Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptical Greg said:
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 ..
Click to expand...

They go back and forth on that.
 
Pattycakes will always say that reporter error accounts for any and all continuity hiccups. Roger and Bob told the truth.
 
Well it is always better if it comes from the horse's mouth. Here's what Patterson said in Nov. 1967 on air:

R: Well I, when Bob come back, I yelled to him and I said, "Bob, come back," because at this point my horse was I didn't know where and the pack horse was gone, my scabbard, and my rifle was in the scabbard, on the horse, and the tracks before, down in there that we had heard about, were in a set of three, and there was a bigger one there, and I thought that possibly there was a male in close in ....

and Gimlin says:

B: Right, that was, when I last seen her go round the curve. And at that time I went back and proceeded to gather up Roger's horses, his horse that he was riding and the pack horse, and after ....

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm
 
Last edited:
Green said roll 2 went missing shortly after the showing in BC. Bob Gimlin agreed and told Green that Roger Patterson told him that DeAtley had roll 2. When Gimlin asked DeAtley, Al denied it ever existed. Which Gimlin found strange.
 
Last edited:
parnassus said:
Green said roll 2 went missing shortly after the showing in BC. Bob Gimlin agreed and told Green that Roger Patterson told him that DeAtley had roll 2. When Gimlin asked DeAtley, Al denied it ever existed. Which Gimlin found strange.
Click to expand...

I believe Green said the STOMP TEST portion of the 2nd roll went missing.
 
I think that's right, Gimlin was referring to the stomp test and the horse's tracks, but is the glass half full or half empty? Gimlin remembers the stomp test because it was dramatic and he was in it. But of course we don't know what all was on it besides that. How much more can Munns attest to? If all we have is 12 seconds, can you really call that a roll? Or is it more correct to say that all of roll 2 is lost except for 12 seconds. We don't know what all went down the DeAtley rabbit hole.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
The prints are either:

a.) Fake
b.) Real Bigfoot creature

You think they are fake but you said otherwise.
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear, apparently. The prints are fake in that they were not made by what Jeff Meldrum thinks made them. There are, however, two categories of fake in this case. One type of fake prints would have been somehow crafted by Roger - your post suggested an elegant way this could've been done. The other type of fake prints would be those left by the person in the suit while the filming took place.

I'm not convinced that the track was created independent of the film, so I'm interested in evidence that suggests this to have been the case.
 
The Shrike said:
I should have been more clear, apparently. The prints are fake in that they were not made by what Jeff Meldrum thinks made them. There are, however, two categories of fake in this case. One type of fake prints would have been somehow crafted by Roger - your post suggested an elegant way this could've been done. The other type of fake prints would be those left by the person in the suit while the filming took place.

I'm not convinced that the track was created independent of the film, so I'm interested in evidence that suggests this to have been the case.
Click to expand...

A person in a suit might easily have left no tracks at all during the filming of the PGF.
 
The prints were either faked by Patterson, in some way, or they were made by someone directed by, or working with Roger Patterson. The particular method is not important, however, it is fun to speculate about.

Knowing that there is no creature in existence, fitting Patty's description, we can know that the prints were fabricated.
 
LTC8K6 said:
A person in a suit might easily have left no tracks at all during the filming of the PGF.
Click to expand...

Correct. But if the filming was done after the track was made, the "mime" would either have to have walked a course that does not match that of the track, or at least exercise caution not to step on any of the pre-formed prints if walking right along the course.

I've never seen an analysis suggesting a discrepancy between "Patty's" course on film and that of the physical track, so I assume both routes overlapped. Could Bob H have avoided messing up the pre-formed prints while walking with one eye looking out from a mask? I dunno, but doesn't seem likely.

I guess the easy thing to do is have Kit add this question for his next conversation with Bob H.: Bob, who made the track? Was it you in the suit or did Roger make it separately?
 
BH would have mentioned the need for him to avoid pre-made tracks. What he did say is that right after he was filmed P&G began to "make the tracks" using plaster casts. IOW, they used plaster casts to make impressions in the sand. I wonder if these were reinforced or possibly concrete instead of plaster.
 
McLarin was on the scene sometime in the fall of 67 after the filming and saw the trackway; then he returned the next summer and there were still traces. He followed the trackway as best he could, yet the Green film shows he did not follow the exact route of PattyBob as shown on film. ie the trackway may not have matched PattyBob's actual route.
 
They must have dug cavities, then made impressions in the cavities with the stompers. The deep tracks simply could not have been made by pressure alone. You can make tracks in the dust or snow with "stompers" but you can't make 1-3 inch deep, 65 square inch prints in soil simply with the weight of a man or even an animal even if it weighed 500 lbs. This is one of the reasons why car jacks have bases; the base distributes the weight, so you can jack up a thousand pounds even on soil. If it weren't for the filmed stomp test, you might be able to argue something about loose sand. However, Patterson outsmarted himself by filming the stomp test. He didn't understand about psi. That is why DeAtley quickly withdrew the stomp test film from circulation; being involved in roadbuilding business, he knew a thing or two about psi and deformation.

psi, by the way, is also one of Meldrum's glaring deficiencies. The guy seems to have no clue about how footprints and casts are made.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to agree. If I allow that Patty was a real animal, I don't think there is any way she left very deep tracks, or tracks that were still visible when McClarin and Green arrived.

If the soil is soft, then everything is going to leave deep tracks, and those tracks aren't going to last long.

If the soil is hard, then Patty isn't going to leave deep tracks, even at 800 pounds.
 
I've never seen an analysis suggesting a discrepancy between "Patty's" course on film and that of the physical track
Click to expand...

I've never seen any documentation of the physical trackway, only documentation of Patty's path.

AFAIK, all statements about the trackway are based on Patty's path in the film, save for Titmus.
 
William Parcher said:
What he did say is that right after he was filmed P&G began to "make the tracks" using plaster casts. IOW, they used plaster casts to make impressions in the sand.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I've missed that in Bob's statements. But it's still ambiguous. Did he really mean that they used casts of footprints to create (or shape) impressions
in the ground or did he mean that they made casts of his own footprints after the filming?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom