Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look into my eyes, MK. Is that really you?


9e7cae24.gif
 
Man, you can really see the pain in Patty's eye as she realizes she is about to become a part of the bigfoot slaughter that took place at Bluff Creek.

So sad.....
 
I think this guy may know were the body/hide from this slaughter is kept. I wish they hadn't scared him away.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23693&st=0

Unfortunately the thread lost momentum shortly after this post which describes bigfoot science to a tee.

"Really though, I did know a guy that had a cousin, or nephew (I can't remember), that worked with a guy that was hunting one time. Well, he ran into a guy that had a friend with an old cabin and I guess the guy that originally built the cabin died in a fire, but before he did he read an article about an old timer in the woods that heard a howl late at night that he couldn't really describe but someone that heard it too had dinner with a friend one night that had seen a shadow in the night. He said it must have been bigfoot making love with one of his milk cows. Now if that isn't a good story I don't think anyone is going to be impressed with a story about a costume in a glass case in a house that someone can never go back to and can get no more information on the costume, the owner of the house, the house, the glass case, or anything else." Ace


m
 
Glad to hear that...

Care to answer the questions in my post?

I'll add to them these two questions:

What is your training/experience in conducting investigative interviews?

What training/experience qualifies you to ascertain something is a bullet strike on film?

If you are MK, I second that emotion
 
----------------------
You know Rockinkt, you criticize a man for his opinions and hide behind an avatar name. It’s easy to attack man ad hominem (& hide behind an avatar) than it is to look at his work and decide for yourself what the images show.

Anyman is entitled to his opinion, at least Davis is participating in research; I don’t know what qualifies you.

“Massacre at Bluff Creek”……so what?
Is that pronouncement any worse than the MDF nonsense, the asscast overkill and that ridiculous midtarsal break pronouncement. Come on….

I did look at the pictures and decided that there was nothing at all to indicate any of the nonsense being spouted had any merit whatsoever.

Since I am not the one trying to profit from a preposterous story - I see no need to identify myself. Besides - what does my identity have to do with the fact that the proposition put forward by Davis has no basis in reality?

As far as my general qualifications - LT pretty well summed it up.
Specific to this debate however:
I am a certified instructor of Kinesic Interviewing/Interrogation methods. I am also qualified in Statement Analysis and received specialized training to qualify me as an Criminal Intelligence Analyst.
I am a certified Firearms Instructor and qualified as expert in both rifle and pistol.

Funny that you should ask about what I have contributed to sasquatch/Bigfoot research. Just the other day I looked up in the sky and saw a gigantic squatch being shot at by a cowboy and a fake Indian.
Everybody else said it was just cloud formations - but I know different...
 
Last edited:
William Parcher wrote:
I'm not so sure it's either one of those. (mid-tarsel break, or toes bending.)
Here is a sequence of frames from an animated gif. We see the thing that is proposed to be splaying or upwards bending toes in #3 - but then in #4 we see that the same thing is there, but it is ghostly.


I put frames 4 and 5 together into an animated-gif....


PattysToesAG12.gif



One reason why the toes might appear lighter in shade than the rest of the foot could be that there is some space between the toes, allowing the whitish ground color to mix and blend-in with the dark toes....thereby creating a lighter shade of black...or gray.


You can also see, very clearly, Patty's calf muscle bulging when her foot moves down fully onto the ground.
That's a pretty neat trick for a supposedly pre-formed, and large, hunk of padding on the back of the leg...

Pattysback2.jpg




IMO, the foot and toes should be already planted flat on the sand in #4, and maybe already even in #3.


Regardless of what anybody thinks, concerning exactly when Patty's foot "should be" flat on the ground....the image on the film is what determines when that actually occured.



I don't really know what is going on here, but it doesn't seem right that that big thing in front is actually the toes (or entire ball) bending upwards.


I don't know whether what's moving is just the toes, or includes more of the foot......but it doesn't really matter exactly what is moving, because it's clear that something is moving at the front of the foot.
And, again, if that movement (along with the other feature of the foot I had mentioned) can't be replicated with a fake foot, then it's not a fake foot.....period.
 
