Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[GT/CS]

From page 344 of The Making of Bigfoot, by Greg Long.

When Greg asked him about the first time he tried on the suit Bob said,
"I sat down on a log and took my boots off and slipped my legs into the legs of the suit, which felt like they were hip boots or wading boots, you know, those long boots that go up to your waist. My feet slipped into the feet of the suit. I think the feet were made of old house slippers you used to see around, that looked like a big foot with toes on them. They had wrinkles on the bottom of them, you know."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The idea of hipwaders is weird if you axe me. The feet were separate parts of the costume right? So someone had to take some hipwaders then cut off the feet and replace them with costume bigfeet. In which case, why would you use hipwaders in the 1st place? What would be the point? To support the leggings? Hipwaders makes no sense, IMO.

They make sense because you have a one piece foundation to attach what ever you want. You can add stuff and discard it if you don't like the result, and not have to start over again.

And they especially make sense because the behavior of the lower part of the costume looks like waders..

Your argument from incredulity is not the first time...

 

[Óðinn]

They make sense because you have a one piece foundation to attach what ever you want. You can add stuff and discard it if you don't like the result, and not have to start over again.

And they especially make sense because the behavior of the lower part of the costume looks like waders..

Your argument from incredulity is not the first time...

What a load. So was there foam padding sewn into the waders? How does padding show thru hip waders anyway? You do think there were padding malfunctions don't you? Not with hip waders there wasn't. I stand by my contention that hip waders makes no sense.

And when are you guys going to give up on Bob H? Even if he was the guy, he shot himself in the foot by embellishing his story beyond credibility. Otherwise, maybe you can show me a single graphic that fits him into the suit. I can show several where he clearly doesn't fit. And I'm not claiming that no human could fit into the suit, just that Bob H is not a good fit. I'm interested in the truth and I'm not trying to win a debate whether Patty was real.

 

[GT/CS]

Sweaty,
Give it a rest with the graphics.

 

[Óðinn]

Skippy,
Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

 

[River]

I think we've all pretty much figured you out by now odin. You play a good game though. You're it.

 

[William Parcher]

What a load. So was there foam padding sewn into the waders? How does padding show thru hip waders anyway? You do think there were padding malfunctions don't you? Not with hip waders there wasn't. I stand by my contention that hip waders makes no sense.

The pants may not actually have been waders but were instead a one-piece sorta tubular thing with internal padding and attached feet. You can either describe it that way or you can say that they were like waders... because, well, you can make something that is like waders but isn't waders. I can't understand why you can't imagine a man trying to describe a costume bottom and choosing to say that it was like hip waders.

If I said that frog legs taste like chicken you'd reply that I'm probably a liar because frogs aren't chickens.

Even if he was the guy, he shot himself in the foot by embellishing his story beyond credibility.

If he was the guy... that is all that matters.

If he is lying then he has big balls and maybe crazy too. He's publicly accusing his neighbor and old friend of being a fraud. He would also be risking his own credibility by actually being proven wrong by: a) a Gimlin confession where he gives functional proof of another man in the suit; b) a confession with proof from the actual guy in the suit. IOW, if it isn't BH then it is somebody else and that person may come forward or be brought forward (even if deceased).

I'm interested in the truth and I'm not trying to win a debate whether Patty was real.

The truth is that we really don't know exactly what were the details of the construction of that suit. It was filmed from far away and that changes everything for trying to decide fine details of how it was put together. I think you could say that for almost any "hairy ape" costume. There must be a certain distance from the lens whereby an obvious suit becomes so indistinct and amorphous that one cannot comment with authority on exactly how it was put together. Modern retail Bigfoot costumes look very fakey but less so when filmed from 1/2 mile away.

 

[River]

BTW odin, what do you think about the measurements Green and Dahinden made? (which do you feel are more accurate, and why?) What if the footprints were faked, and made further away from the camera than the subjects pathway? Wouldn't this skew the measurements?

It is my theory that Patterson made the prints on a different pathway than the subject seen on film. I hold this theory due to the documentation of people on the site that saw the impressions. McClarin claims he followed the imprints. He did not walk the same pathway as the PGF subject. This why Munns is encountering issues with his photogrammetry.

 

[GT/CS]

They needed soft soil to make the tracks but Bob needed firm soil on which to walk so the trackway must be along a different path.

 

[Óðinn]

BTW odin, what do you think about the measurements Green and Dahinden made? (which do you feel are more accurate, and why?) What if the footprints were faked, and made further away from the camera than the subjects pathway? Wouldn't this skew the measurements?

It is my theory that Patterson made the prints on a different pathway than the subject seen on film. I hold this theory due to the documentation of people on the site that saw the impressions. McClarin claims he followed the imprints. He did not walk the same pathway as the PGF subject. This why Munns is encountering issues with his photogrammetry.

Nope, a different trackway doesn't work. Green measured from himself to the trackway. It doesn't make any difference whether it was fake or not. McClarin didn't follow the trackway anyway. He certainly wouldn't have walked over the remnants of Patty's trackway. He went outside of the trackway. He obviously wasn't worried about following it exactly. Green's camera position relative to Patterson can be resolved and we can derive his position relative to the landmarks. The problem is how accurate were Green's measurements? So far, they are the reason that the photogrammetry doesn't match any standard lens.

IMO, the way to resolve the lens issue is to reconstruct the site to scale based on the measurements of Green & Dahinden. Once you establish all the angles the size of the lens will stand out like a sore thumb. Once you establish the size of the lens, it's full steam ahead!

 

[Óðinn]

The pants may not actually have been waders but were instead a one-piece sorta tubular thing with internal padding and attached feet. You can either describe it that way or you can say that they were like waders... because, well, you can make something that is like waders but isn't waders. I can't understand why you can't imagine a man trying to describe a costume bottom and choosing to say that it was like hip waders.

Agreed. Bob H might have just been describing the tubular foam padding and used the word "wader". I just think that foam padding on the inside of leggings is sophisticated stuff, is all.

If I said that frog legs taste like chicken you'd reply that I'm probably a liar because frogs aren't chickens.

I've tried frog legs and they do indeed taste like chicken. As you know, I'm the debunker's devil's advocate. I don't necessarily disagree with them, but if you aren't proving anything, then I advocate.

If he was the guy... that is all that matters.

Agreed. Was he?

If he is lying then he has big balls and maybe crazy too. He's publicly accusing his neighbor and old friend of being a fraud. He would also be risking his own credibility by actually being proven wrong by: a) a Gimlin confession where he gives functional proof of another man in the suit; b) a confession with proof from the actual guy in the suit. IOW, if it isn't BH then it is somebody else and that person may come forward or be brought forward (even if deceased).

Smeja apparently passed 3 polygraphs.

The truth is that we really don't know exactly what were the details of the construction of that suit. It was filmed from far away and that changes everything for trying to decide fine details of how it was put together. I think you could say that for almost any "hairy ape" costume. There must be a certain distance from the lens whereby an obvious suit becomes so indistinct and amorphous that one cannot comment with authority on exactly how it was put together. Modern retail Bigfoot costumes look very fakey but less so when filmed from 1/2 mile away.

Which is why I hold interest in this film. It was shot perfectly to hold its own all this time.

 

[GT/CS]

From page 344 of The Making of Bigfoot, by Greg Long.

When Greg asked him about the first time he tried on the suit Bob said,
"I sat down on a log and took my boots off and slipped my legs into the legs of the suit, which felt like they were hip boots or wading boots, you know, those long boots that go up to your waist. My feet slipped into the feet of the suit. I think the feet were made of old house slippers you used to see around, that looked like a big foot with toes on them. They had wrinkles on the bottom of them, you know."

Here is a partial scan of page 309 from the Fall & Winter '78 Montgomery Wards catalog.
I don't think this is the exacty model of slipper BH is referencing but it's hairy enough to work.

If you are old enough to remember the '70s and want a good laugh get an old catalog from eBay and start browsing!

 

[River]

*snarfed for brevity*

Which is why I hold interest in this film. It was shot perfectly to hold its own all this time.

Excuse me? Hold its own? The only people accepting this as anything more than a hoax are bigfooters. (including the scientists that are so often quoted, bigfooters indeed they are) The rest of the science world reacted slightly different.

Nope, a different trackway doesn't work. Green measured from himself to the trackway. It doesn't make any difference whether it was fake or not. McClarin didn't follow the trackway anyway. He certainly wouldn't have walked over the remnants of Patty's trackway. He went outside of the trackway. He obviously wasn't worried about following it exactly. Green's camera position relative to Patterson can be resolved and we can derive his position relative to the landmarks. The problem is how accurate were Green's measurements? So far, they are the reason that the photogrammetry doesn't match any standard lens.

IMO, the way to resolve the lens issue is to reconstruct the site to scale based on the measurements of Green & Dahinden. Once you establish all the angles the size of the lens will stand out like a sore thumb. Once you establish the size of the lens, it's full steam ahead!

Are you sure about my bolded? I happened to have spoken directly with McClarin about this. He said to me he followed the impressions that were still there, and he also had seen them fresh. (he described still seeing some imprints, and pieces of plaster in the substrate as well) Yeah, I actually prefer to get my information straight from the sources. (just like with Gimlin, I spoke with him directly)

What do you base your claim on about McClarin not following the tracks?


Second bolded. Did green have accurate measures? How did either one of them go about guessing where Patterson was at any given point? (they guessed!) I've heard that green did not have any tape measure, he walked it off? (is that true?) You cannot rely on the old measurements. Bill has the right approach by making his own, even if they are not going to be very accurate after this much time.

 

[Óðinn]

Excuse me? Hold its own? The only people accepting this as anything more than a hoax are bigfooters. (including the scientists that are so often quoted, bigfooters indeed they are) The rest of the science world reacted slightly different.

It's held its own because it hasn't been debunked yet. Sorry, but you don't have the proof of a hoax that you claim. That doesn't mean it was real tho. You seem preoccupied that I'm trying to make a case for its authenticity. I just want science and facts to debunk the PGF, not wild speculation and hearsay.

Are you sure about my bolded? I happened to have spoken directly with McClarin about this. He said to me he followed the impressions that were still there, and he also had seen them fresh. (he described still seeing some imprints, and pieces of plaster in the substrate as well) Yeah, I actually prefer to get my information straight from the sources. (just like with Gimlin, I spoke with him directly)

What do you base your claim on about McClarin not following the tracks?

Did he say that he walked on top of the few tracks that were there? Of course not. He would have (and did) walk outside of the trackway. And not consistently either. So at the very least his image is underscaled because he was farther away from Green's camera than the trackway was.

Also, McClarin's image relative to Patty's changes from the same size, to smaller, then larger supposedly over the same trackway. Unless the cameras were changing position the only explanation is that McClarin did not follow Patty's trackway exactly.

Second bolded. Did green have accurate measures? How did either one of them go about guessing where Patterson was at any given point? (they guessed!)

Apparently, Green used some stills from the PGF to try and est Roger's position by matching the FOV in his camera's viewfinder. He got pretty darned close too. The relative positions of the landmarks in both films tell us that Green got within 5-10' of where Roger was standing. So we can subtract this difference to synchronize their camera positions.

I've heard that green did not have any tape measure, he walked it off? (is that true?) You cannot rely on the old measurements. Bill has the right approach by making his own, even if they are not going to be very accurate after this much time.

So you are confident that trees from the PGF site have actually been located and measured? Faith?

I have no idea how Green measured off the distances. What I do know is that according to Green's measurements the distance from his camera to the 2nd tree that Patty walks behind was 115'. The tree shadow on Patty's back on frame 426 indicates that she was within 2' of the tree. At the same point, however, McClarin was approx. 132' from that tree (providing Green had a 1" lens on his camera and Roger had a 25mm lens on the K-100). McClarin also measures out to ~130' from the camera at frame 352 of the PGF. Green est Patty's trackway was 102' from the camera at frame 352. Does that sound like McClarin followed the same trackway to you?

 

[GT/CS]

It's been debunked a hundred times over. The only people who still believe in it are a handful of folks who can't tie their own shoes.

In fact, you claim to not be a believer in the film but just play the devil's advocate on this forum. So what's the point, or is that a lie on your part?

 

[clayflingythingy]

"It's held its own because it hasn't been debunked yet"

Wood apes don't exist. Therefore the PGF is a hoax, There is really no need to take it any further than that.

 

[dafydd]

"It's held its own because it hasn't been debunked yet"

Wood apes don't exist. Therefore the PGF is a hoax, There is really no need to take it any further than that.

Has the existence of unicorns been thoroughly debunked with scientific evidence? Are there any films of guys prancing around in a pantomime horse costume with a narwhal tusk stuck on the head?

 

[River]

It's held its own because it hasn't been debunked yet. Sorry, but you don't have the proof of a hoax that you claim. That doesn't mean it was real tho. You seem preoccupied that I'm trying to make a case for its authenticity. I just want science and facts to debunk the PGF, not wild speculation and hearsay.

I'm not convinced that you're not preoccupied trying to make a case to bolster its authenticity. My claims were/are accurate. It matters not what you think. (to me) Feel free to look the other way if it bothers you.

Did he say that he walked on top of the few tracks that were there? Of course not. He would have (and did) walk outside of the trackway. And not consistently either. So at the very least his image is underscaled because he was farther away from Green's camera than the trackway was.

Also, McClarin's image relative to Patty's changes from the same size, to smaller, then larger supposedly over the same trackway. Unless the cameras were changing position the only explanation is that McClarin did not follow Patty's trackway exactly.

Would you like to contact him directly and get it straight from him? I can arrange for it if so.

Apparently, Green used some stills from the PGF to try and est Roger's position by matching the FOV in his camera's viewfinder. He got pretty darned close too. The relative positions of the landmarks in both films tell us that Green got within 5-10' of where Roger was standing. So we can subtract this difference to synchronize their camera positions.

I've heard that story before too, that he tried to line up the shot in his viewfinder for that frame. He "eyeballed it". That's pretty cool you feel confident that you can accurately state within 5-10 feet of where Patterson was. I'm not so confident, about any of the measurements including what may be gained from a visit to the site today. However, it is the right way to go about it. Then you can compare that data to the existing data sets to glean some sort of checks and balances. Capiche?

So you are confident that trees from the PGF site have actually been located and measured? Faith?

I'm not confident about any of the located trees as I've not been given the data on it. My feelings on the PGF have absolutely nothing to do with faith! haha.

I have no idea how Green measured off the distances. What I do know is that according to Green's measurements the distance from his camera to the 2nd tree that Patty walks behind was 115'. The tree shadow on Patty's back on frame 426 indicates that she was within 2' of the tree. At the same point, however, McClarin was approx. 132' from that tree (providing Green had a 1" lens on his camera and Roger had a 25mm lens on the K-100). McClarin also measures out to ~130' from the camera at frame 352 of the PGF. Green est Patty's trackway was 102' from the camera at frame 352. Does that sound like McClarin followed the same trackway to you?

First bolded: We agree on that, at this point its hard to nail down the details of the data collection, but we can perhaps check them against new ones.

2nd: I think Patterson used a 25mm.

3rd: McClarin did not follow the same path as the subject seen on film CORRECT! But he did follow the footprints that were made afterwards. THAT is why there is a problem with figuring the subject scale using these measurements. (as I've tried pointing out to Munns before as well)

As for the PGF never being debunked, I agree with others posts that it has been on many levels. Footers just choose to look the other way in the face of a ********* of obstacles.

1: No bigfoots
2: The footprint evidence
3: The beard growth of Patterson that allegedly occurred (according to their story) during the day in question.
4: The film development issues
5: The timeline of events claimed.
6: Bob Heirnomus (and witnesses)
7: Al DeAtley
8: The flaws seen in the suit
9: Patterson told a lot of stories about bigfoots. One even lifted one end of his VW while he was in it.
10: Harvey Anderson


There are 10 good reasons. Need more? (I'm sure the answer is yes!) Apparently footers are willing to jump right through all of those hoops to enjoy the bliss of patty.

 

[LTC8K6]

We don't need to debunk the PGF.

The PGF needs to prove itself.

 

[Resume]

We don't need to debunk the PGF.

The PGF needs to prove itself.

It's amazing how adept the bigfoot enthusiasts are at deflecting the burden of proof. "Debunk this" or "Disprove that" over and over without ever once having to deal with producing the monkey of their dreams. I'm quite sure a large number of them know that's not possible.