Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3
- Thread starter JcR
- Start date
- Status
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There has been no confirmation of either.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,491
Eureka Times-Standard, November 5, 1967
Did that part get edited out along with the leap into the big hole?
Did that part get edited out along with the leap into the big hole?
Ha. Roll 2 is sounding more like roll 0.5. Am I wrong?
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,491
Looks like we have full frame here. From the trackway camera pan. Flipped too. You can see maybe bootprints and maybe kneeprints...
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
You can also see that the cast print has been dug out and that the cast has been placed back in it for the photo.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Moved from a BFF thread to here where it on topic...
First of all, Mulder, wow. C'mon. You've been on the BFF since 2004. Seriously, you can't find your way around a quote function by now? Please don't put my words in your post as though they are yours. I realize it's not intentional, but you'd think you'd have the hang of quoting people by now.
And it's "evidentiarily." Dude, you have the entire internet at your disposal and you're asking the "scoftics" how to spell. LOL. Try Google. It won't laugh at you like we will. You want an honest debate, you bring it. I will bee-bop and skat all over you the same way that I did at the BFF. I will show who really has loose and easy standards for what they accept in terms of reliable evidence. Hint - it's the guy with the fortean addict user name.
No, no. I agree. I don't think anyone will forget that it is a proven fact that Patterson was a huckster. Fanatical Bigfoot apologists such as yourself can dismiss it in anyway you like, but for those who don't have woo-addled minds, it's definitely good to know. I do like how you threw in the little alcoholic insinuation like as if all Bob does is drink and tell stories at the bar. That is quite nice. I can never see how you would be disciplined at the BFF.
What I proved is much more than just showing Roger "welshed on his debts." I bet Ambermae from Wales loves that term. LOL Go look up "welsh" in a dictionary, Mulder. It, along with other British derogatory terms like "gypped" from Gypsy, means to swindle someone. Yes, Roger swindled people. He took their money, he took their property, he took their services. He commited cheque fraud like it was going out of style. He was arrested for grand larceny. He was pulled in by the post office three times for mail fraud when he took people money for memberships to Northwest Research and returned nothing at all. He was a huckster pure and simple and religious believer fanatics like you sweep it under the rug in order to distract people from the inconvenient truth about your American hero. I'm done with proving it to people like you who wave it away. I'm more interested in proving Patterson was a hoaxer.
Tell us, Mulder. Were Harvey and Duane Anderson of Anderson's Camera and Sport Shop liars?
LOL What a credulous riot you are. One of Patterson's closest friends whom he relied on for his Hollywood connections that lived in the agricultural community of Yakima reported on three separate occasions something that looked like Bigfoot on his property. On the final occasion never to happen again, the apparent Bigfoot gets Jerry's dog attached to its crotch and runs away screaming down the drive way and down the road. Not to the trees, but down the road. And you're implying that it really was Bigfoot come into Yakima to see Roger's good buddy. How marvelously gullible you are. Tell us, Mulder, what necessitates that we should have some newspaper clipping or some kind of written record that some fool got their nuts squeezed playing Bigfoot?
So we're cynical, but you with the "scoftic" this and "denialist" that are A-OK. Hypocrite.
Let's hear about no corpse. Why no corpse, Mulder? Excuses - go.
Yes, dismissive terms based on a person's mode of thinking and level of credulity or even dogmatic close-mindedness are OK. Woo, creduloid, scoftic, denialist, whatever. These are all OK. Derogatory insults based on someone's culture, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc is not OK. I think the welsh thing is OK, though. I don't think we're hyper PC.
First of all, Mulder, wow. C'mon. You've been on the BFF since 2004. Seriously, you can't find your way around a quote function by now? Please don't put my words in your post as though they are yours. I realize it's not intentional, but you'd think you'd have the hang of quoting people by now.
And it's "evidentiarily." Dude, you have the entire internet at your disposal and you're asking the "scoftics" how to spell. LOL. Try Google. It won't laugh at you like we will. You want an honest debate, you bring it. I will bee-bop and skat all over you the same way that I did at the BFF. I will show who really has loose and easy standards for what they accept in terms of reliable evidence. Hint - it's the guy with the fortean addict user name.
No, no. I agree. I don't think anyone will forget that it is a proven fact that Patterson was a huckster. Fanatical Bigfoot apologists such as yourself can dismiss it in anyway you like, but for those who don't have woo-addled minds, it's definitely good to know. I do like how you threw in the little alcoholic insinuation like as if all Bob does is drink and tell stories at the bar. That is quite nice. I can never see how you would be disciplined at the BFF.
What I proved is much more than just showing Roger "welshed on his debts." I bet Ambermae from Wales loves that term. LOL Go look up "welsh" in a dictionary, Mulder. It, along with other British derogatory terms like "gypped" from Gypsy, means to swindle someone. Yes, Roger swindled people. He took their money, he took their property, he took their services. He commited cheque fraud like it was going out of style. He was arrested for grand larceny. He was pulled in by the post office three times for mail fraud when he took people money for memberships to Northwest Research and returned nothing at all. He was a huckster pure and simple and religious believer fanatics like you sweep it under the rug in order to distract people from the inconvenient truth about your American hero. I'm done with proving it to people like you who wave it away. I'm more interested in proving Patterson was a hoaxer.
Tell us, Mulder. Were Harvey and Duane Anderson of Anderson's Camera and Sport Shop liars?
LOL What a credulous riot you are. One of Patterson's closest friends whom he relied on for his Hollywood connections that lived in the agricultural community of Yakima reported on three separate occasions something that looked like Bigfoot on his property. On the final occasion never to happen again, the apparent Bigfoot gets Jerry's dog attached to its crotch and runs away screaming down the drive way and down the road. Not to the trees, but down the road. And you're implying that it really was Bigfoot come into Yakima to see Roger's good buddy. How marvelously gullible you are. Tell us, Mulder, what necessitates that we should have some newspaper clipping or some kind of written record that some fool got their nuts squeezed playing Bigfoot?
So we're cynical, but you with the "scoftic" this and "denialist" that are A-OK. Hypocrite.
Let's hear about no corpse. Why no corpse, Mulder? Excuses - go.
So you can be as dismissive and name-calling as you want to "creduloids" and such just so long as it isn't a ethnic slur, etc? Nice...
Yes, dismissive terms based on a person's mode of thinking and level of credulity or even dogmatic close-mindedness are OK. Woo, creduloid, scoftic, denialist, whatever. These are all OK. Derogatory insults based on someone's culture, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc is not OK. I think the welsh thing is OK, though. I don't think we're hyper PC.
Meldrum says the images of Patterson displaying the casts by a tree were taken in Yakima. Legend meets science, p. 143. Murphy says the images were made "at the film site." Bigfoot Film Controversy p. 189. Murphy also shows an image (which he says was made "at the film site") of Gimlin kneeling with the casts, p. 201.
Now, I have not been impressed with Murphy, and I don't know how clever he's being; every film image ever taken in the world was taken "at the film site." By definition. Are we clear?
Murphy says the stomp test was filmed, p. 188, and they also filmed horse tracks near the trackway to show the depth.
Now, I have not been impressed with Murphy, and I don't know how clever he's being; every film image ever taken in the world was taken "at the film site." By definition. Are we clear?
Murphy says the stomp test was filmed, p. 188, and they also filmed horse tracks near the trackway to show the depth.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Question for all PGF skeptics.
How do you think Patterson hoaxed the tracks at Bluff Creek? Was it one method or more than one?...
Howard Heironimus described to me watching Patterson at his home making fake tracks out by his garden by putting various weights on casts he had, as well as a single large foot type thing he used. Harvey Anderson described seeing just such an object brought to his shop by Patterson in 1961, but he also described Patterson admitting to him how he made tracks in snow using stilts. Roger was very acrobatic. There is no denying this. I wonder if some portion was made by using stompers on stilts or if they were all used by weighting down various casts.
How do you think Patterson hoaxed the tracks at Bluff Creek? Was it one method or more than one?...
We can see that it was Titmus who cast this track. Center of top row.
Howard Heironimus described to me watching Patterson at his home making fake tracks out by his garden by putting various weights on casts he had, as well as a single large foot type thing he used. Harvey Anderson described seeing just such an object brought to his shop by Patterson in 1961, but he also described Patterson admitting to him how he made tracks in snow using stilts. Roger was very acrobatic. There is no denying this. I wonder if some portion was made by using stompers on stilts or if they were all used by weighting down various casts.
The Shrike
Philosopher
I think Roger had motive and means to fake the prints, but I'm not yet convinced that he did.
This is why the timeline is important: if the track was laid down close to the time that the film was made, then it's hard to reconcile the film subject not making the track. If the film subject walked anywhere near a pre-made track, its own track would presumably have been apparent. We have independent accounts that the track was witnessed and photographed shortly after Roger claimed to have made the film, and I know of no claim that there were two tracks. So could the prints be those left from Bob H in a Patty suit walking on soft substrate? I dunno. The substrate would need to be really soft for the prints to take on such a level of detail. I think the jury's still out on the alleged great depth of the prints, but that's a tough detail: Too shallow and it'd look like a man wearing slippers not sinking in very far; too deep and you end up with a "Patty" weighing 1000 lbs+ and that simply makes no sense.
Conversely, the film could have been made prior to the track. Whatever shallow prints Bob H might have left while walking across a sandbar in floppy slippers could have been brushed or washed away before Roger laid down the track.
This is why the timeline is important: if the track was laid down close to the time that the film was made, then it's hard to reconcile the film subject not making the track. If the film subject walked anywhere near a pre-made track, its own track would presumably have been apparent. We have independent accounts that the track was witnessed and photographed shortly after Roger claimed to have made the film, and I know of no claim that there were two tracks. So could the prints be those left from Bob H in a Patty suit walking on soft substrate? I dunno. The substrate would need to be really soft for the prints to take on such a level of detail. I think the jury's still out on the alleged great depth of the prints, but that's a tough detail: Too shallow and it'd look like a man wearing slippers not sinking in very far; too deep and you end up with a "Patty" weighing 1000 lbs+ and that simply makes no sense.
