Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shrike said:
Uh, that wouldn't happen with Patty's so-called "compliant gait". Try walking with your knees slightly bent and come back and tell us about the force of your heel strike.
Click to expand...

This begs some questions.

For how long Patty is supposed to keep the "compliant gait" along PGF?

Can this figure be trusted?

The "compliant gait" section can be actually matched with some degree of certanity with the footprint in question? In other words, can we be sure if Patty is displaying the "compliant gait" while walking at the site where the print is question was found?

Note that if it can be demonstrated that Patty was doing the "Patty walk" at the sector where the print in question was found, then you may have an evidence the print was not made during PGF shooting. In other words- evidence of a hoax.

Yeah, yeah, footers will come with weird hips and bigfoot prints made before or after the film was shot...
 
COGrizzly said:
Saskeptic, you sure open up a lot more over here and simply state "there is no bigfoot". Why so hesitant over at the old BFF? . . . Thanks alot Saskeptic and kitakaze. Ruined my childhood fantasy.
Click to expand...

Hey there, COGrizzly. Well there are far more interesting things to fantasize about (Megan Fox?) than bigfoot, so I don't feel too bad. I'm sure you're not yet bored by grizzlies and you might fantasize about cool (and safe!) interactions with them in the wild. LOTS still to be explored and unraveled on this awesome planet of ours, and all the others for that matter.

Other folks have commented that I'm "more skeptical" here on the JREF than I was on the BFF. I don't think that's the case. I never, for example, indicated on the BFF that the probability of real bigfoots was significantly non-zero. I was more measured in my tone at the BFF then I tend to be here because I was far more often engaging with people who honestly believed in the phenomenon. If I had gone in posting things like "Hey COGrizzy, there's no such thing as bigfoot" would you have been as open to considering my comments? Maybe, but probably not.

I'll allow too that my tone might have changed over time. I starting posting on the BFF back in June 2005 after a long time of lurking there and reading BFRO reports. I was just as skeptical then as now, but I was willing to really engage people and seriously evaluate their purported evidence. After 5 years of being on some weird level part of the "bigfoot community," however, I'm tired of writing out the same completely logical arguments again and again - and often to the same people. So I think I've grown more curt on the subject no matter where I post, simply out of a desire to move on and get to more important work. Certainly the events of the past couple of weeks illustrate how much bigfootery is about schoolyard bickering and how little has to do North American wood apes.

Anyway, this is a thread about the PGF, not me. Welcome to the Dark Side. Try the veal!
~The Shrike
 
when you have a compliant gait ie bent knees, and hugely long feet ie clown shoes, your toes will catch on the ground if you don't turn your feet inward or outward on the swing phase. It's just that simple. There is a new theory of running called "pose running" and it is compliant. Bent knees. And you have to swing your feet up high in back like PattyBob did.
pose-stance-full.jpg

I have big feet and it doesn't work. Bob H. would have fallen on his face if he had tried to run.

Bigfooters have a thing for special pleadings, and for describing everything about bigfoot including its penis and its sensitivity to camera noise, so why not its hip joint? I'm looking forward to the first all-out virtual autopsy on a non existent animal. Monty Python, where are you?

Of course, they tend to leave out the single most important characteristic that is necessary: all-wheel, any-time, complete invisibility.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I had seen the weird hip-rotation biomechanics nonsense regarding "Patty's" gait. Rrrrrubbish. You don't see that on the film, and unless bigfoots evolved bipedalism independent of the genus Homo, it's ludicrous to envision a bigfoot gait so radically different than our own.

My comment addressed a contradictory aspect of PGF lore that we often hear from 'footers. First, we've all heard that "Patty" display a unique compliant gait with knees bent. We're also told - as we were by Sweaty earlier in this thread - that the footprints at the film site display how her heel struck the soil first - creating a deep impression - and then the foot rolled forward and pushed off at the toes - creating the pressure ridge behind the ball of the foot.

Nevermind that it's been demonstrated that flat boards can replicate that pattern of soil displacement, I don't think such an impression is possible when walking with knees bent. When I do that, my foot strikes the ground with ball and heel making contact at pretty much the same time. My foot lands "flatter" than it does when I walk naturally, with heel striking first and with much greater force. So I don't think a compliant gait is compatible with the pattern and depth of prints from the PGF filmsite.
 
The Shrike said:
After 5 years of being on some weird level part of the "bigfoot community," however, I'm tired of writing out the same completely logical arguments again and again - and often to the same people.
Click to expand...

Bullets to The Hulk, man. Bullets to the Hulk. At some point you have to put the Uzi down, point, laugh, and say, "Dude, you're green, you've got serious emotional baggage, and really, you're grammar is just awful. And purple pants? Yeah, that would make me angry too. Anyway, no shirt, no shoes, no service." And you move along and see what Wonder Woman is up to.
 
The easiest way to learn about the MYSTERY OF THE COMPLIANT GAIT is, as Nike, says, JUST DO IT!

The next time you're crossing the street and the light turns yellow, just bend your knees and stride out. Loosen your feet up a little. Dave Daegling pointed this out YEARS ago, so it's certainly not my novel idea.

One prodigiously prolific poster on Bigfoot Forums used to claim that a human being able to replicate the "Lower Level Leg Lift" seen in a full-on compliant gait would be "one in a million."

Obviously that claim is wrong, and it's mind-numbing to me to watch those old 70's TV shows on Bigfoot where Krantz or Dahinden pontificate on how a human could never walk like the "Creature" does.

For a time MK Davis was the toast of Bigfootery, speaking at conferences and such. Eventually he went too far and made the Mortal Sin of suggesting Gimlin shot Our Lady of the Wilderness with his rifle. His stabilization of the film was seen as a great advance for Bigfootery, but to me it simply shows how much the film subject walks like a man...
 
What I found amusing, was how one or another proponent would claim how hard it is ( for a human ) to sustain a compliant gait for any length of time, while ignoring that the subject in the film cannot be observed to be sustaining what might be called a compliant gate for more than a few seconds at most.
 
the tracks that were casted were made by or enhanced by Patterson and or Gimlin. I agree, the gait is probably irrelevant, because the tracks were made a couple weeks after PattyBob walked. At most, the traces of PattyBob's tracks provided the template for the trackway that Patterson and Gimlin made around the 20th of October.
 
Last edited:
Check the following tracks out...

picture.php


The left track was cast by Al Hodgson in Bluff Creek in October of 1963. It is clearly a Ray Wallace track. It is given the following description...

In October of 1963, Al Hodgson found another set of tracks at a location called the "Bluff Creek Sandbar." At the time this sandbar was a short distance from the confluence of Bluff and Notice Creeks, but would later be washed away in the terrible flood of December 1964.

http://northamericanbigfoot.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html

The one on the right is said to be made by Patterson on Laird Meadow Road near Bluff Creek after being found by a Pat Graves the day before while visiting Bluff Creek. This is the exact same kind of serendipity, wink wink, that Patterson had with finding Bigfoot tracks in Yakima. The following description is here...

This footprint was found by Pat Graves on Laird Meadow Road, near Bluff Creek, California in 1964. During a conversation, Pat mentioned to Roger Patterson he had found the tracks just the day before. Roger hurried to the location, hoping to see the footprints himself; what he found was extraordinary.

The creature that made the tracks came down from a mountain, crossed Laird Meadow Road, continued down an old logging landing, and finally disapeared over a bank and into the woods, with an average stride of 52 inches. Each footprint was 17 inches long and 5 wide at the heel. The tracks were imprinted an inch and a half deep, far deeper than Roger's own footprints. Evidence of a flexible foot was seen in the prints, particularly when the foot had stepped on small rocks; the toes curled over them.

Patterson then made casts of the footprints. This is one of the casts made; it was left by a right foot. The life form that made this footprint is presumed to be a (large) male sasquatch, who's tracks were found in the area on several other occasions ranging in time from 1958 to 1963.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigfoot2.html

Bobbie lists that print as being from August 21, 1964 here...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm

Elsewhere in various sources I have seen it said that the track was not cast in 1964, but rather '63. Regardless, it is clear that Wallace was actively hoaxing in '63 and had been since 1958 in that area. Now, we really need to check this out...

picture.php


Bobbie Short's Bigfoot Encounters gives the following timeline...

