Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Ok before I kill way to many pixels....

Funny cuz of the goofy looking bigfoot?

or..

Funny because Meldumb shot it down using a few of our bullets?

I just think this walking black hole image is painfully hilarious. I think you have a fine example here of your point about the quality of camera technology forcing not-so-smart hoaxers to make some images. I mean, just look at the thing, you can't find a single detail on it. It'd be nutboy heaven if it weren't for the fact that when looking at the wheel area on the John Deere it becomes clear that the image has been manipulated to eliminate details of dark objects. ETA Madness' quote.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ny-bf-photos-update/

More pics of the NY bigfoot. You can see it's not photoshopped, just a really awful effort at hoaxing people.

 

[LTC8K6]

One of the commenters says this is not as bad as Ivan Marx's skinny sasquatch. Problem is, Ivan's film fooled experts.

 

[Huntster]

...Funny because Meldumb shot it down using a few of our bullets?

If they were fired from his gun, they weren't your bullets.

 

[Mad Hom]

If they were fired from his gun, they weren't your bullets.

What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

Meldumb said some of the same things about this hoaxing atrocity that many of us skeptical types say about the PGF.Hence me saying used some of our bullets.

Do I have to explain everything I say to you Fudley?

 

[Huntster]

...Meldumb said some of the same things about this hoaxing atrocity that many of us skeptical types say about the PGF.Hence me saying used some of our bullets.....

The difference is that in this recent hoax, they are painfully apparent, where in the PG film they are not so clear.

You cannot "own" observations and opinions. In fact, it is usually hoped that they are shared so that consensus and agreement results (unless, of course, your goal is obfuscation, dissent, and turmoil).

 

[Mad Hom]

I just think this walking black hole image is painfully hilarious. I think you have a fine example here of your point about the quality of camera technology forcing not-so-smart hoaxers to make some images. I mean, just look at the thing, you can't find a single detail on it. It'd be nutboy heaven if it weren't for the fact that when looking at the wheel area on the John Deere it becomes clear that the image has been manipulated to eliminate details of dark objects. ETA Madness' quote.

Kitakaze,

Yeah I think I may have stumbled onto something with my technology take.

I was astonished to learn of that huge time gap between the PGF and EVERY other relevant slice of video debris passing as Hairy Biped footage.

Huge leaps in film/video capturing technology yet each progressive flick get's worse and worse.

Blobbier,darker,more out of focus,more obscured by trees,farther away.

I'm telling ya IMO Patterson got lucky.The PGF is just a combination of happenstance and the quality limitations of his chosen medium.

Given that they (the hoaxers) obviously can't defend carrying around a 16mm camera nowadays they are forced to use video/digital cameras which with there penchant for being clearer and easier to use have to be compensated for with a lack of zoom or sunlight, great distances,trees,bushes,tendancy to be out of focus,inconvenient battery death,or they just run out of tape right when things are about to get to HOAXY (made up Mad Hom word)

The more Bigfoot Fan props up the PGF the harder it get's for other hoaxers to match it. Regardless if Patty is the real deal or not all other Hairy Bipeds HAVE to look just like it.In other words PGF set the bar way to high,way to soon. Had film's built their way UP to the PGF IMO it might be easier to swallow

By the way is the PGF the longest footage we have time wise as well?

 

[kitakaze]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ny-bf-photos-update/

More pics of the NY bigfoot. You can see it's not photoshopped, just a really awful effort at hoaxing people.

Yep, I knew I was gonna have to pull this one out someday. I stand corrected, thanks LTC. Wow, that is just really... wow.

 

[Huntster]

....I'm telling ya IMO Patterson got lucky......

That was pretty much why Lyle Laverty was skeptical. He couldn't understand how he and his crew could be working in that drainage so long and not stumble upon such a creature themselves, and P&G did so after a few days.

More, your photography technological point is a valid point. As the technology gets better, the filming gets worse. And not only the filming itself, but the "costuming". That lends credence to Patterson, not doubt.

And, again, the footprint evidence is key. No other filming event features it. Nor do other filming events feature so much subsequent, on-site, independent testimony.

 

[Mad Hom]

That was pretty much why Lyle Laverty was skeptical. He couldn't understand how he and his crew could be working in that drainage so long and not stumble upon such a creature themselves, and P&G did so after a few days.

Did Laverty even stumble upon any footprints, I'm asking because I don't know.I mean Did he?

More, your photography technological point is a valid point. As the technology gets better, the filming gets worse. And not only the filming itself, but the "costuming". That lends credence to Patterson, not doubt.

Holy Dogspit I think Fudd just may have given me props there. Well I guess one good turn deserves another but not just yet Fudd,not just yet.

To your point about lending credence....I disagree. The key being that image capturing technology has advanced 20 fold in the intervening years since PGF,yet we haven't gotten a decent,clearly un-hoaxed corraborating flick of a similiar creature.If we had that I might be less of an arse on the subject...but we don't so I'm gonna continue being an arse.

And, again, the footprint evidence is key. No other filming event features it. Nor do other filming events feature so much subsequent, on-site, independent testimony.

The footprint evidence is key...very good point (There ya go Fudd,were even)
but... at no point do we clearly see Patty making any of these footprints do we?

I have many more questions relative to the prints...

Does the trackway match up with Patty's route? Does her stride length match the trackway? Has her stride length accurately been measured in the first place? Can it even be accurately measured on film? Do we have any idea what the camera angle was when filmed? Does that have anything to do with the ability to be accurate?

Oh and what ever became of that pesky 2nd roll of film? You know,the one with the footprints on it? Yes, and as a matter of fact being able to see that would be helpful.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hunster, can you link to some evidence showing that a trackway has been matched to the PGF? I haven't seen any casts matching this left foot.

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

Contrast and compare left foot in film still to left foot track photo.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That was pretty much why Lyle Laverty was skeptical. He couldn't understand how he and his crew could be working in that drainage so long and not stumble upon such a creature themselves, and P&G did so after a few days.

Did Laverty even stumble upon any footprints, I'm asking because I don't know.I mean Did he?

I'm not sure if he ever stumbled on footprints before or since, but I don't think he did while in the Bluff Creek drainage.

More, your photography technological point is a valid point. As the technology gets better, the filming gets worse. And not only the filming itself, but the "costuming". That lends credence to Patterson, not doubt.

...To your point about lending credence....I disagree. The key being that image capturing technology has advanced 20 fold in the intervening years since PGF,yet we haven't gotten a decent,clearly un-hoaxed corraborating flick of a similiar creature.If we had that I might be less of an arse on the subject...but we don't so I'm gonna continue being an arse.

Sorry, I don't understand what you could mean. Patterson's 1967 8mm footage is more clear than any other purported sasquatch film, including the recent Manitoba incident. That lends it more credence, in my opinion.

And, again, the footprint evidence is key. No other filming event features it. Nor do other filming events feature so much subsequent, on-site, independent testimony.

The footprint evidence is key...very good point (There ya go Fudd,were even)
but... at no point do we clearly see Patty making any of these footprints do we?

No, but they were there when Laverty arrived the day after the film was claimed to be shot. They are clearly not bear, so they are either a huge man's prints or they are hoaxed.

I have many more questions relative to the prints...

Does the trackway match up with Patty's route?

They appear to, and there is no reason to doubt otherwise.

Does her stride length match the trackway?

Laverty and Titmus were all there afterward, and neither mentioned anything otherwise.

Has her stride length accurately been measured in the first place?

I believe it was.

...Can it even be accurately measured on film?

Not according to skeptics, but then nothing is possible to such folks, and all things are subject to doubt.

Do we have any idea what the camera angle was when filmed?

Yup, but skeptics don't work with "ideas".

Does that have anything to do with the ability to be accurate?

When determining the basic fact of whether it was an animal or a man, pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary.

Oh and what ever became of that pesky 2nd roll of film?

I don't know.

You know,the one with the footprints on it? Yes, and as a matter of fact being able to see that would be helpful.

Now I'm the skeptic:

I don't think it would make a damned bit of difference to you.

 

[Huntster]

Hunster, can you link to some evidence showing that a trackway has been matched to the PGF?

Nope.

I haven't seen any casts matching this left foot.

How would you "match" that left foot?

 

[Huntster]

Contrast and compare left foot in film still to left foot track photo.

LTC, the great photo comparison expert, is at it again.

Funny how some skeptics argue incessantly for pinpoint accuracy in photographic evidence, yet insist on making judgements of their own of photos when it fits their preconceived beliefs.

This is still a bear print, right?

 

[Mad Hom]

I'm not sure if he ever stumbled on footprints before or since, but I don't think he did while in the Bluff Creek drainage.

Ok so basically he was there and saw absolutely no sign of a Hairy Biped....nothing,zip,zilch...NNnnnnnnnada! Yet Patterson suddenly shows up,is there a few days and walks away with the biggest most important flick in Cryptid history? Admittedly,Laverty not seeing signs of Bigfeet in and of itself isn't to nutty,but coupled with all the rest of the shenanigans surrounding the film it does give one pause for suspicion. Or at least it should.

Sorry, I don't understand what you could mean. Patterson's 1967 8mm footage is more clear than any other purported sasquatch film, including the recent Manitoba incident. That lends it more credence, in my opinion.

Exactly,Patterson's 1967 flick IS the clearest Hairy Biped footage we have,all the rest suck on ice despite having been filmed more recently using equipment far more advanced and easier to use. Thus,we don't have a single film to corroborate the PGF,we have no film of a creature that looks,walks and acts similar. So IMO the PGF exists in a vaccuum with nothing but itself backing it up.

In 1967 how many people were seeking to film a Hairy Biped Of Questionable Existence? How many have been seeking to film it in the intervening 40 years? You mean to tell me that far more people,using far better equipment,that's far easier to be proficient at can't come up with anything better than the Manitoba Blobsquatch or The Memorial Day Sprint? C'mon Fudd!!

No, but they were there when Laverty arrived the day after the film was claimed to be shot. They are clearly not bear, so they are either a huge man's prints or they are hoaxed.

Ok the huge word in that take is....."CLAIMED." Oh and "NO" with regards to whether we see Patty making the prints or not. Fact is no one knows they just believe she made them.

They appear to, and there is no reason to doubt otherwise.

Well begrudgingly I'll give ya that one for now. Seeings how we have no way of knowing her exact route we than have no way of knowing that they don't match up. Of course we also have no way of knowing that they do either.

Laverty and Titmus were all there afterward, and neither mentioned anything otherwise.

How would Laverty and Titmus know what her stride length was at the time they saw the trackway. Had they seen the flick at that point? From what I've read the PGF was filmed on a Friday and viewed on a Sunday. I presume that means Laverty and Titmouse (just wanted to call him that once) were there on Saturday,soooooo...I ask again how would they know what her stride length actually looked like when they hadn't seen the flick yet?

I believe it was.

Well there are all kinds of dissenting viewpoints on that. I've read articles stating that it's next to impossible to take accurate,quantitive measurements from film...so I guess we're back to Tomayto,Tomahto.

Not according to skeptics, but then nothing is possible to such folks, and all things are subject to doubt.

Yes all things woo are subject to doubt,which is as it should be.

Yup, but skeptics don't work with "ideas".

We know where Patterson says he was when he began filming,we don't know exactly where he was though do we? Again,from what I've read accuracy is pretty important in that regard.

When determining the basic fact of whether it was an animal or a man, pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary.

Oh but it is necessary....in order to rule out whether Patty falls within human proportions. If she did fall within human proportions though Hoax should be options A,B,C and D.

I don't know.

Aren't you at all concerned why we don't know where it is or what became of it? Not even a teensy weensy bit?

Now I'm the skeptic:

I don't think it would make a damned bit of difference to you.

Fudd your completely wrong here,if they had the 2nd roll of film seeing it wouldn't be the biggie for me. The fact that they had it available to be seen would be the biggie.

That roll being missing and hardly,if at all ever mentioned at all in articles on the PGF gives me pause for suspicion.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, overlapping front and rear footsies. Still obvious to me. Still the best explanation to me. I have heard nothing yet that even approaches a better explanation for the track.

Oh my god! The claws don't show..... How can that be!

Give me a break....

My distant second choice is a Freeman special, which would move closer if I could find out whether or not Freeman knew what a mid-tarsal break is.

Ignoring your obtuse "matching" comment.....

On second thought, why would/should I match them anyway? I don't think Patty was real. Let the believers show how the photo matches Patty's left foot if they can. They claim it's a pic of Patty's track, let them back it up.

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster, any time you can match that print to any other creature, you let me know.

EDIT: Now I have started leaving off that first "t"....

 

[LTC8K6]

If you can't show that the Laverty photo is actually of a track made by Patty, then you shouldn't claim it is. Merely photographing some tracks in the area the next day proves little.

 

[RayG]

This is still a bear print, right?

<sarcasm> Looks more like the print of the giant ground sloth. </sarcasm>

I'll be the first to admit I have no training or expertise in examining footprints, but DAMN, it don't look like any typical squatch print. Squatch prints usually look like large human prints (larger big toe, similar shape),

while this looks more like it was left behind by Fred Flintstone's pet, Dino.

The toes appear longer in the middle than those at the ends, and it seems to have some sort of ability to move the forward and rear portions of the foot (if it's indeed one single footprint) independently of each other. It appears that the rear portion of the 'foot' is further to the left than the front portion of the 'foot'.

Whenever I see this sorry excuse for a squatch-print, some immediate questions come to mind:

1. is this the BEST print of the many discovered that day?
2. if not, WHY is this particular picture so valuable when it seems so distinctly different from OTHER squatch-prints?
3. is it possible to see ALL the other footprints in the trackway?
4. why is it impossible that THIS particular print was left by a bear?

RayG