Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Let's run DNA analysis on it, at least.

They already have. Bigfoot is apparently related to stuffed Bison.

 

[Pope130]

Poachers might stand a good chance, but they'd need to pack something more than a 30.06, and go out at night.

LAL,
What cartridge would you recommend for Bigfoot hunting? And, is this evaluation based on actual Bigfeet that you have shot?
Based on the reported size and weight (less than an Elk or a trophy Kodiak), a 30.06 might be marginal and require multiple hits. .300 H&H and up should work fine.
Also, "poaching" is the taking of game on private property without the owners permission, or on public lands outside prescribed conditions. Is bigfoot a protected species?

"Use Enough Gun" Robert Ruark

 

[Starthinker]

LAL,
What cartridge would you recommend for Bigfoot hunting? And, is this evaluation based on actual Bigfeet that you have shot?
Based on the reported size and weight (less than an Elk or a trophy Kodiak), a 30.06 might be marginal and require multiple hits. .300 H&H and up should work fine.
Also, "poaching" is the taking of game on private property without the owners permission, or on public lands outside prescribed conditions. Is bigfoot a protected species?

"Use Enough Gun" Robert Ruark

I participated in a debate about this once. My position is that the discovery and proof of a bigfoot far outweighed the consequences of killing one, even illegally. So if by some chance I see a bigfoot, even if it's on private land, and I happened to have some means to bring it down, I would. The woo people cried about it being some part of a family unit, being close to human, etc. etc., but hang it all, I'd shoot it or at least run it down in my truck. Not that I think they really exist, I personally don't so if I did see one that would just make me that much more determined to bring one in. The same goes for aliens, chupacabras, and lake monsters.

By the way, the argument was made with the assumption that we knew it wasn't a guy in a suit, so don't go getting all up in arms about harming an innocent bystander, this was just an ethical argument.

 

[Pope130]

Starthinker,
Well said, and I agree completely. I don't think there is such a beastie, but if there is the top priority should be proving it so it can be protected and studied.
A body brought in would probably result in a large area of woods set aside as a protected environment. One of the issues footers worry about is loss of habitat. So long as Bigfoot is widely believed to be a fairytale habitat preservation is a tough sell.
On the issue of a guy in a suit getting shot. This is a problem, but one that doesn't get a high level of concern from me. Anyone silly enough to walk around the woods in an animal costume probably should get out of the gene pool. Every year we have people who blast away at 'deer' in blaze orange safety vests. A guy in a suit is toast.

Robert

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Looks like some of the active researchers will have to abandon the "no kill" policy. Krantz (who was roundly criticized for being pro-kill) listed some of the problems with trying to tranquillize or even shoot one with conventional hunting weapons such as a 30.06. 'Taint that easy.

Perhaps you could spare us from reading Krantz, and explain some of the problems ( why it 'taint easy ) , with shooting a Bigfoot with a 30.06. ( besides locating one )

 

[bruto]

I participated in a debate about this once. My position is that the discovery and proof of a bigfoot far outweighed the consequences of killing one, even illegally. So if by some chance I see a bigfoot, even if it's on private land, and I happened to have some means to bring it down, I would. The woo people cried about it being some part of a family unit, being close to human, etc. etc., but hang it all, I'd shoot it or at least run it down in my truck. Not that I think they really exist, I personally don't so if I did see one that would just make me that much more determined to bring one in. The same goes for aliens, chupacabras, and lake monsters.

By the way, the argument was made with the assumption that we knew it wasn't a guy in a suit, so don't go getting all up in arms about harming an innocent bystander, this was just an ethical argument.

If you're gunning for lake monsters you should probably avoid Champlain. Although Vermont still maintains a season for shooting fish on Champlain (no kidding!) Champ is protected in both NY and Vermont. You'll be glad to know that the town of Port Henry NY has also declared itself a safe haven for Champ (nearby Bulwagga Bay is most frequent sighting area), meaning that we can probably continue to assert that the paucity of Champ bodies can be attributed to this protection, along with the lake's prodigious depth (which is real enough) rather than to the unthinkable possibility that no Champs abide there. Not to be outdone, Whitehall, NY, at the base of Champlain, has passed a law protecting bigfoot too, in the hope, presumably, that tourists who have had their fill of thinking they mmight have seen Champ will try for a squatch and thus help save the moribund little burg before too much more of its downtown actually collapses into the street.

 

[LTC8K6]

The lake monster(or whatever) came at me, your honor. Fearing for my life, I shot it.

I would say you could bring down Patty with just about any rifle you'd care to use, including a .22LR if you are a good shot. Patty's head is no less vulnerable than mine, and most hunters are pretty good shots.

 

[Correa Neto]

The lake monster(or whatever) came at me, your honor. Fearing for my life, I shot it.

I would say you could bring down Patty with just about any rifle you'd care to use, including a .22LR if you are a good shot. Patty's head is no less vulnerable than mine, and most hunters are pretty good shots.

I´d go one step further. You could also obtain the same effect with a gun or a pistol. Note that you actually don´t need to kill the big stinky hairy monkey intantly. An injury would at least provide blood. Not to mention that the animal may die a bit later -or become easier to capture alive- due to the loss of blood, infections, etc. Bottomline- reliable evidence would be obtained.

Now, why P or G never shot Patty?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Now, why P or G never shot Patty?

Uhhh, because it wouldn't be nice to shoot a team member?

 

[Spektator]

The lake monster(or whatever) came at me, your honor. Fearing for my life, I shot it....

I'd suggest going even further and toting a small-caliber unregistered Saturday-Night Special as well as your monster-stoppin' rifle. Then after you kill the lake monster, you can plant the handgun on the body and claim self-defense.

 

[Correa Neto]

Uhhh, because it wouldn't be nice to shoot a team member?

Hmmm... We know for sure PGF is the real deal and Patty is a real female bigfoot... If she was a member of P&G team, as you say...

OMFG!

P & G are bigfeet!!!!! Morphing as humans! Beckjord was right!!!!

 

[William Parcher]

There is a bizarre thread over on the Bigfoot Think Tank Forum. Some dude claims he bought a reel of film at a yardsale that was filmed by Patterson. But he claims this one shows details of the creature like slobber and a chest that moves with each breath! In this thread, you get to see what happens when Bigfooters become skeptics... or is that scoftics?

Anyway, the thread contains a most interesting set of still images from a "second roll of film taken by Patterson". Nobody really denies that there was a second roll, but it too seems to be "unavailable" just like the first (primary) roll that Patterson presented to the world. We do have some still images from this second roll. The second roll is said to contain footage of scenery around Bluff Creek, Patterson on horseback and Patterson plaster-casting the tracks of "Patty" after his encounter and filming of her. Posters in the thread are skeptical that this dude actually bought the "second roll" at a yardsale, since it was not supposed to contain any footage of Patty herself.

Now, put that weirdness aside and focus on these still images taken from the second roll that nobody denies exists or existed...

At least two things seem obvious and odd.

1) Shadows around Patterson and within the track suggest that the sun is almost overhead (the shadows are short). Patterson & Gimlin said that they filmed Patty at about 2pm on October, 20 1967.

2) The toes of the track seem very strange. They appear to be located on the outside front of the track, rather than simply the front. Maybe this is an optical illusion, but it looks suspicious to me.

Again concerning the shadows... If these are still images from a roll of film that shows Patterson casting tracks of Patty, then the timeline story given by P&G is terribly flawed. They both said they filmed her around 2pm and eventually lost sight of her. They then began to follow her (track her) up the mountain on horseback for about 3.5 miles. They lost her sign and then returned to their truck to get the plaster to cast the tracks. They then returned to the filming site to begin casting the tracks and apparently filmed the casting of the tracks.

Now, how on earth did P&G accomplish everything that they said they did and then filmed the casting of the tracks with the sun nearly overhead? This makes no sense. By the time they finally got back to the tracks with the plaster, the sun should have been close to the horizon. It should have been near, at, or beyond sunset. The shadows should been long and the sunlight diminished.

Patterson and Gimlin were liars and the PGF is a hoax.

 

[LTC8K6]

Those tracks do look completely different than the other tracks I have seen from Patty.

That's an awfully clean looking edge for a track....

 

[LTC8K6]

Just compare the above with our "known" Patty track:

That midtarsal break sure comes and goes....

 

[William Parcher]

Enlarged...

Compare...

A number of photos of "Patty tracks" taken by Lyle Laverty the day after Patty was supposed to be filmed...

 

[LAL]

Enlarged...

Compare...

A number of photos of "Patty tracks" taken by Lyle Laverty the day after Patty was supposed to be filmed...

From Murphy, Meet the Sasquatch], pg. 48, yes?

According to the Humbolt Times story, pg. 44, the time was about 1:30 PM. As I recall, the base camp was only a couple of miles away.

The photo shows articulating toes. How does that prove a hoax rather than the sort of print a living foot would make? Just how many fake feet would they have needed to make all those variations, including a midtarsal bend that "comes and goes", as one might expect from a creature with a compliant gait and a flexible foot that is mostly put down flat?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... a flexible foot that is mostly put down flat?

How's that again ?


Bogus science at work ..


" What we see here is a midtarsal break .. "

...... " Then why don't we see the midtarsal break in most of the prints ?.. "


" Because the creature usually chooses to put the foot down flat ? "


........ " Oh, O.K. .. "


" Next we will take a look at the double ball ... "





And Lu, what do you suppose is the deal with the toes almost perpindicular to the plane of the foot in that one pic ?

 

[LTC8K6]

This is just too funny.

The attempted explanations are even more so.

No one even knows the time of day the PGF was shot. Sometimes it's 13:30, sometimes it's 15:30.

No wonder the BFRO thrives.....

Articulating toes indeed. All of these made by the same foot, according to the esteemed Dr. Meldrum.

 

[Z]

I've finally come to the conclusion that LAL is just having anyone on. There's no way you could come up with 'articulated toes' from these photos without either being a complete loon and idiot, or being a joker. I'll choose to believe the latter.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is a composite of the famous midtarsal break print and a cast made by P&G ..

We are supposed to believe these two prints were made by the same animal ?

What does this say about those who expect us to believe this, as well as those who don't have a problem with it ? Oh, wait.. They would be the same people..



Here is a source for the P&G cast..