Last edited:
Sweaty can you post the gif that shows the rear of the calf muscle buldging? Now with all this new speculation of Patty being shot at maybe they were getting these muscle movements by shooting them with a BB gun lol! Any human feet in action showing toe movement like Patty?
 
Yep, I`m officially blind when it comes to Patty.

Can`t see bullet impacts, can`t see moving toes, can`t see bulging muscles...

Must be the skeptical effect...
 
Yep, I`m officially blind when it comes to Patty.

Can`t see bullet impacts, can`t see moving toes, can`t see bulging muscles...

Must be the skeptical effect...
For once I can actually see what they're talking about.

If you look at 4 and 5 in the above gif you can see Patty's leg rock forward. The angle of her shin changes by several degrees. Looks to me enough to account for the front of her foot being off the ground and then rocking down as she shifts her weight. To me, not only do the toes not do anything interesting, it's like there's no foot articulation at all.

If you look at Patty's calf it may just be a play of light and shadow, or the back of her leg might pinch in, in exactly the way muscles don't. Or it might just be another fold in the hip waders like the anomalous thigh bulge seen in other frames.
 
As I have pointed out before; those lobes of the calf muscle should be bisected by a line congruent with the Achilles.
They are not.
The line runs off to the right side of the ankle..
Pattysback2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • achiles.gif
    achiles.gif
    15.6 KB · Views: 162
Last edited:
I put frames 4 and 5 together into an animated-gif....


One reason why the toes might appear lighter in shade than the rest of the foot could be that there is some space between the toes, allowing the whitish ground color to mix and blend-in with the dark toes....thereby creating a lighter shade of black...or gray.


Do a gif with frames 2,3,4 & 5.
 
As I have pointed out before; those lobes of the calf muscle should be bisected by a line congruent with the Achilles.
They are not.
The line runs off to the right side of the ankle..
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattysback2.jpg[/qimg]

That wasn't the calf frame I was referring to. But thank's Sweaty lol!
 
if that movement (along with the other feature of the foot I had mentioned) can't be replicated with a fake foot, then it's not a fake foot.....period.

If it can't be replicated with a bigfoot foot, then it's not a bigfoot foot.

Heck, forget about replicating it with a bigfoot foot, I'll be happy with a bigfoot foot period. Just one. Shouldn't be too hard to produce. Surely there's at least one Native American who knows the location of a body from just one of these gentle guardians of the forest. Heck, there's a whole family of them buried at Bluff Creek.
 
If it can't be replicated with a bigfoot foot, then it's not a bigfoot foot.

Heck, forget about replicating it with a bigfoot foot, I'll be happy with a bigfoot foot period. Just one. Shouldn't be too hard to produce. Surely there's at least one Native American who knows the location of a body from just one of these gentle guardians of the forest. Heck, there's a whole family of them buried at Bluff Creek.


Woha slow down Hoss! Gene splicing will get you your Bigfoot a lot quicker!
 
Woha slow down Hoss! Gene splicing will get you your Bigfoot a lot quicker!

You're right about that. Casting a spell to summon a bigfoot from the underworld will get one quicker than searching Bluff Creek, or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.
 
For once I can actually see what they're talking about.

If you look at 4 and 5 in the above gif you can see Patty's leg rock forward. The angle of her shin changes by several degrees. Looks to me enough to account for the front of her foot being off the ground and then rocking down as she shifts her weight. To me, not only do the toes not do anything interesting, it's like there's no foot articulation at all.

If you look at Patty's calf it may just be a play of light and shadow, or the back of her leg might pinch in, in exactly the way muscles don't. Or it might just be another fold in the hip waders like the anomalous thigh bulge seen in other frames.

It might just be a jiggle of the leg of an unknown hominid
 
You're right about that. Casting a spell to summon a bigfoot from the underworld will get one quicker than searching Bluff Creek, or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.

Especially since those suckers are extinct.
 
How is it unnatural if skeptics claim its to blurry to make out any details?

Things like big saggy diaper butt and rock-hard torpedo breasts are not exactly hard to spot details, but are in fact evidence of extremely unnatural anatomy.
 


Sorry for the lack of any Details in this first Picture.
I'll put a bit more Detail in the second picture.

 
Things like big saggy diaper butt and rock-hard torpedo breasts are not exactly hard to spot details, but are in fact evidence of extremely unnatural anatomy.

