Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

How's that again ?


Bogus science at work ..

Skeptical denial at work, you mean?

" 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 ? "

Which is normal for a compliant gait. Try the Grougho Marx walk and see how your feet tend to land.

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


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

I'm going to have to find Meldrum's explanation of the "double ball". It differs from Krantz'. Has to do with the thickness of the plantar pad, as I recall. Since William Parcher seems to have a copy of Murphy, maybe he could help us out here. I think that's where I read it.

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

There is some reason an animal with toes that are longer and more prehensile than human toes (but shorter than reconstructed Australopithecine toes)couldn't move them to the side? It's called a "considerable range of abduction".

Have you seen photos of the Wrinkle Foot casts? The toes are quite splayed with the smallest toes at an angle of about 45°.

The right and left casts are not mirror images of each other. Krantz attributed it this to geriatric crippling. However........

"...if the midfoot is flexible, as proposed by Meldrum,(1999), then the variance can be more readily accounted for by the expression of a greater degree of supination in the right foot than the left. If the right leg was externally rotated, the resulting supination would raise the medial border of the foot slightly, including the proximal end of the hallucial metatarsal and internally rotate the calcaneus relative to the midfoot. These are precisely the distinctions evident in these casts." (Murphy, pg. 139)

What hoaxer would know all that? They had dermal ridges as well.

In addition, hoaxers would have to get all this right over three decades and thousands of miles. How likely is that?

 

[LAL]

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..

One's a left and one's a right. There are apparent size differences in some of the casts from that trackway because the tracks were impressed to different depths. Remember, a print does not give an exact impression of the foot that made it. Read Dennett.

You might want to stop generalizing about "those". Do you mean those who took your arguments apart on BFF or some other "those"?

Didn't Matt Crowley warn you guys about relying too much on photos rather than examining actual casts? I see some foreshortening in the cast photo with Patterson. That could make a big difference in everything from apparent toe length to the angle. For straight on views, see Murphy, pg. 107.

The cast by his foot appears to be a better match for the photo of the track even though it's really foreshortened. The angle looks to be about the same.

Fake prints would tend to be identical, wouldn't they? Or do hoaxers normally pack in a collection of fake feet with enough variation to fool an experienced tracker like Bob Titmus? Or was he in on this alleged conspiracy too?

 

[PatKelley]

One's a left and one's a right. There are apparent size differences in some of the casts from that trackway because the tracks were impressed to different depths. Remember, a print does not give an exact impression of the foot that made it. Read Dennett.

You might want to stop generalizing about "those". Do you mean those who took your arguments apart on BFF or some other "those"?

Didn't Matt Crowley warn you guys about relying too much on photos rather than examining actual casts? I see some foreshortening in the cast photo with Patterson. That could make a big difference in everything from apparent toe length to the angle. For straight on views, see Murphy, pg. 107.

The cast by his foot appears to be a better match for the photo of the track even though it's really foreshortened. The angle looks to be about the same.

Fake prints would tend to be identical, wouldn't they? Or do hoaxers normally pack in a collection of fake feet with enough variation to fool an experienced tracker like Bob Titmus? Or was he in on this alleged conspiracy too?

One only need be credulous. Or do you consider the swindled in on it with the swindler?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One's a left and one's a right. There are apparent size differences in some of the casts from that trackway because the tracks were impressed to different depths. Remember, a print does not give an exact impression of the foot that made it. Read Dennett.

Are you really that obtuse ? ( I know, weve been there before.. )

I'm not talking about the size of the track ( I scaled the length , and not that well ) , I'm talking about the angle the tips of the toes make and the overall shape of the foot.. They have nothing in common other than one might suspect they are both foot prints....

It is so obvious you will not question evidence that is so glaringly contradictory to your preconceived ideas....

It is pointless to respond to you, but still mildly entertaining to underline some of your more hilarious assertions..

 

[LAL]

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.....

Meldrum is not with the BFRO. And it's not thriving. Eight curators quit in one week and my cyber insider friend was just booted out.

There was no BFRO in 1967 and the time given just nine hours later is probably correct. Reporting errors happen.....and get repeated.

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

You're wrong. The muddy photos are from the trackway near Walla Walla, one's from Bluff Creek, 1967, and the other from Blue Creek Mountain (I think - it looks like one photographed by Dahinden, but it doesn't seem to be the same photo). Meldrum makes no claim in the article they're all from the same foot.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Who's the liar now, Bill?

 

[William Parcher]

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

That may be its source. I linked the image from a posting on BFF.

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.

It doesn't change much if the filming happened at 1:30 or 2:00. There just isn't enough daylight left for P&G to do everything they said they did and then capture the plaster-casting on film without long shadows or a general darkness to the scene. The shadows shown in the still images suggests that the sun is nearly overhead. Somebody could do some research to determine what the angle of the sun is at Bluff Creek on October 20 and what time is sunset. An approximation might be determined by looking at the shadows in the images and then figuring out where the sun would have to be and about what time of day it was.

I have pointed out before that the time needed for P&G to do what they say they did after the encounter seems impossible. After the encounter and filming, an unstated amount of time passes before they begin to track her up the mountainside. At that point Patty is walking through wilderness up the mountain. P&G are on horseback following whatever signs they can use to follow her. They follow this sign for 3.5 miles before losing her trail. Just how quickly can you follow such a trail on horseback up a mountain? But also, once they lose her trail, they have to turn around and ride back through the wilds to return to Bluff Creek and the film site. Then they are still about 2 miles from their truck and the plaster. I believe Gimlin said that 2 mile horseback ride took about 40 minutes. But they have to make a round-trip. They have to get the plaster and then go back to the film site to do the casting and take more film footage.

We are supposed to believe that the sun is in a position to create short shadows after all of that? Get lost! These guys were lying.

The photo shows articulating toes.

Articulating?! Lu, this array of toes seems to have shifted itself almost perpendicular to the foot itself.

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?

This is the photo that seems to show what Meldrum is calling a "mid-tarsal break":

That is Meldrum's interpretation, in spite of no known bipedal hominid having such an adaptation. What I believe we are seeing is a fake footprint that Patterson made in which he was trying to simulate a push-off. The fake foot he used to create the print doesn't have a mid-tarsal break. He never faked a mid-tarsal break. He faked a push-off from the ball. It's not even a good fake in that respect, as the toes should show distortion instead of being perfect.

Patterson could have created this print using a fairly rigid fake foot and a creative application into the sand. You don't just lay it on the sand and start pounding it in directly from above. You articulate the foot in different directions and also hammer it in by hitting different spots using varying force and angle. Your last few hits come with the foot tilted forward simulating the push-off.

For all we know, Patterson could have practiced making these tracks hundreds of times at his leisure anywhere. Once he is confident, he makes the imprints at Bluff Creek...possibly even a month after he filmed the fake Bigfoot there.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You might want to stop generalizing about "those". Do you mean those who took your arguments apart on BFF or some other "those"?

How about some links to where I was ' taken apart ' ?

Here is the first thread I started..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993

I made a couple of logical gaffs, which I admitted to and moved on from.
I’m sure everyone here can look at the end of that thread, where my questions
were all accounted for and I was soundly thrashed.. ( Not! )

For those who don’t want to be bothered to look, this thread, where I questioned the strange bulges on the arm, fizzled out with someone showing that the appearance of Patty’s breasts could be accounted for in a diorama, based on the bone fragments that represent Lucy.




I Participated pretty heavily in this thread.


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13399&hl=

And backed out/down ( more or less ) after someone pointed out that the skeptics over there were acting like ' vegetarians in a butcher shop ' and asking why we felt compelled to trash other peoples beliefs, and what we had to gain other than to ridicule them.

I felt he had a point, and it made me rethink how I approach things over there..

So, I welcome where you can specifically show where I have been ' taken apart '.
I think I can safely say it hasn’t been by you..

It would make an interesting contrast to your overwhelming success in presenting your
point of view over here, don’t you think ?

 

[LAL]

Are you really that obtuse ? ( I know, weve been there before.. )

I'm not talking about the size of the track ( I scaled the length , and not that well ) , I'm talking about the angle the tips of the toes make and the overall shape of the foot.. They have nothing in common other than one might suspect they are both foot prints....

It is so obvious you will not question evidence that is so glaringly contradictory to your preconceived ideas....

It is pointless to respond to you, but still mildly entertaining to underline some of your more hilarious assertions..

Same to you, fella. For a moment, I thought you were Bearfoot Bill, who overuses the word "obtuse" and now refuses to respond to me at all. Do you guys live together or are you the same obnoxious person under different SNs? It's really hard to believe you could change back to the class bully so quickly just by leaving BFF and returning to your usual cheering section. You were much better over there.

I'm not talking about the length either. The angle on the plantar pad is different from right to left but this is seen in the straight on views as well. The fat pad is thought to be about 1 1/2". The shape could vary quite a bit with firmness of substrate. The Gray's Harbor tracks, e.g., are unusually flat because they were in a thick mud cover with a hard-packed road underneath.

The angle of the toe tips would vary with how much the toes were bent, and, yes, we've been there before. You haven't shown me any evidence yet.

Patterson cast tracks in 1964, as well, evidently of the same animal that left the Crew tracks. Are you certain all the casts in the photo with Patterson are from the same trackway?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm going to have to find Meldrum's explanation of the "double ball". It differs from Krantz'. Has to do with the thickness of the plantar pad, as I recall. Since William Parcher seems to have a copy of Murphy, maybe he could help us out here. I think that's where I read it.

I really hope you don't ( find Meldrum's explanation ) , but maybe you can refresh us on why Patty, the most famous Bigfoot of all, doesn't have a double ball ? Or why she didn't wear those feet on the day she was filmed ?

 

[William Parcher]

Same to you, fella. For a moment, I thought you were Bearfoot Bill, who overuses the word "obtuse" and now refuses to respond to me at all. Do you guys live together or are you the same obnoxious person under different SNs?

Are you talking about me? You have called me "Bill" before. I don't think I said anything about bear tracks. I don't think I ever called you "obtuse" (I've called you other things). I'm not refusing to respond to you.

Are you thinking of a different poster here when you say "Bill"?

 

[William Parcher]

There are apparent size differences in some of the casts from that trackway because the tracks were impressed to different depths.

If there are differing lengths of the "footprints" in the Patty trackway, it could have been the result of the way that Patterson applied the fake foot into the sand. Same would be true of differing depths.

 

[LAL]

So, I welcome where you can specifically show where I have been ' taken apart '.
I think I can safely say it hasn’t been by you..

Nope. I left you to those who know more about this than I. I think you've posted the links. And I said "your arguments", not "you". You are not your arguments.

It would make an interesting contrast to your overwhelming success in presenting your
point of view over here, don’t you think ?

I'm not claiming success, especially where I'm outnumbered by x to 1 and where nothing I say seems to inspire much thought, but neither have any of you shown me more than that Daegling, Dennett, Long and Korff's arguments aren't the most ridiculous around. Roger Knights said, back in the Bigfoot Follies days, that some of my stuff is printable and that I was doing a terrific job of fighting the good fight almost singlehandedly (words to that effect). That was good enough for me. I respect his opinion.

But enough of this. If I want to be insulted, I can always go back to the evolution boards where someone will be sure to tell me I'm going to burn in Hell.

 

[LAL]

If there are differing lengths of the "footprints" in the Patty trackway, it could have been the result of the way that Patterson applied the fake foot into the sand. Same would be true of differing depths.

What did he do with his kneeprints?

The difference is in the size of the toe prints, not just length.

 

[LAL]

Are you talking about me? You have called me "Bill" before. I don't think I said anything about bear tracks. I don't think I ever called you "obtuse" (I've called you other things). I'm not refusing to respond to you.

Are you thinking of a different poster here when you say "Bill"?

I was referring to LTC8K6. I don't remember calling anyone else "Bill"; do you have the post? He told me his name when he decided I'm not as nuts as Erik Beckjord after he invaded the board. Bill was the first to call me "obtuse".....That used to be the ultimate insult when I was in school about a hundred years ago. I was surprised it's still around.

He started a thread on the "bear" track in the Walla Walla trackway.

 

[LTC8K6]

Does Lu expect us to believe that each bigfoot has a different foot?

Or are we supposed to believe Meldrum believes this?

Or is it that there are several different feet amongst the bigfoot population?

Meldrum says several wildly different prints are from the same foot, period. A bigfoot foot. There is not a snowball's chance in hades of this being true.

Lu's attempt to make it seem like I meant a single bigfoot made all the tracks is pretty strange.

We need a term stronger than obtuse, methinks.....

Edit: tacks, tracks, what's the diff?

***

It's "Wild" Bill - After John Belushi's character in "1941".

 

[William Parcher]

I was referring to LTC8K6. I don't remember calling anyone else "Bill"; do you have the post? He told me his name when he decided I'm not as nuts as Erik Beckjord after he invaded the board. Bill was the first to call me "obtuse".....That used to be the ultimate insult when I was in school about a hundred years ago. I was surprised it's still around.

He started a thread on the "bear" track in the Walla Walla trackway.

I now realize what happened. LTC's name is Bill. I never knew this. I don't think you mentioned it either. Many many hundreds of threads ago, I saw you say "Bill" once (possibly twice). I presumed that you were talking about me, since William is often converted to Bill. The way you used it in that posting didn't make me think you couldn't have been talking about me and just called me Bill instead of William. If you had used the name Bill any more than once (or twice) this would have come up earlier... all because I had no clue that LTC is Bill or that you knew that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Gimlin.....

We went to catch his horse and the pack horse because I kept my horse under control. I had my horse with me all the time. So we caught his horse, got the new film out of the saddle bags, he got under this old poncho and changed the film around. Then we tried to track the creature on up from where we had last seen it. We didn’t have much luck doing it. Then we decided it was getting late in the afternoon. In that area, that time of year, the sun goes down about 3:30 or 4 o’clock. We wanted to get back and take plaster casts of the tracks and then go on into town to see if we had anything on film. We weren’t sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sand bar and getting up and running, ..we didn’t even have an idea that we had anything on film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything.

Green: So you cast the tracks the same day?

Gimlin: Yes we did. In fact right that afternoon. By the time we got the tracks cast and the different deals that we did to cast the tracks done, it was getting late. It was almost dark by the time we got back down to the truck and got the horses fed and tied up. By the time we got into town at Al Hodgson’s store, it was good and dark. I imagine it was about 8:30 or 9 o’clock. Then we went on over to...[reflecting]… oh whatever town that was to mail the film up to Al de Atley, Roger’s brother-in-law, so he could take it and get it developed to see if there was really anything on the film.

It was already late in the afternoon after they tried to track Patty and before they even decided to go back and cast the tracks, and they still had to go back to the truck and get the plaster.

W: How come you had plaster casts with you . plaster with you?

R: We didn't have plaster, 'cause we went, we had to go back to the, to the truck and get plaster and come up and cast them.

They did not take the casts until after they had tracked Patty for 3.5 miles.

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks.

So they saw Patty around 1:30, tracked her for ~3.5 miles and lost her in the pine needles, then they went the ~3.5 miles back to where they saw Patty and looked at her tracks again, and then they went the ~2 miles back to the truck for the plaster, then ~2 miles back to Patty's tracks and filmed the casting of said tracks in what appears to still be broad daylight with a high sun.

Everybody got that?

And remember, Gimlin got much closer to Patty than Roger did...while Roger was shooting film.

Green: Were you ever closer to it than Roger was while he took the pictures?

Gimlin: Yeah, I was. When I rode across the creek and got off my horse I was closer than Roger was with the camera at that time. I rode fairly close to the creature.

 

[LTC8K6]

I won't even bother trying to figure out how all that worked out for a 3:30 Patty filming as reported by Sanderson....

 

[LTC8K6]

B: After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera
while he gathered up his stuff and ..

W: You scouted around for a while did you? Well when did you ..were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following her?

I just noticed that in this '67 radio interview Gimlin says he took the camera and scouted around without Patterson right after the incident. So Gimlin left Patterson at the scene alone for a while.

Gimlin in 1992:

Gimlin: The day we got the film footage, I left early in the morning and Roger slept in. I just rode out and around, I always got up early and so I rode on out. My horse loosened a shoe and I came back in to tack the shoe on tighter. About 10:00, mid morning or so, I sat around there for a little while, because Roger was gone when I got back. Supposedly he had gone down the creek there, ..ah Bluff Creek there and after awhile he came back and asked what area I had covered that morning?

Patterson is off by himself at the creek that very morning. Roger seems to have had plenty of time to set just about anything up, even on that one day.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sorry about not linking, but most of us are quite familiar with the info.

It is all available via the Bigfoot Encounters page.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/