Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freeman brought in at least thirty casts. Some of them may have been faked to keep Krantz interested, perhaps, but that doesn't mean they all were, especially the first ones.

So Freeman wasn't lying, he was merely misunderstood? Some may have been faked (hoaxed), but not all? Like I said, the credibility of 'hoaxers', like Robo or Dfoot, is forever tarnished, but contributions from hoaxers like Freeman or Marx are still used as supportive evidence by some in the bigfoot camp.

RayG
 
I just find these interviews funny....

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_7.adp

But he couldn't. "When I got on my knees and looked closely," he recalls, "I could see dermal ridge details"—the dips and whorls of fingerprints—"that would be awfully hard to fake."

In his lab in the Life Sciences building at Idaho State, where I go to meet him, Meldrum throws open drawers full of bones and footprints to find a cast of that Blue Mountain track. "Here it is," he says, holding up a white Shaquille-size plaster cast. "The subtle detail is incredible. Both humans and apes have only two phalanges, or segments, in their big toes and thumbs, and three in the rest. See this small toe? There's one, two, three phalanges. But look at the length of that. The foot is only about 15 inches, yet the small toe is as long as my pinkie finger. What that tells you is that this foot would have a grasping ability as good as my hand."

Fully hooked, Meldrum examined print casts that dated back to the late 1950s. Some he tossed as obvious hoaxes. Others contained impossible-to-fake signs of veracity. "When they discover tracks, most people cast only the clearest footprint," he says. "I looked for the messier prints, because they're the ones that tell me something about how the animal moved."

Then an even stranger thing happened. He started to recognize identical prints found years apart. "Here's the Bigfoot that Jerry Crew cast in 1958," he says, holding up a plaster cast familiar from the Humboldt Times photo. "Now here's a track found near Hyampom, California, about 60 miles south, in 1961. When you look at the shape, proportions, and relative positions of the toes, they're from the same guy. I say guy because it looks like a big male."

For Meldrum—who is a curator in the BFRO—the discovery of the Skookum Cast was also momentous. "The ridge detail I saw in the skin eliminates bear, elk, and coyote," he told me. "That sort of detail is characteristic only of primates."
 
Yeah, and if you curl your toes up to make them appear shorter, it changes your footprint considerably.

Heh, I curl MY toes up when I use them to retrieve things. :eek:

My big toe is 1-7/8" long, btw.

You have puny, girly-man toes. You need to exercise and stretch them out. :D

13D shoe size.

And the beauty is, the older ya get, the bigger yer feet. Not so terribly long ago a size 11 was a comfortable fit. Now I am unable to find ANY size 11 shoes or boots that fit, nothing less than a 13 now, thank you very much.

RayG
 
Game, set, match....

I don't play tennis.

...You're brainwashed. And you just admitted it....

I admitted accepting the teachings of the RCC. I did not admit to any brainwashing.

....I could go on and on...

Yeah. We know.

...Hunt, you'd fit in so nicely there....

Sorry. Been there. Didn't like it.

...And the vast majority of them believe in Bigfoot, alien abductions, the second Coming of Christ, and the infallibility of Sylvia Brown, et. al. You can also, apparently, marry your first cousins legally in North Carolina...

I believe in the liklihood that sasquatches exist (or existed until recently), I don't believe in alien abductions, I believe I will see Christ sometime after my physical death, I have no idea who Sylvia Brown is, et.al.

I don't know about the legality of marrying first cousins in North Caroline, here, or anywhere else, and couldn't give much of a damn, anyway. (But I have been involved in a debate on this forum regarding "defining marriage" (perhaps you can point out there that people across the nation are oppressed and discriminated against because they can't marry their first cousins like they can in NC).

...As for where I live - Ohio - I don't know much about the people from the state in general; I know a handful of people in Cincinnati, and I can tell you a few things about the natives: they have no taste in food (they think 'chili' is a dish with cinnamon poured over spaghetti), very Canadian taste in clothing (flannel shirts are ALWAYS in), and an absurd apathy about most issues that people go 'up in arms' over. But neither skeptic nor woo seems to dominate; rather, the predominant attitude is one of endlessly seeking drama....

"Do you have any evidence" that you can be happy anywhere? In any community?

...You wouldn't fit in too well here, though, Hunt - most folks here actively question the religious dogma the church tries to feed them, and realize that the RCC is nothing but a vast political organization founded by humans and run by humans - and as corrupt as any other organization on Earth....

I know I wouldn't fit in Ohio.

And, yes, all organizations on Earth made up of humans is corrupt, including the RCC.

And so?

...Do you question the policies and decisions of your government?...

Yup.

...If so, why don't you question the policies and decisions of your religion?...

I do.

...If not, you're a creduloid - plain and simple. But we knew that already...

Shows how much you "know".

...Did you catch any fish?...

Yup. A beautiful, 5.5 lb. Arctic Char, along with several, small kokanee salmon.

...I freed a dozen people in the time you were away, by the way. You may be a fisher of men, but I'm a freer of minds....

Like I wrote, I fish for fish, not men. I have no use for men. In fact, I've found most to be a pain in the a$$.

And I doubt you freed any minds. You just turned them from completely lost or adhering to one ideology to adhering to your own sad way of thinking.
 
.....Yup. A beautiful, 5.5 lb. Arctic Char, along with several, small kokanee salmon.



Like I wrote, I fish for fish, not men........

Just in case, and since I'm writing to a denialist, I thought I'd add some "evidence".

Now, want to discuss "hoaxes"?
 

Attachments

  • Big Lake Char Mar 06 002.jpg
    Big Lake Char Mar 06 002.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 14
And the beauty is, the older ya get, the bigger yer feet. Not so terribly long ago a size 11 was a comfortable fit. Now I am unable to find ANY size 11 shoes or boots that fit, nothing less than a 13 now, thank you very much.

RayG

Wow, is that really true? I understand the nose and ears continue to grow throughout ones life but do bony structures like the feet do as well? Surely if this is so it is the soft tissue and not the bones.

Of course, this would explain why my 20 year old cowboy boots are so hard to put on now...
 
Just in case, and since I'm writing to a denialist, I thought I'd add some "evidence".

Now, want to discuss "hoaxes"?

Nice fish, now if you could bring back a Bigfoot no one here, and I mean no one here would deny its existence.
 
Wow, is that really true?

Well, I shouldn't say that like it's a fact or anything, though these folks say the size of your feet 'changes' as you grow older, they don't actually say they grow larger. That's been my own finding though, size 13 used to be huge on me, but that's all I can fit into now.

I understand the nose and ears continue to grow throughout ones life...

Heh, wife looked at a picture of me the other day and wondered aloud why I had a banana stuck to the side of my head. It's bad enough to have prominent ears as a kid, but the thought that they're just gonna get bigger and bigger is not one I'm enthused about.

Of course, this would explain why my 20 year old cowboy boots are so hard to put on now...

Have you always taken the same size shoe as an adult? I dunno, maybe it's just a global shoe-making conspiracy, but in my case I've gone from 11 to 13. :cool:

RayG
 
I have certainly been guilty of diverging from discussing the Patterson Gimlin film in this thread, as we have seen the entire subject of Bigfootery discussed.

I would like to point out for all parties involved that name calling and religious bigotry do not further any arguments at all.

I am clearly open to charges of hypocrisy for referring to Ivan Sanderson as a "Crypto Crank" and the Minnesota Iceman as a "Fat-Fingered-Freak", though I would argue in my defense that Sanderson and the "Iceman" are both dead, and thus cannot be "injured" by name calling.

I won't deny I find the terms "Scoftic" and "Creduloid" somewhat amusing, but I am disheartened as a skeptic to see the level to which ad hom and ridicule is used by skeptics on this board. Bigfoot Forums is also seeing an increase in ad hom terms like "Denialist".

What logical bearing does ones religious orientation, or lack thereof, have on evidence for or against Bigfoot? Answer: none.

I appeal to everyone who posts on this thread to act like an adult, and avoid degenerating into name calling and bigotry.
 
Read Krantz, and have a laugh. Lots of comedy in this. He also says foot has to have short toes, rather than long ones....

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

Some of the comedy bits... "a guy told me" is evidence:

On one occasion I saw an actual footprint left in snow.

The first is the reported capture of a young specimen in 1884 near Yale, British Columbia, by a railroad crew (Green 1968, 1970; Sanderson 1961). The original newspaper account has recently been confirmed to me by the grandson of one of the men involved.

Patterson's estimate can be taken seriously because of his long good look at the animal and on his ability to accurately guess human weights — he called my own 210 pounds exactly.

The third case is quite unverified but fits well into the series. An experienced hunter and prospector in northeastern Washington claims to have shot and killed one. He told me it measured 8½ feet tall and weighed 850 pounds according to careful examination of the body. (Since he has produced no evidence to back up his story, it is assumed by some to have been fabricated.)

Funny caption for this pic:
anatomy2.jpg

Fig. 2. One of the best preserved footprints of a sasquatch ever photographed. This print shows the flattened arch, wide heel, and double ball, as well as the uniformly sized and nearly squared-off toes.

Major disagreement with Meldrum along with more comedy, a guy told him what the foot looked like:

Very long toes cannot be pressed into the ground with great force in walking. They do not directly transmit body weight, but will push down only as a result of the pull of the tendons along their undersides. The muscular strength available to flex or curl such long toes would not be nearly enough to dig them into the ground as deeply as the rest of the foot. Long toes would bend upward with each deeply indented step, yet all footprints show well-indented toe impressions.

Only a relatively short toe could have the proper tendon leverage to press firmly on the ground. In addition, at least two eye-witnesses have added some confirmation to this reconstruction. Roger Patterson has told me his sasquatch appeared to have remarkably thick ankles, although this did not show clearly in his movie strip. If the leg is set relatively farther forward on the foot than in man, then a thick ankle is a consequence. The man who claims to have shot and killed a sasquatch in northeast Washington early in 1970 described the foot to me in some detail. He was most impressed by the relatively short and steeply sloped upper surface of the forefoot.
 
There are almost no sasquatch prints that show a midtarsal break, which makes Meldrum's position all the more odd to me.

Take out the bear tracks, and I believe you have one print left, the one in the Laverty photo. Which is obviously fake to me.

It amazes me how you could take a photo of of one track in a line of forty as a bear track despite being told by tube, who's examined the cast of that print and Hunster, who's seen hundreds and even me, who's seen a few, that ain't no bear track. There's no way the 1089 tracks counted by Dahinden at Bossburg (and there are photos of the trackway, not just the one print), could be identically placed overlaid bear tracks. And that's just for starters. What about all those other tracks and casts? What about the eight consective casts from the PGF trackway? Or his casts of prints of other individuals? There was never a whiff of scandal about Titmus, yet he found as much if not more evidence than anyone.

The Laverty photo shows the midtarsal break, so of course you'd have to think it's a fake. It blows your whole case.
 
What about the eight consective casts from the PGF trackway?

What about them ?

No midtarsal break ..

No double ball..

Not disproportionally wide..

Nothing like the Laverty print, which is the jewel is Meldrum's midtarsal crown..


When, Lu, are you going to account for all the disparity in your indisputable evidence..
 
So Freeman wasn't lying, he was merely misunderstood? Some may have been faked (hoaxed), but not all? Like I said, the credibility of 'hoaxers', like Robo or Dfoot, is forever tarnished, but contributions from hoaxers like Freeman or Marx are still used as supportive evidence by some in the bigfoot camp.

RayG

If you read one of the first debates I was in on BFF you'd know I was pretty much the lone defender of Paul Freeman. I got jumped on by practically everyone except Judaculla.

I just think each piece of evidence should be looked at objectively. The casts from his sighting have evidently passed muster. They're the ones with the first dermals noted. Check out the photos:

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

I don't know what's been preserved from the tracks Dahinden examined, but his reason for dismissing them seems a little flimsy. Were the dermals under the debris those of Freeman or someone else? Were they Sasquatch dermals?If they were faked, might it not been an attempt (incredibly stupid) to get a known researcher like Dahinden in on the investigation? Was Dahinden aware dermals had been discovered on the earlier tracks? Did he have any use for Freeman or Krantz or did his own agenda of wanting to be "the one" color his thinking? What was the rest of the track like? There were several tracks. How many appeared faked? And what about Dahinden's hoax on Krantz? Should he be thrown into the pile with Robo and Dfoot (don't forget Blackdog)? Marx' hoaxes obviously tarnished his reputation. There's no queston he did what he did, but that doesn't mean he faked the tracks at Bossburg or even the handprints he found (even the "gullible" Dr. Krantz was suspicious). It didn't take long to expose him did it?

Freeman's a different story. He wasn't on the payroll, he moved to be near a hot spot, went out about three times a week, pursued his quest at his own expense (an estimated $50,000), and apparently brought in quite a bit of valid evidence. The 1994 footage doesn't look like his son in an ape suit to me. If he kind of lost it at some point I think I can understand it after some of the treatment he received.

How would Freeman have faked something like this in a line of forty tracks?

"In one print, the splaying toes pressed the first and fifth toes into sidewalls of the deep impressions, producing profiles of the respective digits - - to my knowledge, the first time this had been documented."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/blues.htm

Why doesn't Wes Summerlin get trashed along with Paul Freeman?

And why all the focus on Freeman and Marx? What about tracks found by people who had no part of "sasquatchery"? What about Sheriff Closner's cast? Sheriff Heryford's, the trackway on the farm near The Dalles that doesn't seem to have been reported anywhere that I can find, but which was photographed and investigated by local law enfocement? The Skamania County trackways? Powder Mountain?

I expect newbies could get the idea that the only tracks cast were from known hoaxers. That is nowhere close to the reality.
 
What about them ?

No midtarsal break ..

No double ball..

Not disproportionally wide..

Nothing like the Laverty print, which is the jewel is Meldrum's midtarsal crown..


When, Lu, are you going to account for all the disparity in your indisputable evidence..

You've seen these casts taken nine days later, which show articulating toes and damage from rain?

Patterson and Laverty recorded the "best". Titmus recorded the ones that are of interest to an anatomist.

Again, female feet may tend to be narrower. The "double ball" is not characteristic and may just be from bunching of an unusually thick plantar pad. There are many other examples showing width. The midtarsal break isn't going to show if the foot is put down flat, as it is in a compliant gait. If the foot bends it will show, and it did.

Do you guys focus just on famous incidents because you don't know much about any others?
 
Last edited:
If you read one of the first debates I was in on BFF you'd know I was pretty much the lone defender of Paul Freeman. I got jumped on by practically everyone except Judaculla.

I just think each piece of evidence should be looked at objectively. The casts from his sighting have evidently passed muster. They're the ones with the first dermals noted. Check out the photos:
O.K.

derm1.jpg



There's a problem here LU..

Those prints have none the indistputable features that Meldrum has determined are characteristic of Sas..

Surely Meldrum has examined these.. What does he say about them ?


If Sas prints are supposed to have dermals, where are they in the other ' best ' examples ?
 
Last edited:
You've seen these casts taken nine days later, which show articulating toes and damage from rain?

What is it? Damage from rain or another individual ?

Huntster argued that the Laverty print was protected from the rain...



The famous ones are supposed to be the best ..

Why should we look at anything else ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom