• 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.
Óðinn said:
Where in that quote is the word "trackway" mentioned? That would imply RP created 2 or more fake tracks, but why would he need more than 1 track for his movie? Maybe that's why we can't see any other tracks in that casting footage.
Click to expand...

Which footage? There is a film clip of four tracks, and we have stills from a film of Roger casting a track.
 
Gimlin has the answers.

Is the plaster pour scene a demo or Patty?
Is the trackway panned by the camera a demo or Patty?

Gimlin was there.
 
Mr. Gimlin, were you holding the film camera for this scene? If so, where and when was it taken? If not, do you have any information on it?
 

Attachments

  • Roger casts crop.jpg
    Roger casts crop.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 1
LTC8K6 said:
Which footage? There is a film clip of four tracks, and we have stills from a film of Roger casting a track.
Click to expand...

Looks like footage to me.

RogerCastingSmall.gif
 
William Parcher said:
Mr. Gimlin, were you holding the film camera for this scene? If so, where and when was it taken? If not, do you have any information on it?
Click to expand...

Chris Murphy places the event in Bluff Creek. Jeff Meldrum places the event in Washington. Both Murphy and Meldrum are Bigfoot advocates, and have friendly interactions with Gimlin, yet neither seemed to have pursued getting a straight answer from Gimlin.

Why is that?

It's possible that Patterson's still camera had a self-timer and he used a tripod. But again if this was the case, wouldn't Gimlin know this and say so right off the bat?
 
tube said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

There seems to be lots of questions that these people don't ask of Gimlin. It's like... if you already believe that the film is authentic then you really don't need the answers to those questions.

It's possible that Patterson's still camera had a self-timer and he used a tripod. But again if this was the case, wouldn't Gimlin know this and say so right off the bat?
Click to expand...

You know the cast display scene is movie film, right? Here is a short gif.


a90e1e3b.gif
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well yes, which footage did you mean, that or the clip of four tracks?

Or did I get on the wrong bus? (again)
Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder if those 2 events should be together as they've been portrayed. I'm convinced that the footage of the trackway is from the film site, since the tracks match LeClerc's composite photo that shows the same section of Patty's trackway. But Roger casting that footprint might just be from another time and not at the film site. It might just have got edited into the Unsolved Mysteries show that aired it. Where IS the footage of Roger pouring casting material into a fake bigfoot print? Maybe the editor liked it better. It would solve the discrepancies between his images in the cast pouring footage and him holding the casts, where he becomes suddenly unshaven.

It would also explain why the track he is casting is not the one in the trackway footage and why we can't see any tracks beyond the one he's casting. Roger probably did have a movie camera on a tripod and Gimlin had nothing to do with it. IMO, only the PGF and the trackway footage has been confirmed as coming from the film site. We may not know what Roger's appearance was on Oct 20th (unless the 2nd reel shows up), so the footage of him holding the casts could be anywhere, at any time before or after the PGF was in the can. IMO, the sun angles don't refute the alleged sequence of events, but they can't tell us which day anything occured.

IMO, all these snips from the "2nd reel" aren't much good fer nothin. We need the reel McCoy still sittin in Roger's old oak desk, that Pat hasn't touched since his death.

ETA: wouldn't it be real ironical-like if Bill Munns finds it the next time he visits Pat. Speaking of which, he did mention seeing this footage among Roger's films. Probably the edited version from the show. Bill?
 
Last edited:
Right. Scratch the tripod. We don't know if Roger used one to cast the fake track anyway. It looks like someone was holding the camera for all the clips. Gimlin doesn't recall ever using the camera himself, does he, so maybe he didn't. Maybe Pat is behind the camera.
 
Last edited:
Óðinn said:
Gimlin doesn't recall ever using the camera himself, does he, so maybe he didn't. Maybe Pat is behind the camera.
Click to expand...


It opens a strange can of worms if you suggest "maybe Gimlin isn't doing the filming." We have various filmed scenes showing Roger at Bluff Creek. If not Gimlin filming, then who?
 
The clips of Roger by Pat. The PGF & 2nd reel stuff, Roger. But wasn't there supposedly a clip of Roger casting 1 of the tracks on the 2nd reel? If that's true, then Gimlin's it. Maybe the only time he used the camera but it had to be him nonetheless.
 
Gimlin states in the 67 radio interview that he took the reloaded camera and went off to look for tracks and the other sasquatch.

Why would he take the camera if he were not competent with it?

Roger couldn't go and try to film the tracks or sight the other sasquatch because he was still trying to round up and organize his horse and gear.

B:After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera while he gathered up his stuff and ...

W:You scouted around for a while did you? Well when did you ..were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following her?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here's a stabilized version of the gif....with the last 2 frames repeated a few times...


RogerCastsAG1.gif



It jumps a bit from frame 1, to 2, because the first image is rotated slightly, relative to the other 3 frames.
 
Last edited:
Hey there, Sweaty. You said...

SweatyYeti said:
I stand by my statements...100%.
Click to expand...

So, is this true?...

SweatyYeti said:
....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him :) ).

"A hand in a glove is just fine"....WASN'T just fine....it was insufficient.
Click to expand...

You had it in great big font and all blue, were pretty adamant about it - sarcastic even. So, yes or no - is it true?
 
I spliced Patty's bent fingers onto Frame 72....and brought Bob along for the ride....for comparison of the arm lengths...


BobPattyFingerBendAG2.gif




Remember....Bob's shoulders would have to be 2-3" inboard...(per side)...of Patty's shoulders....if he were Patty....and that would require Bob's upper arm to be angled-out slightly, when Patty's arm is hanging straight down, as in this image.


Seems like it'd be mighty tough for Bob to get his fingers into that last joint on Patty's pinky finger...;)


But, in all fairness...to Bob....Patty's right leg is bent quite a bit, so that's 'skewing' the comparison, a little. Patty's fingertips would be higher up, if her right leg was straight.


For reference...here's Odinn's original animated-gif...

handmove2ag.gif
 
Last edited:
Still looks like it could be the glove of the suit hitting the thigh. The glove rotates and the front part of the glove bends a little due to hitting the thigh, as the suit bulges at the thigh when the leg flexes. I can even see the cuff rotate at the wrist.

Now tell me that wasn't good. :D

Now I just need to crayon it up...
 
LTC8K6 said:
Still looks like it could be the glove of the suit hitting the thigh. The glove rotates and the front part of the glove bends a little due to hitting the thigh, as the suit bulges at the thigh when the leg flexes. I can even see the cuff rotate at the wrist.

Now tell me that wasn't good. :D

Now I just need to crayon it up...
Click to expand...


Still looks like it could be fingers bending, to me. ;)

Now...tell me that wasn't pretty clever. :D



kitakaze wrote:

So, is this true?...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him :) ).

"A hand in a glove is just fine"....WASN'T just fine....it was insufficient.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Here is a comparison of Bob, with Bob in the Morris suit...


BobBobSuitCompAG1.gif



While the lengths from the eyes to the knee joints are the same....the lengths from the 'fingertips to the eyes', on both arms, are significantly greater with the suit.

The suit arms extend the length of Bob's arms....and the 'Patty/Bob-in-a-suit' comparison image, that you've been posting, kitakaze, shows Patty's arm length and the suit's arm length to be very close to equal, if not exactly equal.

That means that Bob's fingers wouldn't have fit fully into Patty's "suit's" glove fingers....and, as a result, he wouldn't have been able to bend the fingers at that last joint...so close to the end.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom