Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[RedRatSnake]

Without a specimen for so long there is no logic in this BF thing, the only exception I see is the myth and campfire tales.

Tim

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

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.




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



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?




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.




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.

Number 5 pretty much does all the debunking needed IMO. Throw in Patterson's character and its a slam dunk.

Some will believe anything though. The Moon Landing Hoax has never really been debunked either, I guess, by those standards.

 

[captain koolaid]

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...

How did Green determine the position and distance, on site? Just asking. Does anyone know? Can't recall reading anything other than very brief descriptions of this. Looking for a quote, or at least a 2nd hand account from the time, rather than a later version, if possible. Though more recent stuff will have to do if something at the time doesn't cover it.

 

[William Parcher]

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.

You can say the exact same thing about the Ivan Marx film of Limpy the Bigfoot. Never been debunked by science or facts, as you say.

Marx must be holding his own if he hasn't been debunked yet, right? He filmed his Bigfoot in a way that defies debunking too, right?

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

We don't need to debunk the PGF.

The PGF needs to prove itself.

This

Number 5 pretty much does all the debunking needed IMO. Throw in Patterson's character and its a slam dunk.

Some will believe anything though. The Moon Landing Hoax has never really been debunked either, I guess, by those standards.

This

You can say the exact same thing about the Ivan Marx film of Limpy the Bigfoot. Never been debunked by science or facts, as you say.

Marx must be holding his own if he hasn't been debunked yet, right? He filmed his Bigfoot in a way that defies debunking too, right?

and this.

Literally almost no-one outside of those already with an interest in cryptozoology gives the Patterson film more than second thought. The PGF hasn't "withstood" anything. Anyone even remotely attached to reality does not even consider that there is more to this film than what it reads on the tin : A hoax.

Just because bigfoot has found a niche on pathetic television channels, does not mean there is any kind of "debate" going on in the general public as to the existence of the creature.

 

[jerrywayne]

Not sure this has been mentioned up stream somewhere: Patterson's Bigfoot left tracks that were not like that of any of the "known" Bigfoot in the area.

Patterson came to Bluff Creek when he did because Green and Dahinden examined the Onion Mountain trackways nearby, less than two months previously. The Bigfoot researchers believed, based on tracks, that there were a family of Bigfoot living around the area leaving their distinct tracks.

In his chapter on The Bigfoot Hunters in his book, Long says Green believed the tracks "looked different from all the other tracks Green had seen at Bluff Creek since 1958." He quotes Green: "That had a real impact. We took it for granted that it would have been one of the known individuals from Bluff Creek. At that time there were four individuals. But Patterson's wasn't. It was a different one."

As far as I know, a trackway made by Patterson's Bigfoot was never found again. Never seen before the filming, and never seen in other locations afterward.

Of course, the implication is that Patterson's trackway was unique because he was not using the model Bigfoot footwear other hoaxers had used in the area.

Another indication that the Patterson film is Patterson's fabrication, not a real wildlife film.

 

[The Shrike]

I have no ability to "debunk" Criss Angel walking on water, passing through a metal gate, passing through a plate glass window, or flying between two buildings. I sleep soundly at night, however, knowing that Criss Angel neither flies, walks on water, nor passes through solid objects.

 

[Correa Neto]

You see, there's a catch- different standards. I was about to post a similar thing at the other thread, when you mentioned the owls and the Flatwoods monster, but it suits well here too.

Lets supose John Doe is a Criss Angel believer. For him, unless you can determinate how the flying trick was made down to a microscopic detail level, it was not debunked, therefore magic is real.

John Doe, as well as other woos, will completely ignore the fact that answers like "magic is real", "bigfoot" or "aliens" do not follow the same standards, they have no detail no reliability at all. If the footer believes the PGF has never been debunked, shows a real bigfoot and skeptical explanations are not detailed enough, then he/she must bring his/hers explanation to the very same detail and reliability level the skeptical proposal (hoax) has. This involves presenting reliable evidence bigfoots are real, since we have plenty of reliable evidence that hoaxes are real.

 

[The Shrike]

Lets supose John Doe is a Criss Angel believer. For him, unless you can determinate how the flying trick was made down to a microscopic detail level, it was not debunked, therefore magic is real.

Right. Although I'm curious, I don't need to know the exact details of how Patterson built his suit to know that Patterson filmed a suit. This is because that great technology on display from an early autumn day in 1967 had been developed at least as early as 1921, and convincing ape suits were worn in sideshows, magic shows, and carnival acts in the 1800s.

My favorite example comes from Tarzan the Ape Man from 1932. Check out the muscle definition - the ape-man has a 6-pack for crying out loud. How can people look at images like these from the early '30s and claim that the technology to do that didn't exist in 1967?

 

[River]

The unsinkable rubber duck explains it perfectly.

 

[Óðinn]

You can say the exact same thing about the Ivan Marx film of Limpy the Bigfoot. Never been debunked by science or facts, as you say.

Marx must be holding his own if he hasn't been debunked yet, right? He filmed his Bigfoot in a way that defies debunking too, right?

Sure. My interest has always been on the debunking aspect of the PGF. I have WAY more access to data on the BFF than on JREF, plus you guys are too preoccupied with the footers. So, are you telling me that you equate Limpy with Patty?

 

[Óðinn]

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.

Sorry, but you don't have the "gift" to interpret images better than the rest of us.

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

Did he say he walked on top of the old prints? Didn't think so.

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?

I capiche. But I actually measured the images photogrammetrically and determined all the distances, etc. with science. No layman's eyeballing was involved.

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 think we can converge on a solution for the tree locations. Just need an extra dose of faith..and science.

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.

Based on what..your gut?

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)

Did he walk ON the prints?

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

Sorry, no debunk.

2: The footprint evidence

3: The beard growth of Patterson that allegedly occurred (according to their story) during the day in question.

Quote please.

4: The film development issues

Ah yes, the impossible timeline, which wasn't impossible after all.

5: The timeline of events claimed.

Such as?

6: Bob Heirnomus (and witnesses)

You really want to go there?

7: Al DeAtley

What about him?

8: The flaws seen in the suit

What flaws?

9: Patterson told a lot of stories about bigfoots. One even lifted one end of his VW while he was in it.

"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." - Roger Patterson

10: Harvey Anderson

What about him?

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.

Yes, because you failed miserably with the 1st 10. Do you actually think that any of it debunks the PGF?

 

[Óðinn]

We don't need to debunk the PGF.

The PGF needs to prove itself.

No it doesn't. The only option up for grabs is debunking. The PGF can never prove itself, right?

 

[Óðinn]

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.

It's got nothing to do with personal belief. Debunking is a science. Scientific proof has nothing to do with belief.

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?

Being the devil's advocate needs a point? I'm a liar?

 

[Resume]

I'd be quite surprised if any debunking, no matter how thorough, would change the mind of any diehards still clinging to the PGF.

Funny what a fuzzy film of a guy in a fur monkey suit will do.

 

[JTF]

"But I actually measured the images photogrammetrically and determined all the distances, etc. with science. No layman's eyeballing was involved."

ODINN: It is impossible to accurately measure the images contained in the PGF. Using photogrammetry on a terrible piece of nature photography is akin to plugging up a sucking chest wound with a piece of facial tissue. There is not enough detail in the PGF to determine arm length, height, or any other tangible aspects of the hairy figure sauntering across a sand bar at Bluff Creek. A viable use of photogrammetry can be seen in the HSCA's photographic experts using this discipline to authenticate the famous backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

[LTC8K6]

No it doesn't. The only option up for grabs is debunking. The PGF can never prove itself, right?

No, that's wrong.

We've never seen the original PGF, btw.

And by "the PGF", I don't just mean the film, but the whole support industry around the film.

But you knew that.

The PGF has to prove itself.

 

[rockinkt]

Ah yes, the impossible timeline, which wasn't impossible after all.

I'm really interested in the explanation for this as provided by Patterson, Gimlin, or DeAtley, because - as you know - anything else is strictly wishful thinking.
Please provide the supporting quotes along with the dates and times. Don't forget the sources as well (newspaper, radio/TV interview, etc.). Thank you.

 

[River]

snipped for brevity

Odin, you don't have to acknowledge that my blog on the footprints is accurate for it to be so. You're allowed to have your opinions on my claims, or even debunk them if you feel you can. Bill Munns made a poor attempt at just that. Those scenes (the trackway scene, the casting scene, and the display scene) all came from what was claimed to be the "second reel". Patterson represented this as coming from events of October 20th 1967 depicting the film subjects footprints, and documenting the casting of the trackway. (dispute it all you like, just like a footer)

This footage shows Patterson growing a beard in a matter of hours. (at an impossible rate, according to their claims) It also shows Patterson making a cast of what was claimed to have been footprint impressions left by the film subject. The rest is explained on my blog which shows Patterson making a cast of a right foot impression that he later used as evidence of the encounter. I'd love to see some professional photo analysts (non footers) take a look at my claims. I'm correct, and those scenes are one in the same location. (the trackway scene, and Patterson making the cast) Ask Meldrum if the casting scene and trackway depict the same locations as provenance to the evidence.

It can't work both ways... The footprints were faked, and its provable. Two of the principals involved (the actor in the suit, and the financial backer) have said it was a hoax. Much of the other things listed were more circumstancial, however the first one is the most important. There are no bigfoots to be filmed in the first place. There are many witnesses to Pattersons shenanigans. Some of them are still around, and talking. You can stay in denial as long as you like. Most of us, including the world of science knew it was a hoax long ago.

Your estimations on distance have to be based on a measure or check of some kind, and those measurements can be flawed. Apparently, according to most estimates the film subject is around 6' tall (give or take a couple of inches) and the footprints were reported to be 14.5 inches. (the "perfect cookie cutter ones") Using those, and the other reported measures I'm pretty sure you're going to need to adjust Pattersons position in order to calculate (or the film subjects position)

25mm lens, film subject height around 6' give or take a couple of inches.

Do we at least agree on that?

Do you still believe the film subject left the imprints that were cast?

 

[JohnWS]

It's got nothing to do with personal belief. Debunking is a science. Scientific proof has nothing to do with belief.

Absolutely it has everything to do with belief, and absolutely this film does not need to be debunked any more than the scam emails I get telling me I can be a millionaire.

I doubt I'd give the film a second thought (just as I ignore the emails) if it were not for fervent believers making up wild claims and ignoring plain facts to bolster their preconceptions, or leaping through fiery hoops on futile crusades to prove it's authenticity while belittling those who won't agree with them.

It's only believers that insist there's a 50/50 fair's fair attitude that must be adhered to regarding this film and that that is in some way the only reasonable scientific approach. All that does in bolster a comfortable (false) justification for believing in the first place.

It's only believers that think science is somehow failing in not giving two hoots about this film.

What is reasonable however, is to make informed decisions based on what we already know. That's why I don't send money to the email scammers or feel the need to launch a lengthy investigation into each individual one in case I might be missing out.