Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Hitch]

What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...

Because a quick and dirty analysis of those two frames and using a foot length of 14.5 inches gives a figure less than 5' 6" tall... and that can't possibly be right.


...can it?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, Diogenes. When I do a quick comparison on my monitor, it looks like Patty's arm is 2 foot-lengths long and about evenly divided at the elbow. That would match a human arm.

 

[Hitch]

Yeah, Diogenes. When I do a quick comparison on my monitor, it looks like Patty's arm is 2 foot-lengths long and about evenly divided at the elbow. That would match a human arm.

That can't be right, either.


...can it?

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't know, Hitch. I realize that I don't really know what I am doing with the comparisons.

The more I study, the more I see a man walking stoop shouldered in a furry suit.....

Why is Patty looking for money on the ground, anyway.....?

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty's shoulders just don't seem all that wide either, if her foot is 14.5" long.

Maybe it's just me?

 

[Hitch]

Patty's shoulders just don't seem all that wide either, if her foot is 14.5" long.

Maybe it's just me?

Or maybe it really is just a guy in a costume.


...nah, that's just crazy talk.

 

[William Parcher]

What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...

The height estimate was attempted using this frame over on BFF. I believe the foot size of 14.5" is taken from the tracks, which we don't really know came from the subject itself.

 

[Orthoptera]

What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...

You are all out: Glickman's 1998 NASI report definitively measures the Patterson subject as 7' 3.5", with a weight of 1957 lbs. That's right, 1 ton. Since no human could walk in a suit that heavy, it can't be a person in a suit. Case closed.

ETA: And yes she insists on the half-inch: it's a sasquatch thing.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, no hoaxer could carry an extra 1800 pounds and walk like that.....

1 ton on each foot crashing down.... (and only on half a foot sometimes according to Meldrum)

Imagine that running...

You'd hear Patty coming a mile away.

I have to wonder why anyone would even bother to write such a ridiculous thing.

 

[Huntster]

....I am confused by your contention that it is somehow prejudiced and unscientific to think Dfoots work calls into question the validity of the P&G film.....

That isn't my contention. Dfoot is building a suit. When finished to his satisfaction, he promised to videotape it in action. I'm waiting for that before rendering judgement.

I also contend that a person presently employed in the motion picture industry has a much greater ability to build a convincing suit than a rodeo rider in 1967.

...What he has accomplished is to seriously undermine two of the major tenets bigfoot advocates claim. (1) No one has ever come close to replicating the suit. (2) Materials where not available to patterson during the late 1960's.....

He has done neither yet. Again, I await seeing the suit in action.

...I am unaware of "putting the suit in motion" ever being one of Dfoot original goals, he seems to have stated "look what I have discovered and how I did it".....

He made his promise to put the suit in action over at the BFF.

...I am not sure why anyone has to refrain from judgement, he built a suit it looks pretty damn good he explained how he made it using 1960s materials.....

The PG film is showing motion, which can reveal weaknesses in a man-made suit. It can also show muscle movement, foot flex, etc.

It is very reasonable to withhold judgement of Dfoots suit until it is seen in motion like the PG film subject.

We don't want to pre-judge, do we?

...and exactly what would a dog do if he had square ***.?

If a dog has a square....rectum..., he'll.....defecate....bricks.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are all out: Glickman's 1998 NASI report definitively measures the Patterson subject as 7' 3.5", with a weight of 1957 lbs. That's right, 1 ton. Since no human could walk in a suit that heavy, it can't be a person in a suit. Case closed.

ETA: And yes she insists on the half-inch: it's a sasquatch thing.

Isn't Glickman's weight estimate based off of the body proportions? Given that male gorillas achieve ~180 lbs and gigantopithecus is guesstimated as ~600 lbs it would suggest to me that... costume stuffing doesn't weigh much. *shrug*

 

[Hitch]

If a dog has a square....rectum..., he'll.....defecate....bricks.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, canine fecal matter is rarely employed as construction material, so your hypothesis would seem to be somewhat flawed.

 

[Dfoot]

That isn't my contention. Dfoot is building a suit. When finished to his satisfaction, he promised to videotape it in action. I'm waiting for that before rendering judgement.

I also contend that a person presently employed in the motion picture industry has a much greater ability to build a convincing suit than a rodeo rider in 1967.

The PG film is showing motion, which can reveal weaknesses in a man-made suit. It can also show muscle movement, foot flex, etc.

It is very reasonable to withhold judgement of Dfoots suit until it is seen in motion like the PG film subject.


HUNTSTER-- I've been too busy to bother with any suit-making (other than the one I built over Halloween weekend). When I get a break in the schedule I will give it a try though.

The PG film shows all of the flaws that ONLY a suit produces. The back of the neck separates from the head/helmet when Heironimus turns. The thigh pad juts out as he bends forward. The seams around the butt pads that are an exact match for those used by John Chambers and others are evident. Not to mention the floppy foot connected to the suit that slides back and forth and the shoulder pad that runs straight across the shoulder instead of tapering down as a normal muscle would.

Here's Andy Lau running in his muscle suit. It's made of latex rubber - just like the rubber suit worn by the "Gorn" character on STAR TREK in 1966.

Patterson was a much better artist than me. He also sculpted Bigfoot busts. He also built all sorts of wagons and inventions. I can do none of those things. Since Roger rented an ape suit from Hollywood in 1961 he could have easily figured out how to make this. Yet... it probably was made by someone like Chambers. It's only a modified gorilla suit circa 1967.

That's the truth of it - whether I build an "Andy Lau special" or a Patterson caveman/gorilla. The guy was pulling a hoax for his own reasons and he did make a nice chunk of cash out of the deal along with his brother in law.

The half dressed gorillas at the bottom also use helmet/heads that tuck inside the neck. They are just not separating as happened with Heironimus that day.

- Dfoot

 

[tube]

Well, it may be a combination of things. The foot is also lighter and exposes, or overexposes more quickly. In other words the lighter color under the foot tends to "wash out". This combined with the swift movement of the foot likely caused the squarish image of the foot. The other alternative is that someone produced an unprecedentedly good suit and then put a block of a foot on it. M.K.

If this combination of things is indeed responsible for creating the illusion of a square heel then how can you eliminate these factors from being responsible for other features, like the alleged "mid foot flexibility"?

If a feature as coarse as a square heel is a photographic illusion then how can you be sure that much finer features such as boils, scars, and eye infections are not photographic illusions too?

Marlon, have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

 

[RayG]

You mean the message they'll toss your arse out of here if you keep that up didn't come up for you?

Nope. I even went back and tried both left/right-clicking on the images -- nothing happened. (Probably 'cause I've got Adblock running on my Firefox)

The casts are still considered good evidence by some.

Mostly those that refuse to see Marx for the hoaxter/huckster that he was.

If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

That only works if you start with a real ruby.

Each piece of evidence has to be examined objectively.

No argument from me on that.

Some of the handprints are pretty interesting, too.

But that doesn't make them squatch prints. Sorry, if someone is associated with hoaxing, anything they produce should be rendered useless.

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

It's rather useless to discuss PGF with some footers. They stick to what can only be defined as false beliefs, such as how hard it would be to make a Patty suit even with today's FX tech, etc. etc. etc.

Dfoot touched an issue that has already been debated in one of the bigfoot threads over here. It was claimed by footers that Star Trek was a show with a decent budget, and the show has not managed to produce anything like Patty.

Pictures of the gorn, mugato (albino gorilla with horns) and salt vampire suits were shown. It is also known to any Star Trek fan that the original series was a low-budget TV series, quite often re-using props. And still, footers stick to their lore...

 

[M.K.Davis]

If this combination of things is indeed responsible for creating the illusion of a square heel then how can you eliminate these factors from being responsible for other features, like the alleged "mid foot flexibility"?

If a feature as coarse as a square heel is a photographic illusion then how can you be sure that much finer features such as boils, scars, and eye infections are not photographic illusions too?

Marlon, have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

Well, Matt, do you think that the dog's eye is an illusion? Certainly the head has been stretched and skewed. You are using much too weighty a word when you say assertion. I say what I think. When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. I'd like to think that I can talk about them, without being stoned if I'm wrong. I'm looking for answers like everyone else. I can change course in mid stream if need be. Here's and example. ://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/honey.htm Go here and view a video that led me down an entirely different road than what I expected. M.K.

 

[M.K.Davis]

Well, Matt, do you think that the dog's eye is an illusion? Certainly the head has been stretched and skewed. You are using much too weighty a word when you say assertion. I say what I think. When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. I'd like to think that I can talk about them, without being stoned if I'm wrong. I'm looking for answers like everyone else. I can change course in mid stream if need be. Here's and example. ://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/honey.htm Go here and view a video that led me down an entirely different road than what I expected. M.K.

They won't let me post a URL until I have posted 15 times. ( surely I must be getting close ). So add http to the front of the previous address. M.K.

 

[RayG]

My point was that these things had already been found by the last day of the expedition. What good would it have done to gather more of the same during a "hot pursuit"?

Seems like a more logical plan of action than what they DID do.

Sceptics would dismiss the evidence afterward as easlily as any found before. I'm not sure when the scat was found. The hair was afterward, of course, and found in the imprint. It was too close to human to rule out contamination, but the physical examination indicated it wasn't human. Even Sarmiento said that it wasn't human (on LMS). It had never been cut.

Too close to human to rule out contamination, but Sarmiento claims it wasn't human. Who did the actual hair analysis?

As I've mentioned a gazillion times, I used to live in Skamania County.

And I've lived here (454 miles from North Pole) but it doesn't make me an arctic authority.

It's not a great reach for me to think the imprint shows what it seems to show, and all other possiblities, including elk, seem to have been ruled out. There were experiments done.

So when did they drag in elk, deer, coyote and bear for print comparisons?

Kinda reminds me of this:

If members of the team had been up all night and actually seen the animal sit down, would their testimony make any difference, or would they just be dismissed as liars?

People are mistaken all the time, it doesn't make them liars. Now, if they'd brought back an actual squatch, all the skeptics would be eating crow. (well, not really, because skeptics aren't saying squatch CANNOT exist)

Too bad someone didn't set a bear trap under the mud where the animal was going to sit down.

Too bad they broke camp just when they were |__| that close.

There might have been a sizeable chunk of DNA left behind.

Would have certainly provided better evidence.

What an appalling lack of foresite! And they should have brought a large cage and some elephant guns, of course, and more than enough cameras.............a full scale scientific expedition would have thought of all this, of course, and never mind the cost

Wasn't this a BFRO expedition? Don't BFRO expeditions almost always have some sort of encounter? Doesn't the BFRO claim to be a scientific organization?

It would be interesting to see a list of all qualified scientists who have actually bothered to look at the cast and their conclusions. Dr. Daegling been there yet?

It's a very short list.

RayG

 

[RayG]

The Skookum cast is interesting, but useless.

No one can tell what it is with any certainty at all.

Some people believe stongly that it was left by a bigfoot, but that means very little.

There is no actual useable evidence to show that it was left by a bigfoot.

None.

Now, if we had some corroboration....like what might have come to light if this particular bigfoot had been followed.

Or if we had some primate hairs, or DNA (we don't have either no matter how many times it is claimed we do) it would certainly be harder for me to say the print could not be connected to bigfoot.

Regarding primate hairs, though....
I notice no one taking precautions against their own hair falling into the mud while making the skookum cast. People are leaning right over the mud and whatever is on their clothes and their bodies is falling all over the print and contaminating it. We know that someone actually stepped in the mud, as well.

I'd have to disagree. I haven't found the Skookum cast 'interesting' for a very long time.

Even Meldrum no longer finds it as compelling as he once did.

RayG