Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

You mean his height estimate? Sure, the 5'9" - 7'4" falls in the range that Krantz (and everyone else) estimates.

Krantz - walking height = 6', standing height = 6'6"
Patterson - 7'4"
Gimlin - 6'1" or 6'2"
Byrne, Green, and Grieve - all estimate between 6'5" and about 6'7"



That was one method, but he also mentions the film comparison done by John Green, and the estimates by the other film investigators.



Seems like all we have is lots of speculation. There's disagreement over whether it was filmed at 16, 18, or 24fps. I'm not even certain that particular camera has those three specific settings.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15431
"The Camera, according to most sources and stories, was a dual speed type. 24 frames per second, or a slower 16 fps."

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/article.php?id=56
"He passed around the camera [Cine-Kodak K-100] (lenses were missing) so people could look at the settings, 24 frames per sec. being the normal setting for TV reporting, but Roger told John Green it was set at 18, and he didn’t know when the change was made. Daniel
thinks that Roger made a mistake when he reported it was 18. The slower the film, the more it blurs, and Daniel thinks it was set at 16 frames per sec. "

<snip>

I guess that's a possibility, but it doesn't give us any answers.

RayG

Krantz, on pg. 306 (in the Addendum) of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence gives a reasonable explanation. Patterson evidently didn't know the camera couldn't be set on 18 fps. The figure may have been smudged so he read it as 18 instead of 16.

Kodak's literature stated the actual speed could be within 10% of that stated on the control setting. Paul Appleby of the BBC obtained a Kodak K-100 and timed it electronically. It was running at 19 fps when set on 16 fps.

Seems the sceptics have already had their field day with this. Krantz stood by his figure. The jiggle analysis showed 18 fps, too, as I recall.

I'm so behind the times <sobs>

 

[RayG]

Krantz, on pg. 306 (in the Addendum) of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence gives a reasonable explanation. Patterson evidently didn't know the camera couldn't be set on 18 fps. The figure may have been smudged so he read it as 18 instead of 16.

I already addressed that here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry198472
"I did some researching and found in Krantzs book Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence that the settings on the Kodak k-100 had a setting og 16 and 24. Nothing in between. All the confusion on the speed Krantz said could of been that the 16 speed on the camera could of been smudged really bad and it looked like it said 18 instead of 16."

Kodak's literature stated the actual speed could be within 10% of that stated on the control setting. Paul Appleby of the BBC obtained a Kodak K-100 and timed it electronically. It was running at 19 fps when set on 16 fps.

I already touched on that as well:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"Regarding the camera speed: Glickman reports that, according to the Kodak Archives, the speed tolerance of the film carrier subassembly in Patterson's camera was plus or minus 10%. If it was set at 16 fps, then the actual speed could have been anywhere between 14.4 fps and 17.6 fps."

Seems the sceptics have already had their field day with this. Krantz stood by his figure. The jiggle analysis showed 18 fps, too, as I recall.

Skeptics like to deal with facts whenever possible. To my knowledge, the specific camera used by Patterson that day has never been tested for 'jiggle analysis', or anything else for that matter.

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't see the word, but that seems to be the implication here (influenced, at least):

.......................

So ' implying ' is a big no - no ?


You don't think Noll wishes to influence others, regarding Bigfoot ?


Do you ? ( want to influence people about Bigfoot )


Again, what does that say about all the crap at the BFRO website ?


Pot, meet kettle.....

 

[RayG]

BTW, the weird track shown was alligator. To show the photo as something anyone still thinks was associated with a sighting is dishonest, IMO, as is most of the rest of the article.

Nothing dishonest about it. Similar tracks can still be found on the net, supposedly belonging to a bipedal creature dubbed 'Swamp Bigfoot'.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/web-eye-witness-tracks.jpg

or...the Honey Island Swamp Monster...

http://ucmmuseum.com/honeyislandswampmonster.htm
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/i-files.html
http://honeyisland.americanmonsters.com/legend.html
http://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Chilcutt said the dermal ridges couldn't be human because they went up and down the sides of the foot.

My error, Chilcutt said the ridges went up and down the length of the foot, of course.

Not the sides.

That strikes me as useless for dermal ridges, though.

 

[Alphaba]

This topic is completely new for me (Western Europe apparently is not very hospitable for Bigfoot and its modern lore: Father Christmas, ogres, Nessie, and werewolves clearly don't qualify). I have thus taken the colossal amount of time needed to read this thread in its entirety, plus the parallel one about the P-G film, plus related webpages.

Apparently sasquatch researchers face two vexing major issues since decades: lack of bodies or remains, and lack of feces.

Reasons for this absence of evidence are obvious:

• If no one has found a body or a skeleton it is evidently because, like one living and one extinct other species of primate (genus homo), sasquatches do bury their dead. Furthermore their considerable strentgh allow them to cover each tomb, individual or collective, with a big rock. As they manifestly lack tools to cut or carve stone, these rocks look like ordinary rocks.
  
• Lack of feces certainly has a roughly identical cause: they dig pit-toilets, covered with a rock. Alternatively, they may defecate only in rivers, a habit that could also jeopardize an easy finding of feces. But the digging skill they manifest in burying their dead tend to favor the first hypothesis.

Conclusion: in the search for hard evidences of Bigfoot's existence, no rock must be left unturned.

 

[Thurkon]

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the entire enterprise is marked by carelessness and incompetence unless, of course, it's fraudulent. These folks have supposedly just shot the most significant bigfoot footage in history, and they lost part of it. The exact mechanism whereby it has been lost or misplaced is irrelevant. They went out supposedly to shoot a documentary, are said to have wasted most of the film on extraneous stuff, shot an ambiguous and questionable minute of bigfoot that looks to anyone without a preconceived belief in bigfoot like a man in a fursuit that doesn't fit terribly well, and then for whatever reason and in whatever way, the original film, and any trace of the "non-bigfoot" portion disappeared, their stories about how they made the film disagree, and circumstances surrounding the film and the personnel cast a shadow on its authenticity. If they were not frauds, it must be conceded that they did not do a very good job of presenting, preserving and authenticating their evidence. They were, in fact, careless and less than competent. If they had not been, and if the film had been genuine, we would not be having this discussion now.

I'm not as disinclined as some to doubt at least the possibility of there being a bigfoot. I think it unlikely, but possible. I would be happy to see it proved. But what astonishes me about people like you is your readiness to accept the most miserable excuses for failure and spoiled evidence. The best thing any bigfoot researcher could do under the present circumstances would be to discard everything that passes for evidence, shun all the so-called experts, and start from scratch with some new ideas reasonably diligent exercise of common sense and observation, combined perhaps with a little bit of useful equipment, such as a camera that works. If there really is a bigfoot, I'm betting that it will not be found by the clowns who are searching now unless one of them, while watching an expert at work, dies laughing. Even then, the expert will probably go home for the weekend and look for the body the following monday.

edited for typo

The most damning evidence that this was a hoax has yet to be discussed:

Was there ever an attempt to make a real documentary out of this?

Patterson goes out to shoot a documentary and ostensibly doesn’t expect to get much more than tracks…due to the waste of footage on scenery. He gets lots of scenery, and then manages to film a Bigfoot, and film lots of tracks and casting.

Wouldn’t Patterson then proceed with his plan? Or was there never a plan to film a documentary to begin with?

 

[Correa Neto]

Not to mention that it seems, at least to me, a little fishy that the best avaliable footage of a bigfoot was obtained decades ago by people who went to the field specifically to shoot a documentary on the issue.

Why no one else got lucky later?

Sheer chance?
Bigfeet are extinct?
Bigfeet became smarter?
Skeptical influence, just as alleged on the countless psi experiments?
It was a hoax?

 

[Thurkon]

Are you Erectus from BFF or did you just cop his avatar?

No idea what you’re talking about. I got the picture online. I liked his disco Sasquatch bell-bottom look. He’s also looking mean, like he’s ready to throw down some serious stinky justice on some Bigfoot non-believers. His Squatch chick is backin’ him up, too.

If you want scientific, read Krantz. He goes into detail on what sort of prosthetic devices would be required. They simply wouldn't produce the fluid movement seen in the film.

Yeah, okay. See, if this was his take…he doesn’t realize how unscientific he’s really being. To state an informed opinion is one thing, but for a serious scientist to definitively state that there’s no way a prosthesis could produce this effect after viewing a sixty second grainy film is absolutely ludicrous.

It should be clear to anyone the proportions are not even close.

Again, they look pretty close to me. Am I blind? They’re not identical, but they wouldn’t be if Bob H. is wearing a suit in one picture. Especially when said suits are designed to exaggerate proportions, as Chris Walas has told us.

What's your source on Morris' statement and what evidence has he presented that he ever spoke with Patterson?

Morris himself, as quoted in Long’s book. Patterson phoned him several times regarding the modification of the suit.

I'm beginning to see how Long could sell books. He could start a lucrative bridge and gold brick sideline. As Barnum said........

You seem overly eager to denounce everything Long researched as lies. Why is that, when you evidently haven’t read the book…or if you did, you weren’t paying attention? Why is Long a liar? You seem to be implying money is his motivation, but remember Patterson didn’t exactly donate his film for the benefit of science.

And by the way, Barnum never did say it:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

You sure do like to propagate myths…

 

[Hellbound]

They simply wouldn't produce the fluid movement seen in the film.

Just curious, how does this extreme "fluidity of motion" compare with the supposed "compliant gait" claimed to be observed which proves a "torn thigh muscle".

 

[William Parcher]

The trackway was in good enough condition nine days later for Bob Titmus to cast some tracks and track the creature to where she hunkered and watched them.

It's just amazing that Bob Titmus was able to track Patty through the forest after rains and nine days! He made castings as well for Pete's sake.

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that?

I'm not the only one that used that word.

Casts were made of both the left and right feet. At this time the men rushed the film out to Roger's brother-in-law for processing and phoned the B.C. (British Columbia, Canada) museum to try to get some scientists and a tracking dog sent to the location. The two men then returned to Bluff Creek at which time a torrential downpour began. They returned home and were lucky to get out before a mud slide blocked the road.

Bigfoot/Sasquatch FAQ See Question #7.

It seems you've visited BFF. If this is the case, try reading some of Roger Knights posts on this. He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF. He's thorough.

If you are talking about RogerKni he is thorough. Thoroughly nutty. Strong supporter of sea monsters and other assorted monster thingies that nobody can find.

I looked at some of his postings. He lays out his biased supportive supportive arguments in a coherent and organized fashion. But look what he is arguing for. The guy is savantlike in his credulity. If he focused on the ridiculous circumstances that P&G want us to believe, instead of Long & Heironimus... it would be very interesting. He avoids that just like you do.

 

[Thurkon]

Did it occur to you that was written before their inept attempt?

And why didn't these people come forward 38 years ago to prevent this dishonesty from being perpetrated on an innocent world?

They've shown nothing except and ability to bilk money out of people who have some sort of an emotional need to believe them.

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe I have some kind of emotional need in believing Bigfoot is a myth? I have no emotional connection to this at all. As I stated earlier, I would prefer it if Bigfoot were real.

But keep pretending that you have an objective stake in this. Take the review of Long’s book. What the heck was that? The review is a silly nitpick of items that can be easily explained with a little thought. Two suits? Patterson modified the original. How many times do we have to toss this red herring around?

Not only that, but you apply criteria to Long’s account that you refuse to apply to Patterson. Hieronimous’ account has inconsistencies? OK, maybe he’s lying…but it isn’t as if Patterson’s account doesn’t have as many, if not more, inconsistencies. Why don’t you apply this rigorous criteria to all involved with this film…instead of just the guys you want to believe?

And discounting a negative story about Gimlin because Gimlin’s family vouches for him? Yeah, that’s really good investigative journalism there, Lu.

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay.....

10. How do I know if some Sasquatches are around?

There are huge barefoot human-like tracks.

Every creature in the forest becomes utterly silent.

The call of a nightbird is heard during the day, or the call of a daytime bird at night.

A powerful, indescribable animal smell is present.

A roaring scream, a screaming roar, louder and unlike any other animal, is heard.

Trees 4" thick are being snapped in half by a very strong creature that is apparently just out of your sight.

A large creature is hitting large sticks against large trees, again apparently out of your sight.

Animals are found hung in trees, heavier and higher than a cougar/mountain lion could carry them.

Strange pits or rock-cairns are found in remote places.

Trees 4" thick are found broken off, ten feet above the ground.

Stumps are found in remote places, ripped out of the ground.

One apparently speaks to you in your native language.

One helps you when you break your leg in the remote wilderness.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/faq.html#q10

 

[William Parcher]

LAL said that Patterson died broke. That may be true.

I read an article that said something like, after Patterson was paid by Argosy for the PGF he had a suitcase full of cash in a hotel room and was tossing it around. Now I can't find that citation.

Patterson was affiliated with "American National (something)" after the PGF to equip him to find another Bigfoot. Does anyone know if he was paid a salary during the subsequent fruitless search for another?

What might be any other ways he had income after the PGF? How was he paying any bills?

 

[William Parcher]

Hog-killing Bigfoot in Texas. It was a wise choice for the BFRO scientific organization to include this 'Class A' sighting account of Bigfoot. What an incredible animal we have here!

Bigfoot Brings Home the Bacon

 

[William Parcher]

Those of you who think the PGF is a hoax presumably also think that the tracks 'made by Patty' are hoaxed. What are your thoughts on those who were associated with these tracks afterwards?

Lyle Laverty photographed these tracks on what was supposed to be the day after the filming (P&G weren't there when he was). Bob Titmus was there 9 days later and cast some of these tracks and even tracked Patty for some distance.

Both of these guys already believed in Bigfoot. Do you think they were simply hoaxed by P&G? Do you think their stories involve biased complicity in a grand charade? Or what?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Regarding the recent discussion of the Skookum cast, I seemed to have remembered that I had seen a telling of the story that wasn't exactly what you can easily find at BFRO today.....

Well I found an old link I had...

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

And the discovery of the Skookum impression reads as follows...

On their way out, Randles, Noll, and Fish decided to stop and check the roadside mud pool that Randles and Dr. Fish had placed fruit at the night before. Some of the fruit, but not all, had been taken. Three of the original six apples were missing. Some of the melons showed evidence of having been pecked at by birds. They noted elk, deer, coyote and bear tracks in the mud pool. The three noticed a large impression at the eastern edge of the mud pool. It took several minutes of studying the impression before they finally deduced that it was possibly made by a sasquatch sitting down at the edge of the pool, and leaning over to grasp the fruit in the center. The three immediately returned to camp to inform the others.

Upon returning to camp, the trio related the details of their find to the group. Everyone gathered up all photographic equipment and casting materials and drove out to the impression site. Noll, Randles and Fish described the scene for the others. Noll went so far as to lay down on the ground and assume the position they believed the animal had to have been in to leave such an impression.

Here is the report you will now find at BFRO

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

Noll, Randles, and Fish notice an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the muddy pool area. The three trackers discuss the strange imprint, then suddenly it dawns what animal caused it. Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face. Each tracker comes closer to have another look, discussions follow for 2-3 minutes. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint.

The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal sat down at the edge of the mud, then leaned down on its left forearm and reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit with its right hand a distance of about three feet.

If one reads the first account, one might get the iimpression that some members of the group might have needed a little help seeing what was so obvious to Noll..


The second account suggests it was obvious to everyone, with no coaching at all..


Influence by Noll ? Of course not...

 

[LTC8K6]

Wow, an 800lb stealthy bigfoot, jumping and leaping around silently and without leaving footprints.

What an amazing creature!

Bigfoot should clearly be the dominant predator wherever it makes it's home. It's population should be nearly out of control with no competition whatsoever for food or territory or shelter. It can apparently eat anything, and it has nothing to fear from any other animal it runs across, including humans.

I find it odd that we have these hunters who claim that they had one in their sights, but they just could not shoot it because it's face looked so human.

Then we have the P/G film, which shows something that hunters should have had no qualms about shooting since it looks nothing like a human being in the face.

 

[Correa Neto]

Female bigfeet eating bacon, LMAO.

This class A report is amazing. It must be, it has to be true.

Fits perfectly with LAL´s informations.

The animal was in Texas at a swampy area; the hunter was close to a road, etc.

At least the tits were not flacid as Patty´s

 

[William Parcher]

...jumping and leaping around...

Dude, next time you write those words, please capitalize them.

The attack leaps: distance was about thirty yards. Fifteen yards per leap. This was on all fours.

Lady Bigfoot jumped 45 feet from a four-point crouch to get that pork!

What does the BFRO call this? They call it data.