Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

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.

Hmmm...
That´s a braided river bed. This sort of rivers are characterised by a high rate of lateral channel migration. All the non-vegetated area seems to be composed by river sediments, and the part just above the red square and the red "x" seems to be an old channel. Water may flow over there in some cases (heavy rain fall upstream, for example). Actually at flash floods, the whole area is quite likely flooded, since fallen tree logs are oriented, possibly due to the stream current.

So, the discrepancies you are pointing can happen, specially if the PGF and the pic you posted were taken say, at different seasons or with a lapse of months or years.

However, I see a lot of gravel in the picture (as it would be expected in this sort of river). It would be interesting to know exactly where the track is located, since it is supposed to have been made mostly in sand...

Aniway, such analisys would involve a lot of interpretation. And even going back to Bluff creek would be worthless, given the changes in the riverbed that certainly happened since PGF was shot.

 

[Dfoot]

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.

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!

It's just the same ol' image taken from the film and doctored exactly as I described in order to make it look only slightly less like Patty.

When that wasn't understood I posted the extremely obvious and more direct versions with very little change from the originals.

All that was in the hope that someone would say, "Hey... wait a sec... maybe we aren't so able to look objectively at the evidence? Maybe we are predisposed to judging anything we think is an imitation of Patty to be nothing close to Patty - even when it is the CLOSEST to an image of Patty from the film as possible without having copyright P.Patterson stamped on it."

Here are feet with mid-tarsal breaks in action. Most of the more human-shaped feet in gorilla suits since the 30's were deliberately made to bend in this way. Which is just what you see in the Patterson film.

Yet according to PG film research, "Hollywood can't duplicate what we see in the Patterson film. It's impossible."

Good God. It's been done that way for years.

- Dfoot

 

[UrsulaV]

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?

Honey, you'll know when I'm offended. *grin* I was merely trying to dispel an inaccurate statement with the shining light of fact. And really, aren't we all tryin' to do that?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Dfoot posted:

Velma Radford is telling the truth about loaning Roger the money he would need for a suit from Hollywood at the very time he would have needed such a suit made. And Jerry Merritt says that they happened to go to Hollywood right after the signing of the contract and mentions the exact amount of money Mrs. Radford's contract states was loaned to Roger.

For anyone who may be interested; $700 in 1967, would buy about what $4,000 would today...

 

[LTC8K6]

It looks to me like water would cover the whole area if Gimlin's description of the flooding rains is to be believed. That would leave nowhere for prints to survive, though.....

 

[UrsulaV]

It's just the same ol' image taken from the film and doctored exactly as I described in order to make it look only slightly less like Patty.

Granted what I see on my computer screen, I believe you.

I could be wrong, of course, because the resolution of the images I'm working with is downright awful, and god knows, I am as fallible as the next weirdo, but since I didn't need to fold, spindle, or mutilate to get it to match, I'd say that yup, that's the same image.

I've seen artists accuse other artists of plagerism based on worse matches--although generally at significantly better resolution! *grin*

 

[Correa Neto]

It looks to me like water would cover the whole area if Gimlin's description of the flooding rains is to be believed. That would leave nowhere for prints to survive, though.....

Well, that would depend on how "flooding" the flooding rains actually were... It may have been just enough to cover the gravel near the stream, for example. However, if it was strong enough for water to flow throught the dry channel above the red square and the red "x", most of the trackway would be lost.

This is one of the reasons why I wanted to see a tracing of the actual trackway over the pic.

Aniway, the beds of this type of stream are very mutable at the scale we are talking about. A lot of interpretation and suppositions must be made. And the larger the time lapse betwen the pic and PGF, the more innacurate -and eventually useless- it will be. Any idea on the time lapse and if there were chances of heavy rainfall along this period?

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't know when the overhead pic was taken. My memory thinks that I read somewhere that it was taken in 1975.

 

[Huntster]

I'm getting confused....

That's the point of the shell game.

...Huntster, did you not post this:

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

...

Yes, I did, and I stand by it, and this is the photo I was referring to:

How far off was I, considering that the PG frame Dfoot used was modified?

 

[Correa Neto]

I don't know when the overhead pic was taken. My memory thinks that I read somewhere that it was taken in 1975.

I guess that would be too long... The forms on the river bed may have changed a lot...

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, dfoot has answered my questions. I believe those are Patty's legs and I accept his explanation of how he arrived at that photo.

I immediately thought of the correct photo because I was quite familiar with it myself, having discussed it often and even used it a time or two to try to make a point.

I still don't think he should have done it though.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Any idea on the time lapse and if there were chances of heavy rainfall along this period?

Pay attention..!!!


Supposedly, heavy rain started the morning following the filming, and the creek was raging..


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

By then we decided it wasn’t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep! We were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road. I said "well I’m going to go ahead and cross the creek with the truck and get started out." And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.

Titmus supposedly saw the tracks clearly, 9 days later...


Green did some filming in the area the following spring, and the long log, stumps and some of the other debris, appeared to be in exactly the same location..

I can't believe, that if the substrate in the creek bed could hold detailed prints, that those prints would survive flowing water..

If the laverty print ( and others ) was cover with bark, what kept the bark from floating away ?

 

[UrsulaV]

How far off was I, considering that the PG frame Dfoot used was modified?

Well, you were off about the legs, since the legs weren't modified.*

Next?

*Assuming of course that I am using the correct photos and some nefarious hoaxer hasn't switched them, etc, etc.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, and in other articles you read that Gimlin had trouble getting his truck out at all. The road was washed out. They had to leave by a different route, etc.

Gimlin was supposedly worn out from trying to retrieve his truck, that's why he crashed and didn't see the PGF's debut.

 

[LTC8K6]

The men then immediately headed back to their campsite. By the time they arrived, bad weather was closing-in. By about midnight, it was raining heavily.

Or, it began raining heavily at midnight according to Chris Murphy.

But that would mean it rained heavily most of the night on the tracks, until Gimlin left at 5:30 the next morning to go and cover a few of them up. So, let's say it took him 30 minutes to reach the tracks. They would have been being rained on for about 6 hours.

Of course, Murphy has P/G leaving the area at 4am, while Gimlin says he was out covering up the tracks at around 6am....

 

[Huntster]

Well, you were off about the legs, since the legs weren't modified.*

Next?....

That is correct. I was off on the legs.

I was correct on the torso and arms.

I didn't mention it then, but the degree of the "suburban" figure appears to be more leaning forward than the PG frame Dfoot is offering as his model.

Bottom line:

* The figure was not a suit that Dfoot had built (he lied)
* The figure was not an unaltered PG film subject (he deceived)
* Dfoot participated in that forum, stating that he was building a suit, for over a year
* Dfoot did not admit his trick until after he got caught
* The BFF participants did not rabidly reject his first offering, but offered opinions that weren't far off
* The BFF participants don't like liars and tricksters (hoaxers), including Dfoot, Robo, and others
* Some JREF participants enjoy lies, tricks, and deceit when it can be used to deride people who believe in the possibility that the PG film shows a real animal
* The trick did not demonstrate a clear prejudice of the PG film by advocates
* Dfoot's trick did not replicate the PG film in any way, shape, manner, or form, and in fact bolsters the argument that it cannot be replicated

 

[Correa Neto]

Pay attention..!!!


Supposedly, heavy rain started the morning following the filming, and the creek was raging..


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



Titmus supposedly saw the tracks clearly, 9 days later...


Green did some filming in the area the following spring, and the long log, stumps and some of the other debris, appeared to be in exactly the same location..

I can't believe, that if the substrate in the creek bed could hold detailed prints, that those prints would survive flowing water..

If the laverty print ( and others ) was cover with bark, what kept the bark from floating away ?

To have Patty's track (and the location of the reffered pictures of footprints) plotted at that pic would surely be usefull... And some scaling, so we could know the extents of the flood and see if they were or not affected by flowing water.

As for the debris, the water flow along the period might quite well have been enough to chance the bedforms (bars, ripples, etc) built by sediment but not strong enough to move logs.

This piece called my attention:

Then the way we do is just ride the roads, when these guys were working on the roads with bulldozers and everything, as quick as they’d quit working, we would ride up in that area and search for tracks or whatever we’d run into - then we would take the one ton pick-up when the equipment was off the road, so we could drive the roads. We would drive the roads at night real slow looking for tracks crossing the road. Of course in the day time we couldn’t drive the roads ‘cause they were working on the roads up in there. They had started logging in some areas and the logging trucks had started coming down from there.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm
Ain't bigfeet supposed to be shy? What was Patty doing near "bulldozers and everything" at an area that was being logged?

 

[Aepervius]

Lol !

* The trick did not demonstrate a clear prejudice of the PG film by advocates
* Dfoot's trick did not replicate the PG film in any way, shape, manner, or form, and in fact bolsters the argument that it cannot be replicated

1) You do realize that Dfoot trick in NO WAY has anything to do with whether PGF can be reproduced or not ? It does not bolster the argument and it does not weaken it at all. Actually this is apple and orange. No wait they are both fruit. Actually this is Apple and Quartz Stone comparison .
2) Huntster, I am not sure if I am alone to think that, but you are getting quite Hysterical in your attempt to find excuse. Maybe you should drop it, breath calmly, go get some fresh air, and come back in 24 hours. Who knows you might even have better argument, and certainly your logic would not be fogged by your emotion.
3) Maybe it did not show a 100% prejudice, but it certainly did not show a 100% impartiality. Once you recognize that maybe you can start a true non-emotional discussion, and even, who knows, instead of arguiyng against Dfoot, argue how in the future ameliorate Bigfoot discussion so that less emotion goes into it, more cold logic. I am sure even you will argue that getting emotional is a bad thing for any study.

