Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tube]

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

QUOTE]

What is the creature-suit expertise of Doug Hajicek? The "inhumanoids" have been preaching to the converted for so long, their alleged expertise in these matters has never been challenged, until quite recently.

The fact is that creature suit experts like John Vulich and Stan Winston are quite adamant that this is, in fact, a creature suit.

 

[Hitch]

C'mon, tube, you know the best creature costumes ever made were for Planet of the Apes, and no one, not even Disney, could ever duplicate them.

I just remembered, the BFRO is in North Georgia this weekend. I wonder if they found one? (Since Georgia is part of the Pacific Northwest and all.)

 

[Dfoot]

So... if I were to sell you a plaster-of-pairs cast of say... a bear overstep in melting snow... and then I maybe.... imprinted something into the cast (like some sort of sideways fingerprint or something)... THEN do I get to be a scientist? Please?

- Dfoot

 

[William Parcher]

Dfoot, tube, RayG & Diogenes...

When you guys are arguing about Patty's hand here and on BFF (about arm length, flexing, etc.), you should probably try to determine if you are seeing a Cibachrome print or a film frame grab. Frame 370 is another famous Cibachrome, so is the one with the foot showing toes. After seeing the drawn hand in 352, I can't get the taste of artistic modification of Cibachromes out of my mouth.

 

[Huntster]

So... if I were to sell you a plaster-of-pairs cast of say... a bear overstep in melting snow... and then I maybe.... imprinted something into the cast (like some sort of sideways fingerprint or something)... THEN do I get to be a scientist? Please?

- Dfoot

No.

But I'd like to see you create 645 of those footprints in the wilderness (along with another 644 for the left foot), with a bear's feet, walking along down trees and jumping to other downed trees, over barbed wire fences, up and down slopes, all without sign of a human foot or hand along side of them, in 7" of fresh snow, then starting again on the other side of the Columbia River, on private land, behind a locked gate.

You still wouldn't be a scientist................

You'd be a magician............. or a sasquatch in real sasquatch feet.

 

[RayG]

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

Bipedal primates, at any rate.

Not exactly what I meant when I suggested that most of the 'best' bigfoot evidence is associated with known hoaxsters or hucksters. Maybe I should have put the emphasis on 'bigfoot' instead of 'best'.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

But I'd like to see you create 645 of those footprints in the wilderness (along with another 644 for the left foot), with a bear's feet, walking along down trees and jumping to other downed trees, over barbed wire fences, up and down slopes, all without sign of a human foot or hand along side of them, in 7" of fresh snow, then starting again on the other side of the Columbia River, on private land, behind a locked gate.

I see nothing difficult at all about making such a trail.
How long does it take to take 645 strides while wearing some fake feet?
Locked gates don't stop anybody, and they never have.
Fences have never been a problem as far as I can recall, either.

Why do people keep saying it's difficult?

Marx and Freeman always had plenty of time to fake their trails.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

Still being intentionally obtuse, I see.....
It's really a shame.

 

[FFed]

Is it an optical illusion, or is the front part of the foot in this photo shifted farther to the right than the rear part of the foot. (if it is in fact a single footprint, showing a mid-tarsal break)

Is it possible for a foot to be sufficiently flexible, that the front half is totally independant of the rear half? And why do the toes appear fan-shaped, with the inner toes longer than the outer toes?

RayG

These are clearly bear tracks.

Here are a couple photos of some bear tracks I was following a few years ago on a beach. There are tracks of a small black bear, about 2-3 years old, and the tracks were about 8 hours old.

http://www.asagann.com/yogi/yogi.html

Notice the back print being inward, and for the most part lack of claw marks.
The track is composed of the larger rear foot in the front, and the smaller front foot shifted in the back.

The bottom picture shows a young scruffy bear and you can see the front claws not touching the ground, showing how easy it is to not leave claw marks.

 

[Huntster]

These are clearly bear tracks.

Here are a couple photos of some bear tracks I was following a few years ago on a beach. There are tracks of a small black bear, about 2-3 years old, and the tracks were about 8 hours old.......

The bottom picture shows a young scruffy bear and you can see the front claws not touching the ground, showing how easy it is to not leave claw marks.

Here are black bear prints; big ones. That's a size 12 wader I'm wearing.

See the claw prints?

 

[Huntster]

Brown bear trackway. A very big one. We had seen this bear the previous week. This riverbank is where we dressed out a moose two days before this photo was taken.

This bear's prints were all over this valley, and no others. Usually full of black bears, this guy had chased all the blackies out of the area.

See the claws?

Whoops! The photos won't load!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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?

Lu, I owe you an apology for this..

I took the time to overlay the cast to the print, and it does look to me like the cast was made from that print..

 

[LTC8K6]

I disagree with you, Diogenes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I disagree with you, Diogenes.

No problem.. I have been known to disagree with me at times..

 

[LTC8K6]

It covers it up pretty well, and the drawn in bones don't help either.

 

[Nex]

As pointed out earlier...

[...] 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.[...]

Ain't Googling fun? [...]

Yes, it is.

I am assuming he meant a hernia of the rectus femoris muscle, which is one of the quadriceps. If so, IMO it still wouldn't look like the thigh "injury" on Patty. See LTC8K6's post of a pretty good pic of a rupture -- a hernia would be more subtle than that.


*edited to add link*

 

[LTC8K6]

Check out the cast more closely.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It covers it up pretty well, and the drawn in bones don't help either.

I just want to be up front about a mistake in perception I made, and for being out of line, for calling Lu blind in this particular matter..

The evidence here, consists of proof that prints can be made in the snow, and subsequently cast.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Check out the cast more closely.

I'm not sure what I should see..

Are you talking about what looks like grass and stuff that is in the cast, but not in the snow ?

If so, that is a good point..

It is possible ( probable IMO ) that we have a fake foot that made prints besides the ones we see in the snow; and the cast we see was not actually made from the print in the snow, but another print at another time and place.

So I guess I should have said:

" ... it does look to me like the cast was made from ' a ' print, that was made by the same foot ( fake or other wise ).. "


How's that ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think the toes, and the bunionettes, are anywhere near to lining up with the print in the snow.