Conversely, the film could have been made prior to the track. Whatever shallow prints Bob H might have left while walking across a sandbar in floppy slippers could have been brushed or washed away before Roger laid down the track.
in the initial news account Patterson said that all three horses ran away. WTF? Was Gimlin carrying the 30.06 in a holster on his belt? is that how he kept the rifle and "covered" Roger, even though his horse had run away? lol.
There is no rhyme or reason for Patterson to make the trackway before he is ready to announce...I think that he made it in the period Oct. 19-20.
Bob H. on his clown shoes wouldn't have left much of a trace, back on Oct 5 or 12th or whenever it was. They may not have had to erase much. The trackway that Laverty saw on the 23rd was a couple hundred feet long, so they may have worked on it for a full day or more before coming out on the evening of the 20th. I suspect roll 2 was shot over the 19th-20th. Patterson was clean shaven, so I suspect that shot was done soon after they got to Bluff Creek, maybe the 19th. They may have shot more of it on the 20th. It was shown on the 26th, so they wouldn't have had time to edit it, and most of it subsequently disappeared.
Bob H. on his clown shoes wouldn't have left much of a trace, back on Oct 5 or 12th or whenever it was. They may not have had to erase much. The trackway that Laverty saw on the 23rd was a couple hundred feet long, so they may have worked on it for a full day or more before coming out on the evening of the 20th. I suspect roll 2 was shot over the 19th-20th. Patterson was clean shaven, so I suspect that shot was done soon after they got to Bluff Creek, maybe the 19th. They may have shot more of it on the 20th. It was shown on the 26th, so they wouldn't have had time to edit it, and most of it subsequently disappeared.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Except when you throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at an attempt at a scientific report (NASI) and what you get for your money is some nimrods telling Patty weighed near 2000 ibs. Doh! But that's Bigfootery.
The tracks were still discernible many months later when Green filmed Jim McLarin at the site. It is entirely plausible that Roger filmed Heironimus, made the tracks and touched them up later when he returned.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
It was first shown on Sunday, October 22nd only two days after it was supposed to be filmed at Al DeAtley's house. It's insanity that makes absolutely no sense at all. Huge red flag. If that happened now, Bigfooters would throw Patterson in the sarlacc pit.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I didn't think that round mark was plaster, parnassus. But now that you mention it being a quarter, it would mean that the big toe doesn't seem to be very big. Comparing a quarter to my own big toe, the ratio looks similar. Even more so if I put my weight on my toes so that they flatten out a bit like they would when making a track.
I meant that roll 2 was not shown until the 26th. They would have had little time to edit it, and perhaps they decided that it showed somethings they didn't like. So it went down the rabbit hole, all except for 12 seconds.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
My mistake, parnassus. I misunderstood you.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,491
The prints are either:
a.) Fake
b.) Real Bigfoot creature
You think they are fake but you said otherwise.
Roger may have used any combination of techniques. There are really no rules to limit his creativity here. Skeptics are not required to specify or demonstrate any methods regardless of what the believers demand.
Roger may have even used the feet of the costume to make the final trackway preparations. Either as just the leggings/feet portion or just the feet. He can do this any time after the actor has walked in the suit on film. He may have used to feet to make precise impressions back in Yakima and poured plaster or concrete into them. This would create casts that could be used to create precise impressions that look just like the costume feet (because that's where they originated) but have the advantage of dextrous manual application. The wooden box saddlebags seen on film may have been used to transport large plaster/concrete casts that would be used as impression tools.
It seems reasonable to think that if the sandy/gravelly substrate was dry it would not form a very precise and castable impression. But if it were moist or wet it may indeed hold a crisp and detailed impression. What this means for a hoaxer is that certain substrate conditions are ideal while others are not... even within a single trackway. Parts of the Patty trackway may have been dry and it was not critical to do much other than make a simple impression. Those in moist areas may have received special attention because they would hold the details and be the ideal candidates for casting.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
I suspect someone has brought this up before but it is the first time I caught it...
In the Eureka Times Standard article on the day after the film was ( allegedly ) shot, Patterson says Gimlin lost control of his horse and it ran after the pack horse..
This contradicts Gimlins account in the '92 interview with Green where he says :
" We went to catch his ( RP ) horse and the pack horse because I kept my horse under control. I had my horse with me all the time. "
Nothing groundbreaking, just something I hadn't noticed before ..
P.S.
Was also reading the Argosy article, and it said both horses reared and threw both risers..
In the Eureka Times Standard article on the day after the film was ( allegedly ) shot, Patterson says Gimlin lost control of his horse and it ran after the pack horse..
This contradicts Gimlins account in the '92 interview with Green where he says :
" We went to catch his ( RP ) horse and the pack horse because I kept my horse under control. I had my horse with me all the time. "
Nothing groundbreaking, just something I hadn't noticed before ..
P.S.
Was also reading the Argosy article, and it said both horses reared and threw both risers..
Last edited:
- Status