Yet when proponents of the film state that they see muscle movements, then they are seeing what they want to see? Why cant it be applied to skeptics seeing what they want to see: Keys, Hip waders, diaper butt?
 
Yet when proponents of the film state that they see muscle movements, then they are seeing what they want to see? Why cant it be applied to skeptics seeing what they want to see: Keys, Hip waders, diaper butt?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Skeptics talk about Bigfoot enthusiasts seeing details that can not be supported by the resolution of the film. Think M.K. Davis and teeth, etc. Nobody said you can't see anything. And what are you talking about seeing keys and hip waders? There is a line moving at Patty's thigh that is unnatural for any thigh muscle.

Tell me, what do you make of Patty's completely unnatural breasts?
 
The rains were so heavy, it drove RP and BG out of the Bluff Creek area completely. However, this timeline from DDA, shows that they prints were visible seven months later

DDA said:
Rene Dahinden was in San Francisco and met Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin as they were exiting the Bluff Creek area because of heavy rains. John Green, Rene Dahinden and Jim McClarin all saw the movie at Al de Atley's home, the first showing. Roger and Bob went to Seattle and made copies of the film the following week at Forde Motion Pictures then went to BC to show the film to scientists at the University there. Bob Titmus saw the movie at the University of British Columbia and then went down to the site and made 10 casts. John Green and Jim McClarin were at the site in June of 1968 and made a comparison movie. Tracks were still visible.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21716&view=findpost&p=510271
 
Last edited:
Gimlin's 1992 account of the heavy rain. Note that he claims he already had prepared to cover the tracks with cardboard by getting some boxes the night before from Hodgson. These boxes were already ruined by the rain before Gimlin even started to go cover any tracks. Also, Chris Murphy has it beginning to rain at midnight, meaning it rained on the tracks all night, which fits with the ruined boxes.

It's raining hard for at least a couple of hours, by either account, before Gimlin can possibly get out there.

There is also the bit about leaving Roger at the site alone after it started raining.

Wonder why Gimlin was going to cover the tracks with cardboard? He must have already thought he needed to cover them for some reason that night.
Why not get some boards from Hodgson?

Around 5:30 a.m. or so it started raining and it was just a pouring down rain. I told Roger we better get up and do something about the tracks or they'd wash out, and he said no, it would stop raining after a while. I went ahead and got up, put the saddle on my horse and decided I would ride up there while it was raining really hard and Roger says ah it'll quit, don't ride up there. I said no, I'm going to go ahead and ride on up there. I had gotten a couple of cardboard boxes from Mr. Hodgson's to cover these tracks the night before. So when I went outside to get a couple of these boxes that were folded up out there, they were just soggy old pieces of cardboard. I disregarded taking those back up there - so I rode back up to the scene, pulled some bark off some trees and covered up the tracks as best I could and went back to camp.
By then we decided it wasn't going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep! We were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road. I said well I'm going to go ahead and cross the creek with the truck and get started out. And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.

I believe this bit supports the idea that it was in fact already raining that night.

These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene. It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back...

The quote is cut off in the interview, but I'd bet a lot of money that the end of it was something about it having started to rain that night. I think the earlier bit about 5:30am is when it started raining "heavily".
 
We also have the confusing lines:

By then we decided it wasn't going to quit raining.

And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.

They are contradictory, plus there's the fact that they

were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road

Meaning Gimlin likely won't be able to get the truck back across to retrieve Roger due to the flooding.
 
I don't usually rely on the 1992 interview, but it has the best references to the rain and the flooding.

From Murphy's pgf history:

Back at the campsite, weather conditions had gone from bad to worse. Fearing a possible landslide on the Bluff Creek road, Patterson and Gimlin decided to get out of the area. They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.
 
Yet when proponents of the film state that they see muscle movements, then they are seeing what they want to see? Why cant it be applied to skeptics seeing what they want to see: Keys, Hip waders, diaper butt?

First thing you learn is that the skeptics do not have all the answers.
 
Last edited:
First things I learned is that believer have *ALL* the answer from everything to the life and the universe, and their answer funnily enough are neither "42", nor "I don't know".

We're talking about the Patterson Gimlin film not the Universe at large.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom