not at all confident that Titmus or anyone else conducted a CSI analysis of the entire sandbar to collect evidence of anomalies that might indicate that the track was a forgery. Even if they were skeptical and creative enough to do so, any ancillary marks would've easily been explained as Roger and Bob inspecting the track after Patty had left the scene.

It's well known that Titmus did not have any tool of measurement with him when he was at Bluff Creek for the Patty thing. He was not known to carry a camera during his career as a "professional Bigfoot tracker" either.

P&G didn't have a ruler or tape either. Gimlin's estimate of track depth may have been exaggerated... with Titmus unable or unwilling to make any genuine measurement himself. Titmus may not have even known of Gimlin's depth claims.

Titmus' review of the PGF site was nothing like a formal report for peer review. AFAIK, it was an informal letter to John Green. We have never seen any copy of the actual sheet(s) of paper that Titmus wrote on while standing on the sandbar (the true field notes).

We know for a fact that Titmus didn't tell Green about everything he saw there. Because if he did he would have mentioned a curious workboot impression that was neither Patterson's nor Gimlin's (cowboy) boot. So Titmus was keen enough to see the Patty buttprint amongst the ferns but too blind to see the out-of-place engineer tracks? Hmmm... something doesn't smell right about Titmus. I think anyone who thinks he was a Bigfoot hoaxbuster ought to get a spanking. I suspect that if Titmus knew that Laverty and crew had already been walking around the sandbar he would have mentioned seeing their tracks along with those of P&G. I suspect that he intentionally chose not to mention the workboot prints because they could cause anyone to become suspicious. Titmus wasn't there to see if a hoax had occured. He was there to say that it was Bigfoot.

Where is Odinn these days?

 

[kitakaze]

Back on BFF after a hiatus.