Just my two cent.

 

[Dfoot]

That is correct. I was off on the legs.

I was correct on the torso and arms.

I didn't mention it then, but the degree of the "suburban" figure appears to be more leaning forward than the PG frame Dfoot is offering as his model.

Bottom line:

* The figure was not a suit that Dfoot had built (he lied)
* The figure was not an unaltered PG film subject (he deceived)
* Dfoot participated in that forum, stating that he was building a suit, for over a year
* Dfoot did not admit his trick until after he got caught
* The BFF participants did not rabidly reject his first offering, but offered opinions that weren't far off
* The BFF participants don't like liars and tricksters (hoaxers), including Dfoot, Robo, and others
* Some JREF participants enjoy lies, tricks, and deceit when it can be used to deride people who believe in the possibility that the PG film shows a real animal
* The trick did not demonstrate a clear prejudice of the PG film by advocates
* Dfoot's trick did not replicate the PG film in any way, shape, manner, or form, and in fact bolsters the argument that it cannot be replicated

Yes... those were Patty's unmodified legs. In fact, the entire image is made of of nothing but "Patty". True Pattiness and Patty Goodness. No new suit added for flavor at all. And the image was made EXACTLY as I described it to you again and again. What you are doing is that very thing I was attempting to get you to do... and you won't stop. Now that is seriously worrisome.

Meanwhile... the image on the left actually is a genuine suit I threw together over Halloween weekend in order to dress up a stunt dummy to look like Bigfoot and stand it at my front door for the kids.

It's just a simple Halloween Wookie suit with some foam pads duct-taped to a shirt the dummy is wearing beneath the fur. Not professional and very, very simple. Yet... in comparison to the enhanced version of Patty it's almost a "Patty" without much effort at all.

A good example of why I did the experiment is found by clicking onto this site: http://archives.cbc.ca/500f.asp?id=1-69-1462-9714

HUNTSTER, that interview and the life that followed it has something to do with the kind of posts you're making now. If you'll only stop being angry for a minute and think about it...

Listen carefully to a young Rene' Dahinden talking about his new adventure in 1957 as he searches for the "Lost Sasqua Indian Tribe".

He's in his twenties and apparently shy and humble. A golden-bearded athlete whose wife says should discover the location of the tribe sometime within the next year.

Flash forward to 1967 and we would find Rene' divorced and out to prove that this Patterson fellow is a fraud after checking out his film. Mrs. Dahinden has now divorced him as he's chosen to continue pursuing the Sasquatch until he finds it.

By 1975 he's hooked up with Gimlin and gone to battle in court against Pat Patterson, DeAtley and any and all powerful corporations and film companies involved with the PG film. Finally he comes away with rights to the film of his own.

He lives in a tin shack and hunts Bigfoot full time.

By 1998 he's heard that the "man in the suit" has come forward and Rene' travels to Washington State to expose the man as another fraud and crush him as he's done other opponents. After some checking he finally meets privately with his old enemy, Pat Patterson. After that he drops all attempts to bother the man in the suit and begins to refer to himself as a "Bigfoot businessman".

His remaining days are spent attacking anyone else who tries to examine the film and protecting his "investment".

In SASQUATCH ODYSSEY you can watch him angrily interrupt Krantz during a presentation and rail against him. But when Krantz asks, "Is this a fake film?" Rene' does not answer. Instead he twists the question around and avoids a direct answer.

One of the last things he said before he died was, "I spent over 40 years searching for the damn thing and didn't find it. I guess that should tell us something."

I agree. It tells me that it's better to admit a fake film is faked instead of "letting sleeping dogs lie" as Rene' said. It tells me that facing the truth is better.

Sasquatch may be living or extinct. Perhaps one day we'll have some bones from under the earth floor of a cavern that get the same sort of arguments around it as the recent "Hobbit" find has. Maybe.

But we won't find it in Patterson's fake film or hoax footprints. And we won't find it by following Bigfoot guru's who lie to themselves instead of facing the truth about bad evidence.

- Dfoot

 

[LTC8K6]

To have Patty's track (and the location of the reffered pictures of footprints) plotted at that pic would surely be usefull...

Well, no one really knows the path Patty took for sure. The tracks can't really even be linked to Patty. There was supposedly even a disagreement about the direction of the tracks that were found.

There is a plot out there somewhere, but who knows whether it's accurate or not? The actual film is barely good enough to reliably say that it shows a furry bipedal thing walking by, imo.