Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

And this one ..

Sorry, could no longer resist..

P.S.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason that face looks familiar..

Somehow, that face image got converted or translated to this...

LAL, talks about Patty's lips in this BFF thread: "Patty's lips, the lips of a hominid?"

 

[LTC8K6]

The variations in the stories around the P/G film are well documented here and on the web, Lu. Those variations include the casts.

The two men followed the creature during more than 30’ until they loose the tracks in the mountains. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured 14.5-inches long by 6-inches wide. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment and made plaster casts of the creature's prints. The following days, heavy showers removed any opportunity to come closer to Bigfoot.

http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/roger_patterson.htm

The heavy showers should have damaged the prints even if they were under pieces of bark. Water would have run under the bark and filled in any prints that were deep, too.

In this history of the film, the Bluff Creek road had "caved away".

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

Here, Titmus has made 10 casts from the sand bars of the Bluff Creek bed "soon" after the incident. Why would those tracks still be there in sand bars in the creek bed? We know from BG that the creek rose way up the night of the filming.

"The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!" (From JG / BG interview.)

Titmus located the Patterson film site soon after the incident and cast ten tracks in the sand bars of the creek bed.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/wcmuseum.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

More from the JG/BG interview. Note that BG believes the tracks are going to disappear in the rain. He is glad that they filmed the tracks and the experiments with track depth because he believes it will all be washed away. He's right.

BG says he covered the tracks with bark. Presumably he did not cover them all. He couldn't have covered any in the creek bed as far as I can tell.

I am forced to wonder if the tracks Titmus cast were actually made by Patty on her stroll.

I would really like some clarification on what BG said after "It was a good thing we did, because when we came back,". I am assuming he followed that with a comment about the rain, but I'd really like to know exactly what he said or meant.

EDIT: Well, it didn't start raining until 5:30 the next morning, so he couldn't have been talking about it raining. So why was he so glad they had filmed the tracks? What happened when they got back that made him glad they had already filmed the tracks?

Okay, I’ll go back a little bit to the casting of the tracks. I rode the big horse. The horse that I was riding was around 1200-1300 pounds. I rode him along side the tracks with this new film in the camera, Roger took pictures of how deep the horse’s prints were in the soil compared to the creature’s tracks. Then I got up on a stump which was approximately 3 to 4 feet, you know? We didn’t measure it, probably should have. Anyway I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my foot print went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. 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, ..’course we were pretty excited about just seeing it and we sat there and talked about it until about 12:30 or one o’clock in the morning.

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.

 

[LTC8K6]

Gimlin: No, it was gravel mostly, but there was sand and dirt where it went across the creek, but it never left a footprint in the sand or in the dirt or soil. It did leave a wet mark on the rock in the creek where is went across and went on into the hills from there.

So, what did Bob Titmus cast?

How did Patty walk across the sand and dirt of the creek bed without leaving a track?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

 

[William Parcher]

The variations in the stories around the P/G film are well documented here and on the web, Lu. Those variations include the casts.

The heavy showers should have damaged the prints even if they were under pieces of bark. Water would have run under the bark and filled in any prints that were deep, too.

Damn straight!

The two men followed the creature during more than 30’ until they loose the tracks in the mountains. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured 14.5-inches long by 6-inches wide. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment and made plaster casts of the creature's prints. The following days, heavy showers removed any opportunity to come closer to Bigfoot.

"The two men followed the creature during more than 30' until they loose the tracks in the mountains."

Huh? They did not loose (sic... few people know the word differences of lose and loose) her after 30 feet. Gimlin has more than once said that they tracked Patty for 3.5 miles up the mountain after filming her (and before they began to cast her tracks back at the filming site).

In this history of the film, the Bluff Creek road had "caved away".

And yet, Lyle Laverty made his way up this road the following day (same day, if you account for Gimlin stating that heavy rains were occuring in the very early morning) and photographed these tracks that had been protected by pieces of bark.

Here, Titmus has made 10 casts from the sand bars of the Bluff Creek bed "soon" after the incident. Why would those tracks still be there in sand bars in the creek bed? We know from BG that the creek rose way up the night of the filming.

Bob Titmus made those castings 9 days after the PGF incident. He also located a place in the ferns overlooking the film site, where he claimed that Patty sat down and watched P&G. This was all 9 days after the incident.

Bob Heironimus claims that the hoax filming affair never even occured on the day that P&G stated. He said that they filmed him in the Bigfoot costume weeks prior that the given date.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think he was trying to use the ' as a seconds symbol. It should have been 30" of course for 30 seconds. Since he said "during", I am assuming he meant the 30 seconds of the P/G film.

 

[William Parcher]

I think he was trying to use the ' as a seconds symbol. It should have been 30" of course for 30 seconds. Since he said "during", I am assuming he meant the 30 seconds of the P/G film.