Bluff Creek and Blue Creek Mountain Roads
August 1967. BF tracks 16 inches long are found for 3 miles on Bluff Creek Road going from East Fork to Notice Creek by Bud Ryerson; he notifies Bob Titmus.

August 1967. Bud Ryerson sees hundreds of 13 to 15 inch BF tracks on the road he is building on Blue Creek Mountain, west of Bluff Creek. Tractor parts are scattered all over the area; he notifies John Green, Bob Titmus and Al Hodgson.

August/September 1967 John Green and Rene Dahinden drive down to Bluff Creek; tracks are photographed, John Green tells Al Hodgsons to phone Patterson.

October 20, 1967. Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson see and film motion pictures of a female BF just above Notice Creek between Onion Mountain, Bee Mountain and Fish Creek Butte. Her tracks measure 14½ inches long.
Click to expand...

Those Wallace tracks are the tracks that were said to bring Patterson to Bluff Creek. We know he was already there in the late spring or summer. What is most important is that we see two different tracks being hoaxed. The larger is clearly a Wallace stomper, but the smaller one resembles Roger's Laird Meadow print, but is smaller in size.

Are we seriously supposed to consider that even with this obvious hoaxing going on by Wallace and most likely Patterson as well at Bluff Creek prior to Oct '67, they somehow really filmed a real Bigfoot, just as Roger assured Vilma Radford he would do on May 26, 1967, months before those tracks there were found?
 
kitakaze said:
Are we seriously supposed to consider that even with this obvious hoaxing going on by Wallace and most likely Patterson as well at Bluff Creek prior to Oct '67, they somehow really filmed a real Bigfoot, just as Roger assured Vilma Radford he would do on May 26, 1967, months before those tracks there were found?
Click to expand...

No, but for those of us who haven't read "Hoaxing for Dummies" can you spell out clearly what you're seeing in these casts that makes them obvious hoaxes? ("Because there's no such thing as bigfoot" argument duly noted.)
 
The Shrike said:
No, but for those of us who haven't read "Hoaxing for Dummies" can you spell out clearly what you're seeing in these casts that makes them obvious hoaxes? ("Because there's no such thing as bigfoot" argument duly noted.)
Click to expand...

The left hand print, is clearly a Wallace-foot.
Bigfoot1.jpg
 
Drewbot said:
The left hand print, is clearly a Wallace-foot.
[qimg]http://www.drabruzzi.com/images/Bigfoot1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Which one, the cast or the photo of the imprint?

If the former, then I don't see it. I've got a cast I made from a living foot right here on my bookshelf, and its features aren't that different than the cast in Kit's post.

If the latter, then I don't see it. The shadowy photograph in the post makes it very difficult to tell what you're even looking at.

Neither of them look to be a good match for the Wallace cast in your photo.


My point is, can we develop some standards on what are the hallmarks of an obviously hoaxed footprint? The "peas in a pod" toes on the impression in LTC's post make it look non-biological to me, but clearly not to everyone. Who was fooled by this print, Krantz? Meldrum?

Wouldn't it be great to develop some kind of a photographic guide that pointed out the properties of a bunch of human footprints and compared them directly to bigfoot prints? The peas in a pod print would be quickly and easily dismissable; some of the Wallace-stomp and Freeman prints likely would too.

Kit, this totally needs to be in your documentary: I want to see you get Shaq to walk barefoot in some different substrates, make casts of his impressions, and compare them directly to casts of alleged bigfoot prints. Shaq is awesome - he would do this.
 
Last edited:
Edited to make clear: I want to be able to look at a cast (and help others do the same) and quickly recognize it as an obvious fake. The Holmesian timeline stuff Kit's reconstructed is cool, but it's a pretty big investment to piece it altogether in your head to come to the inevitable conclusion - and the inevitable part is subjective of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom