Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

For example, in the 1992 interview, Gimlin says the creek was 6 or 7 feet across and swelled to 10 or 12 feet across & 4 feet deep with the rains.

 

[Huntster]

...Yet I already posted the images of Patty that I used and explained where they came from.

The one you are referring to I got from the SASQUATCH ODYSSEY dvd....

Are you stating that the figure in your photo job below came from the Patterson film as seen on the Sasquatch Odyssey dvd?

If so, and since you were able to perform such a wonderful job pasting that figure on a suburban street, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to post it here as it is seen in the dvd, should it?

 

[UrsulaV]

Let us know when you get here; post #30, to be specific, Ms. Skeptic.

It's Mrs. Skeptic, actually. And I suspect that you're mistaken, and frantically trying to come up with a reason that your intial impression wasn't wrong, because it's infuriating to you that you might have claimed that Patty didn't look enough like Patty, and have come up with "these are different photos" as the only one that might work.

But of course, bein' a good skeptic I'll wait for better evidence to support my hypothesis before I make the claim for sure. And if I'm wrong, I'll even admit that yup, I'm fallible!

 

[Huntster]

It's Mrs. Skeptic, actually....

In today's social norms, I thought "Miss" and "Mrs." were both shortened to "Ms." in order not to offend.

I guess, when one wants to be offended, it can go both, or even many ways?

...And I suspect that you're mistaken, and frantically trying to come up with a reason that your intial impression wasn't wrong, because it's infuriating to you that you might have claimed that Patty didn't look enough like Patty, and have come up with "these are different photos" as the only one that might work.

But of course, bein' a good skeptic I'll wait for better evidence to support my hypothesis before I make the claim for sure. And if I'm wrong, I'll even admit that yup, I'm fallible....

As a "good skeptic", and one who needs, loves, seeks, and adores evidence, let your suspicions be put to rest:

Join me in asking Dfoot for the image he used to create this photo:

 

[LTC8K6]

Dfoot, so it is from the PGF frame that I posted then, except a DVD version of it? The one where I said I thought Patty's legs looked skinny?

 

[LAL]

This would be why, Lu:

And what does that have to do with me?

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay, back to the water question. I see lots of water in the stills generally attributed to reel #1, yet I see no water in the PGF. I think I can see the dry creek bed in my "Sobriety Test" still:

 

[LTC8K6]

And what does that have to do with me?

I can see into the future.

Why not? We seem to know more about it than anyone in your seldom responding cheering section.

Can't take the heat? I guess you know where the door to the kitchen is.

 

[LAL]

For example, in the 1992 interview, Gimlin says the creek was 6 or 7 feet across and swelled to 10 or 12 feet across & 4 feet deep with the rains.

Creek bed depth varies. In the Northwest creeks can be narrow, wide, nearly blocked by rock all in a distance of several hundred feet. They can go from rivulets to torrents in a single season.They aren't like the lazy streams one sees here in red clay country.

Hancock House still isn't coming up, but I posted the diagram somewhere on BFF. I'll try to find it later. She was quite a distance from the creek during most of the filming.

 

[Dfoot]

Are you stating that the figure in your photo job below came from the Patterson film as seen on the Sasquatch Odyssey dvd?

If so, and since you were able to perform such a wonderful job pasting that figure on a suburban street, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to post it here as it is seen in the dvd, should it?

Sure... Isn't this an example of what I've been talking about?

I posted over there STEP BY STEP the methods I used.

First I took an image of Patty that I thought fewer people would recognize and made it deliberately darker. I took one of the hands of Patty from another frame and attached it then com posited that onto a photo of a house.

No... the legs are not skinnier than Patty's. Those are Patty's legs from the very frame of the film shown below. Only the hand is different.

When no one realized that this was Patty (I expected at least one expert to see it) I then posted three more shots. Each shot was progressively more obvious until the last was simply a close shot of Patty's back that everyone who's seen the film once at a drive-in should be able to figure out.

So that's it. Again I find myself re-explaining what I already explained.

Now comes the post where Huntster tells me how he was wrong. I hope. Or maybe the it's time for another episode of attack the messenger with stringent denials and diversions from the point.

Let's all just stop for moment and recall the words of our president:

"Fool me once, shame on .... you... Fool me... you... Fool... me... Ya can't get fooled again."

The man has a point. Hopefully you'll apply it to the Patterson fraud and not to my demonstration of how vulnerable we can all be when we want something to be a film of a Sasquatch so bad that nothing will dissuade us from believing in it. Not even the truth.

- Dfoot

 

[LTC8K6]

So, I spotted the correct PGF frame right away, then?

 

[LAL]

I have to say I was surprised to read that LAL didn't even own a copy of LMS which is supposed to be the clearest version of the film available. How is it she has been able to make all these definitive statements about what she's seeing on it? Strange. Hopefully shes got it by now and can focus better on the moving muscle masses, fecal material and impossible to reproduce gait.

Where did you read that? Link, please.

I own both the DVD and the VHS. I ordered the DVD after I found the tape to be inadequate; no extras section. I've owned both for, hm, about a year. I was accused of trying to sell it soon after I joined this board so I undoubtedly owned it then.

You might have asked me instead of throwing out another false claim. I'm not dead, you know.

Did you retract the false claim about Patricia Patterson's brother yet?

 

[Huntster]

....First I took an image of Patty that I thought fewer people would recognize and made it deliberately darker. I took one of the hands of Patty from another frame and attached it then com posited that onto a photo of a house.

No... the legs are not skinnier than Patty's. Those are Patty's legs from the very frame of the film shown below. Only the hand is different....

Okay, folks:

Does that mesh with what you see?

 

[Bronze Dog]

I'm suddenly reminded of this.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here we have Bluff Creek with water in it, but that doesn't appear to match with the PGF to me. Patty was right next to the creek according to P/G's story and she even crossed it. I can see in my sobriety test still that Patty is not far from the creek as she walks.

 

[Dfoot]

LTC86K -- Yep. You got the correct frame that goes with the first pic. The close shot of the feet appear to be the same frame as seen in LMS. They cropped the image in their "full frame" version of the PG film.

Huntster -- Below is further evidence of meshing. The pic I put in front of the house is the image on the left. Here I have returned it to Bluff Creek. It's the same Patty as the one you see here.

If one cannot understand that this is the same image even after having it explained, then how can one possibly claim to be able to dismiss the obvious creature suit problems that I've brought up - the jutting thigh pad, back of the neck separation, the line of the opening across the front, the common padding and stitching used in the buttocks, etc...?

LAL -- I read that somewhere over at BFF about you wishing you had a copy of LMS or something. Maybe that was an old post. If you have it then that's even worse. It means you are looking at the things I'm describing and they don't register in your brain. You are still seeing the version of the trick the illusionist wants you to see.

- Dfoot

 

[RayG]

Let us know when you get here; post #30, to be specific, Ms. Skeptic.

I'm getting confused.

Huntster, did you not post this:

* Photo not very clear; needs to be cleared up like Patterson film
* Legs too long and skinny
* Torso looks about right
* Arms too skinny, and not at similar length ratio with legs like Patterson subject
* Of course, as a still and not a movie, we can't see movement
* Also, of course, details like toes found after stabilization of the Patterson film not visible

on the BFF as a response to this post and image that Dfoot posted?

RayG

 

[UrsulaV]

Okay, folks:

Does that mesh with what you see?

I just overlaid 'em in photoshop. The problem, of course, is that at that size you can't see very clearly at all, since you're dealing with so much pixelization, but yes, insomuch as they're both crappy photos at that size, and the original is awfully dark, if you flip one horizontally and scale it down, the little curved trough of the leg does match up pretty well, and the overall shape seems to line up, too (insomuch as one can tell, since it gets awfully dark on the upper of the original, and adjusting the contrasts just introduces even more potential artifact) except for the one hand that Dfoot stated was indeed changed. (Did you rotate the image at all, Dfoot? It doesn't look like you did, so I'm wondering, since I didn't rotate anything on my end, but that could introduce another level of confusion.)

Granted that I do computer art for a living and I know how easy it is to fake this stuff, I certainly can't claim that either photo isn't doctored in some fashion, but I can get the two to line up to my satisfaction, and say "Yeah, this is probably the same image." (I'd post a photo, but it doesn't look like anything--you have to fool with the transparency and turn the layer off and on to compare, and the composite image i's just a mushy pixellated blob.)

Since there's no earthly reason anyone should take anybody as an expert in this ridiculous field, I encourage people to try it for themselves, which will of course allow people to say "I couldn't make it line up!" and stay happy with their own opinions. Everybody wins!

Edit: I should add, just as a caveat, that I wouldn't trust photos this crappy as proof of the existence of ANYTHING--Bigfoots, suits, whatever. It might just about prove that somebody has a camera. Maybe.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Okay, back to the water question. I see lots of water in the stills generally attributed to reel #1, yet I see no water in the PGF. I think I can see the dry creek bed in my "Sobriety Test" still:

We have this from the holy handbook to LMS.. ( wonder if this will be part of Meldrum's book ?)

Patterson seemed to have stayed close to the creek while Bob, urrh, uhh, ...Patty walked away..

I believe Patterson may have crossed the creek just before the end of the filming..


The water doesn't show up well in the film. There are a couple of ground shots where I believe it is visible.

 

[LTC8K6]

I should add, just as a caveat, that I wouldn't trust photos this crappy as proof of the existence of ANYTHING--Bigfoots, suits, whatever. It might just about prove that somebody has a camera. Maybe.

You mean you can't make out the midtarsal break kinematic of Patty's foot?

Cynic...