Regardless, P&G did not really truly lose Patty after 30' of film or 30' of ground. Gimlin said that he saw her walking "up the logging road" about 300 yards away and that they then tracked her for 3.5 miles up the mountain.

 

[William Parcher]

I didn't see it.

No. Patterson and De Atley formed a company, but I don't recall the exact name. They didn't do any "hunting". They did a tour with the film.

I don't know about the Argosy part, but he and De Atley evidently were throwing money in the air in a hotel room. The money was from public showings. De Atley said he only made about $75,000 off the film.

I don't know how often it was shown on TV while he was still alive. Dahinden bought Gimlin's share for a reported $26, then spent a lot getting things straightened out (Roger had oversold rights). The film was tied up in copyright disputes for years. With Dahinden's death, Patricia Patterson evidently owns the rights now.

As I mentioned in another post, De Atley claimed the attention the Iceman recieved hurt the tour. I don't have Long's book on hand, but it contains an interview with De Ately about this.

Lu, you yourself posted about this organization called "American National - whatever", somewhere in your 920+ postings about Bigfoot. What was the name of that organization? It was supposed to be based on the finding and filming of Bigfoots after the PGF. Patterson was the key man to hunt down and create more footage for this organization. Was this organization paying Patterson a salary to keep looking for more Bigfoots?

Are you saying that Patterson & DeAtley were tossing around $75,000 cash in a hotel room? Whose money was that? The story goes that Patterson was hurling it around and suddenly feeling rich. Was it actually DeAtley's cash that Roger was tossing around?

Regardless, you say "DeAtley said he only made about $75,000 off the film." So, is this $75K in 1968-69 dollars?

It has been said that people first saw the PGF when it played in theaters as a "short" before a feature film. Did you say that you saw it this way? Who was being paid the money for each of these short presentations of the copyrighted PGF in theaters?

 

[William Parcher]

So, what did Bob Titmus cast?

How did Patty walk across the sand and dirt of the creek bed without leaving a track?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

Who the hell knows what Bob Titmus cast or saw at Bluff Creek 9 days after the PGF was said to be filmed. Titmus was a "Bigfoot believer". We only have his testimony. He did not seem to have undergone any skeptical "cross examination" afterwards. None of these Bigfoot woos were given any decent skeptical questioning afterwards. All we have are interviews by other Bigfoot believers (i.e. Green). There was no organized Bigfoot skepticism back then. In many ways, there still isn't. For the most part, the world belives that Bigfoot is a myth. Why create any profound "movement" to show that Bigfoot is a scam? The burden of proof is always on the believers. The world needs a chunk of Bigfoot flesh before it will think that this isn't a big mirage.

Maybe there weren't any castable tracks at Bluff Creek when Titmus arrived nine days later (remember the rains and flooded creek). Maybe Titmus made his own tracks and cast them. Would Patterson (the hoaxer) then claim that Titmus was a hoaxer?

Remember my opinion.... Bigfoot is hoaxes stacked on top of other hoaxes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Regardless, P&G did not really truly lose Patty after 30' of film or 30' of ground.

Well, it's hard to lose Patty if you brought her with you.

 

[LTC8K6]

Q: Which is your most impressive cast in your mind?


A: [ Pause ] Probably an unusual one from the casts that Bob Titmus made at the Patterson/Gimlin film site. There's a real break in the middle of it. For years we just assumed that it had stepped on a stick, but when Jeff Meldrum was studying the casts, he pointed out very quickly that there is a twig sticking out of the ground right beside it, but this had nothing to do with it. The imprint was made by a foot that bends in a way that human feet don't.


Q: The midtarsal break?


A: Yes, the midtarsal break. I just have a plastic copy of the that one, but I think that is the most impressive footprint now that this information has come out.

Okay, so there is a cast of this print, but it was not made until 9 days later by Titmus.

http://www.westcoast-sasquatch.com/jginterview2.html

 

[LTC8K6]

The top one perhaps? It looks severely deteriorated compared to the photo, if it's the same. The toes don't appear to be curved enough to match the photo, though.

Caption to the above pic: Fig. 5. Photos of 1967 Bluff Creek casts top: 13 ins, bottom: 15 ins.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The imprint was made by a foot that bends in a way that human feet don't.

Just ONE print that shows this feature? !

I'm convinced...

Few of these prints remotely resemble a real print of anything..


We don't see to have that problem with the prints og any other animal..

 

[Thurkon]

Gimlin was not only cut out of the proceeds, he was never reimbursed for his expenses on the trip. If anyone had reason to expose a hoax, Gimlin did, but he's never wavered. Neither did Patterson.

Note the intention was to track it with dogs.

Gimlin's reluctance to admit a hoax doesn't mean said hoax wasn't committed.

Remember, Gimlin has made Bigfoot money for years appearing at conferences on the Bigfoot circuit.

He is also paid to participate in Moneymaker's BFRO Big Cash Roundups.

It's funny how you can't even admit the possibility of a hoax.

What happened to the tracking dogs? Were they too terrified of Foot to follow? Or did they lead the trackers back to Bob Hieronimous' trunk?

You're too funny, Lu. My scrappy mutt of a dog chased a bear through the woods for a half mile. But I guess Foot is a whole different story. Must be the smell...

 

[William Parcher]

If Bob Gimlin were to now admit that the PGF was a hoax, he would also have to admit that he had been continually hoaxing the world since 1967.

It's interesting (and I suppose sad) that Gimlin won't speak to Bob Heironimus, even though they still live on the same street in Yakima, Washington. Heironimus has said that both Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the Bigfoot costume at Bluff Creek before Patterson began filming him. That is an extremely bold thing to say about a living man who can rebut the statement at any time and in any way.

I think that the greatest Bigfoot story is not being told. That would be a collaboration of the joint recollections of Gimlin and Heironimus about how they and Patterson attempted to fool the world. They only ended up fooling a small percentage. Each man could correct and support each others memories of the events. Heironimus has recalled this to Greg Long, but there are things that he obviously is remembering incorrectly. Ironically, because Heironimus says things about the costume that really don't perfectly match what we see in the PGF... it ends up supporting his integrity. It means that he is not a liar who studied the film to make sure that his false story has no variances from what is to be seen.

Bigfoot wackos are hyperattentive to every word uttered by Heironimus, but they are hypoattentive to the things that were said by Patterson & Gimlin soon after the filming. They remain less than attentive to what Gimlin still says. Gimlin doesn't say much at all other than that he thought he saw a Bigfoot at Bluff Creek in 1967 (which Patterson filmed). He does go on to say that "it could have been a hoax", but if it was, he had no knowledge of it.

Bob Heironimus is the aging singing canary that wore the Bigfoot costume. Bob Gimlin is the aging "Tar Baby". Bigfooters consider Gimlin a saint and Heironimus an idiot liar.

 

[LAL]

Gimlin's reluctance to admit a hoax doesn't mean said hoax wasn't committed.

And your reluctance to accept Gimlin's honesty doesn't mean there was a hoax committed.

Remember, Gimlin has made Bigfoot money for years appearing at conferences on the Bigfoot circuit.

Sources? Does he make as much as, say, Bill Clinton? These groups don't have much money, and most haven't been around very long. If he's reimbursed for time and travel now, I see nothing wrong with that.

He is also paid to participate in Moneymaker's BFRO Big Cash Roundups.

Definitely source that.

It's funny how you can't even admit the possibility of a hoax.

What happened to the tracking dogs? Were they too terrified of Foot to follow? Or did they lead the trackers back to Bob Hieronimous' trunk?

In the case of the PGF, no hoax. Heironimus wasn't there.

Evidently the team with the dogs never showed up. The point was that the people investigating wanted to use dogs. Some seem to have have implied they were too stupid to have thought of that.

You're too funny, Lu. My scrappy mutt of a dog chased a bear through the woods for a half mile. But I guess Foot is a whole different story. Must be the smell...

The smell is not always reported. Seems to be like that of Gorillas' "fear smell", like a mix of feces and sweat. (Schaller said he could tell when he was within 100 yards of Gorillas by the smell.)

How does your dog mean I'm "too funny"? Some dogs have chased Sasquatches ........... with fatal results.

 

[LTC8K6]

Some dogs have chased Sasquatches ........... with fatal results.

Links? Any bigfoot DNA or hairs found on the dog's bodies?

Did you know that the copy of the P/G film used in LMS was zoomed, Lu?

 

[LAL]

The top one perhaps? It looks severely deteriorated compared to the photo, if it's the same. The toes don't appear to be curved enough to match the photo, though.

Toes articulate......living ones, anyway.

Titmus took casts nine days later, remember? The caption doesn't really identify which casts these are.

Caption to the above pic: Fig. 5. Photos of 1967 Bluff Creek casts top: 13 ins, bottom: 15 ins.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html

There were three Sasquatches in the area leaving tracks.

"Since 1967 hardly a year has passed without someone announcing that they have proved the Patterson movie a hoax. I have kept no record of all the people who are supposed to have made the hairy suit, or worn it. The stories contradict each other every which way, and you can be sure there will be a different one along next year and another the year after that. What I do have is a lot of firsthand knowledge about the people and circumstances involved. I knew Roger Patterson quite well before he got the movie, and I had considerable contact with him afterwards. He may not have had an unblemished reputation in his community, but he was entirely sincere in his efforts in the sasquatch search, and he had neither the skills to attempt to fake such a creature nor the money to hire anyone who did. As a matter of fact a senior executive in the Disney organization told me in 1969 that they did not have the ability to match it, if they wanted something like that they would have to draw it."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Some dogs have chased Sasquatches ........... with fatal results.

We missed that one.. They recovered Squatch DNA from the dogs, right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Titmus took casts nine days later, remember?

That was after the torential rains, and the creek being up several feet, right?