• 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.
William Parcher wrote:
I suspect that he intentionally chose not to mention the workboot prints because they could cause anyone to become suspicious.


And he couldn't have just 'smoothed-out' the bootprint....and eliminated the potential problem??

You know....the same way that Roger removed all of his boot and knee prints from the ground, after making the complete trackway??? :boggled:
 
LOL. You screwed up. Titmus said that P&G's tracks were all over the place. He even said that he could see where Patterson stood when he filmed Patty. But he said nothing about seeing Laverty and his crew's tracks. Those should have been all over the place too. How do you think Lyle got all those photos?

What do you think was Titmus' motivation for not telling Green about the workboot prints?
 
Roger and Bob even explained why their horse's hoof prints were alongside the trackway.

A cynic might think they rode the horse while faking the trackway, which eliminated any obvious signs of track faking, and neatly explained it by saying they were filming the trackway on horseback and conducting "stomp" tests, etc.

Think about it. Would you film the trackway from a horse? Could you do that easily, or would it be awkward? Would you be more likely to get off the horse and walk to film the trackway?

Could you fake a trackway from horseback and leave nothing but hoof prints? Would that work at all? Could Roger have done it by himself without Bob even knowing he'd done it? Would anyone have bothered to check at the time? Did Roger even need to do that? Were these folks who arrived at the scene believers who weren't going to check too closely anyway?

Of course, from this far away, there's no way to tell anymore.
 
Add Walt Kurshman. He also visited the film site before Titmus got there.

Titmus would have seen the tracks of these people at a minimum...

Roger Patterson
Bob Gimlin
Lyle Laverty
Laverty crew members
Walt Kurshman

All of those people were walking amongst the Patty tracks. Titmus should have reported that a whole bunch of different people had stood right next to the tracks. What was his motivation for not reporting that? Was he simply a horrible tracker?

Titmus says he tracked Bigfoot hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. Yet in spite of this he never was able to provide any confirmatory evidence that such a creature exists at all. It is not rational to think that this creature exists.
 
He also would have found soggy cardboard boxes, and tree bark scattered around where Bob Gimlin covered up the tracks. He also would have found several sets of horse prints, dog prints if anyone had their dog with them.

Also, he says he tracked patty to a hill overlooking the creek area. Which leads us back to the "we followed her for 3 miles" comment by Patterson/Gimlin. Did he find tracks of RP/BG following Patty for the 3 miles? Was the overlook that Patty stopped at within 3 miles? Or are we to disregard the Patterson/Gimlin Followed Patty story?

I know that Gigantofootecus is back on BFF but Odinn is not back here since the doll-hand-accusation.

What was the doll-hand accusation? I missed that, was it here or at BFF?
 
Last edited:
(snip) What was the doll-hand accusation? I missed that, was it here or at BFF?

Years ago I photographed my daughter's Ken doll's hand in two positions; the two photos gave the illusion that the fingers flexed slightly. He accused me of bending the fingers, though the doll's hand isn't bendable.
 
Years ago I photographed my daughter's Ken doll's hand in two positions; the two photos gave the illusion that the fingers flexed slightly. He accused me of bending the fingers, though the doll's hand isn't bendable.

Right. I remember that. But I thought Odinn has been on here since then.
 
From Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed...

...both Lyle Laverty and Bob Titmus observed that human footprints did not come close to matching the 1-inch depth of the giant tracks.

One inch depth observed by witnesses?

In one interview concerning the Patterson film, Bob Gimlin remarked that some of the tracks left at the scene sank a full three and a half inches into the ground.

Why didn't Laverty and Titmus report seeing tracks as deep as 3.5 inches? Did Gimlin greatly exaggerate the depth in his interview?
 
If a person were publicly challenged or simply decided to recreate the Patty trackway would they create 1-inch deep tracks, or 3.5-inch deep tracks?
 
Right. I remember that. But I thought Odinn has been on here since then.

Last post, right before Kit posted a quote from BFF, where he called Spektator a fraud ( liar ) ..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910936&postcount=1242


Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus @ BFF
If ANYONE can rotate a static hand and produce this effect then I'll eat a bug. The "Doll's hand" example was a fraud. The poster bent the dolls fingers and he went suspiciously silent when I called him on it. Try to re-create it and see for yourself. Otherwise, that example is worse than useless.

I even bet him $100 that the effect was easy to duplicate..

I'm sure he's been absent for some other reason, and just a coincidence that he went missing after this exchange..;)
 
He also would have found soggy cardboard boxes, and tree bark scattered around where Bob Gimlin covered up the tracks. He also would have found several sets of horse prints, dog prints if anyone had their dog with them.

Nix finding the cardboard boxes. Gimlin said that he decided against using cardboard because it was already soggy back at camp. Both Laverty and Titmus reported finding bark covering some tracks. Gimlin told the truth about that, but we have no way to confirm the truth of his testimony that he rode out in darkness in a driving rain to cover the tracks.

Also, he says he tracked patty to a hill overlooking the creek area. Which leads us back to the "we followed her for 3 miles" comment by Patterson/Gimlin. Did he find tracks of RP/BG following Patty for the 3 miles? Was the overlook that Patty stopped at within 3 miles? Or are we to disregard the Patterson/Gimlin Followed Patty story?

The 3.5 mile tracking story is an obvious lie. None of the famous PGF supporter/authors will discuss that. They treat it as if it doesn't exist. If they were to accept it then the timeline becomes even more impossible. This is one of the reasons why I think that the big-name supporters are only pretending to believe and proclaim that the film is authentic.

Patty squatted in the ferns to watch P&G after they filmed her? No. That is Titmus contributing to a folk tale. His gift to Patterson and anyone who would believe that Patty is a real Bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Add Walt Kurshman. He also visited the film site before Titmus got there.

Titmus would have seen the tracks of these people at a minimum...

Roger Patterson
Bob Gimlin
Lyle Laverty
Laverty crew members
Walt Kurshman

All of those people were walking amongst the Patty tracks. Titmus should have reported that a whole bunch of different people had stood right next to the tracks. What was his motivation for not reporting that? Was he simply a horrible tracker?

Titmus says he tracked Bigfoot hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. Yet in spite of this he never was able to provide any confirmatory evidence that such a creature exists at all. It is not rational to think that this creature exists.

IIRC, Titmus claimed not to be able to find the site at all at first. He apparently missed the spot where all these folks were standing around looking at a bigfoot trackway. With soil that we've been told holds tracks very well. How did he miss it? It should have been covered with well defined tracks of Patty and a bunch of people. Plus three sets of hoof prints.
 
Last edited:
Bob Titmus letter to Green about finding the site.

By the end of the day it became apparent that a few of the viewers felt that there was a possibility the whole thing was a very elaborate and expensive hoax. I felt that this possibility was so extremely remote as to be almost non-existent. (None of these individuals witnessed more than one showing, I believe). However, I did have to take into consideration the fact that I believe that I viewed the film through somewhat different eyes than most of the persons present.

Firstly I think that a taxidermist will see and retain far more detail, while watching an animal, and is probably far more qualified to recognize anything unnatural, than the average person.

Secondly, evidence I witnessed in the mountains of Northern California about ten years ago changed me from a non-believer to a believer and since that time I have spent a major portion of those years, as you know, interviewing witnesses, investigating reports, collecting evidence, casting many, many different tracks, setting up camera and live traps, tracking the creatures dozens of times, etc., all of this was in an effort to capture one of the creatures. All of this experience only strengthened the case of the existence of the creature Bigfoot/Sasquatch.

Thirdly, many years ago I saw one of these creatures at fairly close range and watched it for about ninety seconds before it walked off into the timber.

Almost none of the persons present at the showing of the film had a background of experience like this so it is not surprising that there was some variance in the conclusions arrived at.

Since I know more about tracks than film and generally feel that they will tell me a more accurate story than film, I had a very strong urge to see the tracks that were being made during the time that Roger was shooting his film. I felt that the tracks could very well prove or disprove the authenticity of the pictures. No one else present seemed inclined or able so the following day I went on to California to have a look at the tracks.

My first full day up near the end of Bluff Creek, I missed the tracks completely. I walked some 14 to 16 miles on Bluff Creek and the many feeder creeks coming into it and found nothing of any particular interest other than the fact that Roger and Bob's horse tracks were everywhere I went. I found the place where the pictures had been taken and the tracks of Bigfoot the following morning. The tracks traversed a little more than 300 feet of a rather high sand, silt and gravel bar which had a light scattering of trees growing on it, no underbrush whatever but a considerable amount of drift debris here and there. The tracks then crossed Bluff Creek and an old logging road and continued up a steep mountainside.

This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns. About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him. The distance would have been approximately 125-150 yards. His position was shadowed and well screened from observation from below. His tracks continued on up the mountain but I did not follow them far. I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar. It was not difficult to find the exact spot where Roger was standing when he was taking his pictures and he was in an excellent position.

I spent hours that day examining the tracks, which, for the most part, were still in very good condition considering that they were 9 or 10 days old. Roger and Bob had covered a few of them with slabs of bark etc., and these were in excellent condition. The tracks appeared perfectly natural and normal. The same as the many others that we have tracked and become so familiar with over the years, but of a slightly different size. Most of the tracks showed a great deal of foot movement, some showed a little and a few indicated almost no movement whatever. I took plaster casts of ten consecutive imprints and the casts show a vast difference in each imprint, such as toe placement, toe gripping force, pressure ridges and breaks, weight shifts, weight distribution, depth, etc. Nothing whatever here indicated that these tracks could have been faked in some manner. In fact all of the evidence pointed in the opposite direction. And no amount of thinking and imagining on my part could conceive of a method by which these tracks could have been made fictitiously.

While passing through Weaverville I had phoned my sister and brother-in-law in San Diego and invited them up to Bluff Creek for a visit after my several years away and also to see the tracks. They arrived at my camp this particular evening shortly before I was preparing to leave. We stayed over another day. Allene was a skeptic and Harry a hard-headed non-believer. Both of them left there believing in the existence of this creature. I didn't try to convince them of anything. I simply took them to where the tracks were and let them examine them to their own satisfaction and draw their own conclusions. Harry has hunted big game all of his life. He has been all over Africa, Alaska, Yukon Territory, Canada,Mexico and the U.S. and stated that this impressed him more than anything he had ever seen in the bush in all of his travels. Harry made several tests and observations, one of which was walking briskly beside the tracks to try to match their depth of up to an inch and a quarter and more in places. Harry is a 200 pounder and the best he could do was an imprint of about 1/2 of an inch on the rear portion of his shoe heel and one-eighth of an inch and less on the rest of his shoe imprint. We both agreed, considering the depth of the two imprints and the difference in the amount of bearing surface, that the creature that made these tracks would have to weigh at least 600 to 700 pounds.
 
Titmus says couldn't find the site the first day.

Titmus basically says that Patty had no tracks from coming into the site, only tracks leaving it.

Titmus also says he found the exact spot where Roger was standing when he took the film, which makes no sense.
 
I'm sure he's been absent for some other reason


He gets to post nonsense "over there"...

I agree UP. How many "artifacts" are sitting in museums brought forth by frontiersman? I doubt many of PT Barnum's exhibits have survived to present day. Lugging around a trophy would have been impractical. And who knows what relics were found then lost to antiquity. Most things, I would imagine. But a frontiersman that shot one might have told you them bigfoots was good eatin. Tasted like chicken, but a bit gamey.

Yesiree. Them old frontier settlers didn't have the time or inclination to lug anything... especially something like a Bigfoot skull or a gigantic humanoid foot. Why yesiree, they might shoot a Bigfoot but then they would just say hell aww crap I'm leavin it there for the buzzards. Nobody's interested in a huge apeman anyway... it's just stupid. It stinks too. Don't touch it.

That's the way it went in the old days. :D
 
Titmus says couldn't find the site the first day.

Titmus basically says that Patty had no tracks from coming into the site, only tracks leaving it.

Titmus also says he found the exact spot where Roger was standing when he took the film, which makes no sense.
In a detailed story like that, you might think he would have mentioned finding the prints that P&G had poured plaster into ... ( ? )
 
From Daegling again...

On the other hand, Richard Henry expressed "mixed emotions" about the event recorded by the tracks, since he stated that "I could not find (tracks) where they started" and the sequence of footprints looked "symmetrical and mechanical."

Who is this Richard Henry who got a look at the Patty trackway? The sequence (not the individual prints) looked symmetrical and mechanical? Did Patterson lay out fake tracks in a calculated single file?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom