Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

No, I have had quite enough deliberate obtuseness from believers.

Not to mention that several of us have already begun to think it might not be a track at all, and posted those thoughts.

Am I about to get some company in Filterland? Seems Bill's strategy is to call us deliberately obtuse and then apply the Ignore feature so he can repeat his same lame arguments without fear of seeing the rebuttals.

He could just copy and paste from other threads and save himself a lot of typing.

The "ambulance chasing" argument has already been addressed in regard to the Skookum Cast, e.g., complete with quotes from Richard Noll, who was there. Bill, presumably, was not.

 

[LAL]

Bruto, Ivan Marx, a well known hoaxer, is closely associated with Bossburg. This renders the whole incident quite suspect, imo, and useless to science.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm

The supposed footprint, doesn't even match the supposed cast.

Been over this at least three times. They're a match. I have copies of the casts. Bill still can't tell left from right?

 

[LAL]

A better shot of the very obviously hoaxed tracks.

If those were faked, and John Green let Richard Noll post a number of the closeups on BFF, using the cracked Wallace wooden foot as Bill claimed, why did the line in the heel only show up in one of the photgraphs? The line in the photo may have been a twig or an imprint of one stuck to the foot. It doesn't line up with the crack in the fake foot, nor is the rest a match despite some valiant efforts with Photoshop distortions.

We've been over this before.

 

[LAL]

Wrong sir or madame! The technology for a bending foot didn't exist in 1967. Feet in those ancient times tended to remain rigid during walking and climbing. What you are claiming is not possible. It's just not...

(runs from the room in tears - then returns)

Sorry... I'm just emotional because I'm being beaten up my colleagues over at the BFF because I dared to suggest that the Meldrum print in the left photo might be similar to the bear track on the right.

I guess I'm suggesting that it might help to dispense with info that can be determined to be bogus whether we really, really like the guy that unearthed it or not. Just an idea I had once.

- Dfoot

You're just being beaten up because you're wrong, kiddo. You'll find all the support you need here, and then some.

Liking Dr. Meldrum has nothing to do with it. I don't even know the guy. To answer one of Correa's points here because I don't want to have to go back a find the post again (got other things to do), Patterson and Laverty photographed "the best". Titmus' photos of consecutive tracks at Bluff Creek were far more revealing to anatomists. They showed variation in toe positions (and rain spatters, BTW).

Meldrum was interested in the ones that showed movement and other characteristics of living feet, not the ones that were the "best" in terms of clarity. I don't know how many photos he took of that trackway, but he cast seven tracks.

I still maintain an expert in primate foot anatomy might be able to tell his a** from a hole in the ground.

 

[Correa Neto]

My take at how this "bigfoot footprint" can have been created (yep, it's a poor drawing, but I guess its enough).

Meldrum's interpretation can be found at http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
Under the "Evidence for Mid-Tarsal Break" topic.

In the meanwhile, scroll down to the "Sierra Black Bear" topic at http://www.yosemite.ca.us/history/mammals_of_yosemite/flesh_eaters.html
and...
"Look, ma, no claws!"

Just a reminder that not all bear footprints have claw marks...

 

[Huntster]

...Just a reminder that not all bear footprints have claw marks...

They usually do when the bear is slipping and sliding in mud.

 

[LAL]

Found this while looking for more on the hernia and how it was noticed:


"In 1998, Hajicek contacted the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, and began the early work on what would become Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. John Green lent him his first generation copy of the Patterson/Gimlin footage, and Hajicek had the film cleaned up and transferred digitally to a computer.

He quickly determined that there wasn't enough, with the P/G footage alone, to fill an hour documentary.

He spent hours in his basement looking at the digital footage on a High Definition monitor, concentrating mostly on the head of "Patty", when he began to notice a bulge, which appears then disappears on the right leg of the animal. He later discovered that there is an injury, which occurs predominately in women, called an Erectus Femoral Hernia, which is very similar to what can be seen in the P/G footage.

As part of the documentary, he shopped around and found a forensic animator willing to create a "digital skeleton" by "reverse engineering" from the footage. (The first bid came in at $300,000, another was $100,000, but Hajicek, due to budget constraints, was forced to take the lowest bid.)

The result was a skeleton, which appeared to walk in a manner completely different than the movement of humans. The knees would bend, with the legs splayed outward - then the knees bend in, in a knock-kneed fashion. The Peruvian-gait Horse (bred to walk up hills) is the only animal Hajicek has found that exhibit this manner of walking.

His conclusion - "No suit in 1967 (or today) could create this effect."

Other things noticed in the digital P/G footage:

The hair appears to bristle when Patty looks at Patterson and Gimlin.
Patty seems to favour her right leg.
A scientist (who was sure the film was a hoax) agreed to watch the digital footage and was able to identify 40 different muscle groups on the animal. He couldn't give any explanation how that could be hoaxed."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10844&st=540&p=248937&#entry248937entry248937

I'm the poster.

Check out Crypto. There are articles on everything from putting together a conference (no huge speaker fees noted) to bear tracks and misidentification. I hadn't seen this before. Ain't Googling fun?

http://www.herper.com/crypto/Cryptohominids.pdf

 

[LAL]

My take at how this "bigfoot footprint" can have been created (yep, it's a poor drawing, but I guess its enough).

Meldrum's interpretation can be found at http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
Under the "Evidence for Mid-Tarsal Break" topic.

In the meanwhile, scroll down to the "Sierra Black Bear" topic at http://www.yosemite.ca.us/history/mammals_of_yosemite/flesh_eaters.html
and...
"Look, ma, no claws!"

Just a reminder that not all bear footprints have claw marks...

So the claws are between the toes and leave ridges rather than grooves? How interesting.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Been over this at least three times. They're a match. I have copies of the casts. Bill still can't tell left from right?

Are you blind?

Where in the print, does the 5th ( as drawn on the cast ) toe, point off at the extreme angle like it does in the cast?

 

[RayG]

Been over this at least three times. They're a match.

Are you certain they're a match? Aren't the casts with the bone structure drawn in a set that Krantz had? Weren't these originally cast in dirt?

I have copies of the casts. Bill still can't tell left from right?

Hasn't this been discussed before? I haven't actually held the cast in my hand, nor was I present when the photo was taken in the snow, but it seems obvious that the little toes are quite different between the two casts and the snow-print. The little toe in the snow seems to be pointing directly forward, while the plaster cast little toes are not. The two humps don't seem to be in quite the same place either. Were you able to place your copy of the cast into the snow-print to confirm an exact match?

RayG

 

[RayG]

I still maintain an expert in primate foot anatomy might be able to tell his a** from a hole in the ground.

Only if he got his foot stuck in either. LAL, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell your own @$$ from a hole in the ground. I don't see that gift as support for your argument.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax

Bob Heironimus's nephew John Miller was 8 at the time and recalls playing with the Bigfoot suit and putting on the headpiece. "I just remember they has the trunk open and I remember looking in there and "What's that! - - And pickin' up and foolin' with it. And I can remember finding the head and being a young kid I just put it right on. It was hot. And it stunk. I can remember going up to their front porch and lookin' in the front window to see if somebody could see me. I was going to try and scare somebody." When asked what he thought of the claim that no human being can possibly walk the way the Patterson creature does, Miller replied, "I'll tell you what, if you ever watch that [Patterson] footage and watch him [Bob Heironimus] walk, and then you have him walk down the road, you'll see--they walk exactly the same. I always got a kick out of that."

 

[RayG]

Found this while looking for more on the hernia and how it was noticed:


"In 1998, Hajicek contacted the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, and began the early work on what would become Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. John Green lent him his first generation copy of the Patterson/Gimlin footage, and Hajicek had the film cleaned up and transferred digitally to a computer.

He quickly determined that there wasn't enough, with the P/G footage alone, to fill an hour documentary.

He spent hours in his basement looking at the digital footage on a High Definition monitor, concentrating mostly on the head of "Patty", when he began to notice a bulge, which appears then disappears on the right leg of the animal. He later discovered that there is an injury, which occurs predominately in women, called an Erectus Femoral Hernia, which is very similar to what can be seen in the P/G footage.

LAL, do you have some medical links to info on 'Erectus Femoral Hernia', the only exact matches I get in Google link to bigfoot information. If I remove Erectus and only enter 'Femoral Hernia', I get lots of medical information like this:

A femoral hernia is a protrusion of a loop of the intestine through a weakening in the abdominal wall, located in the groin near the thigh.

No idea how the intestine would be able to make its way to the outside area of the thigh though. There's even a picture:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/18025.htm

As part of the documentary, he shopped around and found a forensic animator willing to create a "digital skeleton" by "reverse engineering" from the footage. (The first bid came in at $300,000, another was $100,000, but Hajicek, due to budget constraints, was forced to take the lowest bid.)

The result was a skeleton, which appeared to walk in a manner completely different than the movement of humans. The knees would bend, with the legs splayed outward - then the knees bend in, in a knock-kneed fashion. The Peruvian-gait Horse (bred to walk up hills) is the only animal Hajicek has found that exhibit this manner of walking.

Surely you've heard the old adage, you get what you pay for. Yeah, I've seen the skeletal recreation on page 93 of Meet the Sasquatch. The first image looks like Patty is giving birth, and the second image reminds me of the pose my wife sometimes adopts when she has to pee really badly. Maybe Hajicek should have gone with a higher bidder. (Was it the same digital guy that has bigfoot with fingers hanging to the knees on page 94? That alone suggests his accuracy is a wee bit off.)

RayG

 

[RayG]

LAL, serious question here. Why is it most of the 'best' bigfoot evidence is associated with known hoaxsters or hucksters?

RayG

 

[Huntster]

LAL, serious question here. Why is it most of the 'best' bigfoot evidence is associated with known hoaxsters or hucksters?

RayG

Any known hucksters or hoaxsters listed in this article?

 

[Correa Neto]

I would also like to call your attention to the following quote from the article:

The isolated trackway comprised in excess of 40 discernible footprints on a muddy farm road, across a plowed field, and along an irrigation ditch.

The emphasis is mine.

Bigfeet are supposed to live on dense forests, far from human settlements, eh? What was one doing at a farm's plowed field, road and irrigation ditch?

And, again, how can one explain the differences in feet and finger morphology between individual prints from the track found at Umatilla National Forest as well as the obvious diffrences that can be seen between these prints and others, such as Patty's foot prints?

You can choose the best explanation: Beckjord's shapeshifters, Coleman's 9 to 12 unknown primate species or a combination of hoaxes and misinterpretations...

 

[RayG]

Any known hucksters or hoaxsters listed in this article?

Just so I don't have to open each and every one of them, any of those articles about bigfoot?

RayG

 

[Huntster]

I would also like to call your attention to the following quote from the article:

The emphasis is mine.

Bigfeet are supposed to live on dense forests, far from human settlements, eh? What was one doing at a farm's plowed field, road and irrigation ditch?...

Just passing through, I suppose.

...And, again, how can one explain the differences in feet and finger morphology between individual prints from the track found at Umatilla National Forest as well as the obvious diffrences that can be seen between these prints and others, such as Patty's foot prints?...

Do you mean the differences between individuals, or the differences in the image of the foot left on the ground?

 

[Huntster]

Just so I don't have to open each and every one of them, any of those articles about bigfoot?

RayG

I'm not sure. Perhaps more "smallfoot" information.

Bipedal primates, at any rate.

 

[Huntster]

From the 2005 Bellingham conference:

Owen Caddy – more study of enhancements of the Patterson-Gimlin film
Caddy began by sharing a commonly held belief about the film; there is no more information, which can be seen in the film. When high quality screen captures were made from John Green’s second-generation copy of the film, Caddy looked anyway, and he feels the results are interesting.

Caddy said two first generation copies of the original film were made, with one given to John Green and the other retained by Roger Patterson.
From the Green copy at least four, second generation copies were made, one going to Darius Swindler, one to Rene Dahinden, another went to an individual in California (this is the one that has been offered on E-bay for $1,000,000.00).
From Patterson’s came at least two copies used on Patterson’s tour and a final copy which is in the possession of Patricia Patterson, and from which all media receive their third generation copies.

Caddy displayed some of the frames he had enhanced. “I picked the ones that seemed to show the greatest detail,” he said.
Frame 339-240 - the mouth appears to open and close
FR 342-343 – again the mouth opens and closes, with no teeth seen
Caddy points out a feature found on many great apes – a shadow can cast a shadow creating what appears to be a “fake mouth”. To him, the mouth he sees on the enhancements looks more simian.
He rotated the image so it is more vertical versus the forward tilt, which we are all familiar with and did more enhancements.
FR 362 – show what Caddy called a “pressed lip display” – the mouth position is higher then other frames – frowning?
FR 370 – from which a super secret source, an enhancement was made and appeared on a website he didn’t want to identify, but he did let slip the initials “E” and “B”. He had no idea where this photo came from, until Chris Murphy spoke up from the side of the room. Murphy said the original photo was made by Jeff Glickman. Murphy took a 35 mm photo of that enhancement. He said Eric “bugged me until I gave him a copy of the photo.”
Owen Caddy’s conclusions based on the enhancements he made –
• the mouth is lower on the face and more simian in nature then previously believed
• the nose is quite flat
• the mouth opens and closes
• the eyes can be seen
Caddy said either a first generation copy, if not the original, needs to converted into red, blue and green on special film.

Dr Jeff Meldrum – Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State University - SASQUATCH:……….

…..Discussing the Patterson-Gimlin film –…….
……- In his opinion, the P-G footage is impressive because it is of something walking through an area and leaving tracks. Lyle Laverty saw one clear line of tracks, casting ten, two of which Meldrum believes clearly show the mid-tarsal break. The animation of the foot can be seen in both the photos and in the tracks.