Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Of course you realize there is more than one version of the story ...

The greatest day of both of their lives, and they cannot remember what happened..

Here is a cool pic from one of the cooler heads over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13564&view=findpost&p=283047

Isn't that Roger's own foot he's propped up next to a Sas print?

If it is... it sure does have the same bend in the little toe as his 1964 Bluff Creek print.

You don't suppose Roger would stoop to making an enlarged version of his own foot do you?

 

[William Parcher]

BTW, there is an Internet joke about the "sound of crickets" representing a silence or lack of response in a thread.

The crickets are very loud in that BFF thread.

 

[William Parcher]

I think that Patterson ditched Gimlin (as a partner in peddling the PGF) fairly early after the filming for a good reason. They were telling conflicting stories about the event immediately after it occured. In some cases the conflict was so great that it looked like they were arguing against each other. The tale of Patterson's bucking horse is the classic screw-up. Patterson realized that he could not control what Gimlin would say at any given time. Their accounts could become more and more divergent over time.

Patterson was damn lucky that Gimlin didn't spill all the beans soon after he was blown off. But at that point, Gimlin was already well invested in telling stacks of lies about the event himself. Poor Gimlin was stuck in an effort to preserve his own personal integrity. Gimlin was trapped. He still is.

 

[LTC8K6]

Heck, look at the way Roger's big toe is bent well over toward the other 4.

Pretty distinctive foot. Time to look at casts again and see what I can see.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Heck, look at the way Roger's big toe is bent well over toward the other 4.

Pretty distinctive foot. Time to look at casts again and see what I can see.....

Focus on pre- film dates ..


I don't think he bothered to make more prints after he got the film.. ( except in the days immediately following... )

 

[Correa Neto]

"Mid-tarsal breaks" are just another item on bigfoot´s list of implausibilities.
Hopefully I am not breaking any forum laws by posting the pics below, since credit is provided. If I am violating any rules, I apologize and humbly submit myself to receive the propper punishment.

Left image taken from http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/deloison/deloison.htm, right image taken from http://williamcalvin.com/portraits;
LAL, as I said before, Deloison´s site contents do not help the cause of those who defend bigfoot as a real creature. On the contrary, it shows how implausible is bigfoot anatomy. Mid-tarsal breaks for bigfoot are implausible and incoherent.
Here´s the real deal. Check the upper image. Here you have a comparsion between the anatomy of human, chimpanzee and gorilla feet. And a nice gorilla on the left. Compare the toe position of the feet with "mid-tarsal breaks" with its position at a human foot.

Upper images taken from http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/deloison/deloison.htm; alleged bigfoot footprint images cropped at this forum.
Now, on the upper part of the image, a comparsion between human, chimpanzee and australopithecine (Laetoli G1/34) footprints. At the lower part alleged bigfoot footprints that we are familiar witth (Bossburg and Bluff Creek). As anyone can see, there are great differences regarding toe positions. Bigfoot, a creature that is said to have a "mid-tarsal break" has its toes at the very same position that humans have! And humans have no "mid -tarsal break".

My personal opinion?
P&G (and F - the Fellow in the gorilla suit) never imagined a researcher would bite so hard unintentional features at the faked footprints. And became quite happy with that. That´s what happens when one lets personal beliefs interferr in any investigation.

edited to fix image sizes

 

[William Parcher]

I thought we had scientific confirmation of Bigpost.

It was a size misidentification or subsequent morphing. Thanks for fixing the great pictures, Correa!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hey LTC8K6 , I think we have a match :

Particularly the shape of the three smallest toes..

The big toe doesn't twist in, but that could have been changed in the making of the mold or the print.. We have to keep in mind the disparity in the prints of a single trackway when made by a real Bigfoot. Fake tracks made by a flexible foot, would show the same variation..

In fact, a flexible fake foot makes a lot more sense, than a midtarsal break in a bipedal foot.. Right, Correa ?

 

[Correa Neto]

I thought we had scientific confirmation of Bigpost.

It was a size misidentification or subsequent morphing. Thanks for fixing the great pictures, Correa!

Bigposts are transdimensional critters that can morph the size of their pics and text. Its a chamaleonic adaptation, an enhanced form of deception, that allows bigposts to live undetected even at a skeptics' forum! However, disturbances in EM fields along cable and phone lines (fiber optics can be affected also), created by ley lines, solar flares or hovering UFOs, can create some interference with their changeling skills. But they can compensate quickly.

The big toe doesn't twist in, but that could have been changed in the making of the mold or the print.. We have to keep in mind the disparity in the prints of a single trackway when made by a real Bigfoot. Fake tracks made by a flexible foot, would show the same variation..

In fact, a flexible fake foot makes a lot more sense, than a midtarsal break in a bipedal foot.. Right, Correa ?

Nowdays, with so many different types of rubber, resin and plastic compounds avaliable, making a pair of flexible bigfeet would not be that hard, but still more expensive (and traceable, since these compounds are not that common) than carving from a plank. Using a hoaxer´s approach, I think that sticking to the KISS principle perhaps would be better. Two wood planks, a bit of carving skills and you´ll have a pair of bigfeet. Back tracking with rigid bigfeet can create the "break", for example, and also would be usefull for some hoaxing purposes ("look, no human footprints near the bigfoot footprints").

Aniway, one must also keep in mind that, besides the obvious anatomic mismatch between bigfeet´s "mid-tarsal breaks" and real "mid-tarsal breaks", there´s another important issue. A "mid-tarsal break" in a bipedal adapted for long distance walks, such as bigfeet are supposed to be, is inneficient, causing waste of energy. Such feature would most likely disappear as the species evolves and adapts.

The options left for footers, assuming that the creature is real (something I think is quite unlikely) are:
(1) Krantz was wrong and Bigfeet have no "mid-tarsal breaks";
(2) Bigfeet have "mid-tarsal breaks" but are not animals adapted for long-distance walks, they do not have great territories. In this case, Krantz et al. are wrong again. And two additional questions appear: (a) If their territories are smaller, shouldn´t they be tracked, shot, captured or filmed? (b) "Mid-tarsal breaks" are an adaptation for climbing trees. Can anyone imagine a 3-m tall ape dangling over tree branches?

Whatever are people´s ideas on bigfeet, I think the above reasoning shows that the works from Krantz et al. are not the masterpieces claimed by LAL. They have serious holes. Holes that are easily fixed when one considers that a basic conclusion of theirs was wrong. They were wrong when claimed that bigfeet are real.

 

[LAL]

What was the matter with my 3.5 miles quote just a few posts ago?

I wasn't getting my topic reply notifications and probably didn't skim back far enough. I don't remember seeing that.

Lu may not have found it, but she certainly knew about it long ago since we have discussed these discrepancies in P/G's account many times over. It's just that when we tell her these things, she dismisses them, even with the quotes. That's why she conveniently forgets things despite arguing about them here previously.

Sometimes Roger falls off the horse, sometimes he doesn't....
Sometimes it's 1:30, sometimes it's 3:30....
Sometimes they tracked Patty for miles, sometimes they didn't....
Sometimes Patty stopped and looked at them, sometimes Patty didn't....

Oh, f'r Pete's sake. I didn't ignore it, I just wasn't able to find a source with a precise distance. Coleman says three miles. In fact, how would they know how far it was, precisely, and was it on foot or on horseback? I'm not finding that either. They did get to Hodson's store after closing.

None of this adds up to hoax in the first place. Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of an unexpected event are normal and memories bleed over time. Reporting errors happen, frequently. If that's dismissing them, okay. I'm interested in getting the most accurate account possible. Knights has done extensive work on the timeline. Did you find that thread on BFF?

Right now, I'm interested in finding out more about the pictures. Titmus found evidence four tracks were cast. The photo with Roger shows four but they aren't identified and Coleman says he cast several, but I've read he said he only cast two, the best left and right. I'm also trying to find more on the casting photo. If it was a demo and not done the same day, the shadows don't matter.

Why don't you go back to Googling instead of trying to denigrate me? If you come up with anything important, you might even convince me.

 

[LAL]

Bigposts are transdimensional critters that can morph the size of their pics and text. Its a chamaleonic adaptation, an enhanced form of deception, that allows bigposts to live undetected even at a skeptics' forum! However, disturbances in EM fields along cable and phone lines (fiber optics can be affected also), created by ley lines, solar flares or hovering UFOs, can create some interference with their changeling skills. But they can compensate quickly.

If that's not a joke, send it to Erik Beckjord. He'll eat it up.

Nowdays, with so many different types of rubber, resin and plastic compounds avaliable, making a pair of flexible bigfeet would not be that hard, but still more expensive (and traceable, since these compounds are not that common) than carving from a plank. Using a hoaxer´s approach, I think that sticking to the KISS principle perhaps would be better. Two wood planks, a bit of carving skills and you´ll have a pair of bigfeet. Back tracking with rigid bigfeet can create the "break", for example, and also would be usefull for some hoaxing purposes ("look, no human footprints near the bigfoot footprints").

You might want to examine actual fake feet from the era, e.g., Wallace's and Mullens'. Several investigators, Meldrum and Krantz included, have made carved feet and experimented with them to see what kind of tracks they leave. Krantz has photos and diagrams in his book. Are you sure you read it? You might want to examine some actual evidence, too, instead of relying on photos on the Internet and "logic".

Aniway, one must also keep in mind that, besides the obvious anatomic mismatch between bigfeet´s "mid-tarsal breaks" and real "mid-tarsal breaks", there´s another important issue. A "mid-tarsal break" in a bipedal adapted for long distance walks, such as bigfeet are supposed to be, is inneficient, causing waste of energy. Such feature would most likely disappear as the species evolves and adapts.

Like the appendix and wisdom teeth? Why are you comparing the feet of knuckle walkers with those of hominids? They're not habitually upright. They have fangs as well. Does that mean we have to have them too?

Bipedalism is efficient compared to knuckle-walking. Read Tattersal.

The options left for footers, assuming that the creature is real (something I think is quite unlikely) are:
(1) Krantz was wrong and Bigfeet have no "mid-tarsal breaks";
(2) Bigfeet have "mid-tarsal breaks" but are not animals adapted for long-distance walks, they do not have great territories. In this case, Krantz et al. are wrong again. And two additional questions appear: (a) If their territories are smaller, shouldn´t they be tracked, shot, captured or filmed? (b) "Mid-tarsal breaks" are an adaptation for climbing trees. Can anyone imagine a 3-m tall ape dangling over tree branches?

Homo is descended from an arboreal ancestor too. All the apes are.

Whatever are people´s ideas on bigfeet, I think the above reasoning shows that the works from Krantz et al. are not the masterpieces claimed by LAL.

I think the reasoning is faulty to begin with. (Lu's to do list: Take Physics. Take Logic 101.)

I've never claimed the works are masterpieces, but they are the result of serious investigation and research as opposed to armchair speculation.

They have serious holes. Holes that are easily fixed when one considers that a basic conclusion of theirs was wrong. They were wrong when claimed that bigfeet are real.

I believe it was Meldrum who proposed midtarsal flexibility, not Krantz. Krantz gave them only a 10% chance of being real before he examined the Bossburg track casts, incidently.

Instead of wasting your time on this board, why don't you and Pat Kelley co-author a paper (with footnotes by Bearfoot Bill, perhaps) and submit it to the Society For Scientific Exploration where it would probably be sent to Meldrum for review? I suspect he would tear it to pieces in his mild-mannered way, but, what the heck, that's Peer Review.

Speaking of Meldrum, I just read he had an article on the Skookum Cast published in New Scientist. I'll try to find this after work.

 

[LTC8K6]

Several investigators, Meldrum and Krantz included, have made carved feet and experimented with them to see what kind of tracks they leave.

"We couldn't duplicate it, so no one else could."

Same old silly argument.... we have to have an esoteric explanation since we were unable to do what someone else might have done. This seems to be universal among woos.

Hey Jeff, this is what kind of tracks wooden bigfeet leave:

 

[LTC8K6]

At this point, I would like to reference Rebecca Bradley from the pyramids thread.

You appear to be not just invincibly, but willfully ignorant.

 

[RayG]

I didn't ignore it, I just wasn't able to find a source with a precise distance.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php

Three and a half miles according to Patterson.(in February 1968)

Coleman says three miles.

Coleman says three miles? Why would Coleman, who wasn't there, be more accurate than Patterson?

In fact, how would they know how far it was, precisely, and was it on foot or on horseback?

If it was on horseback Patterson could probably give very accurate estimates of distance. Apparently he spent a great deal of time in the saddle, and would be familiar with how far his horse would travel based on time spent and speed of horse. However, whether it's three or three and a half, on foot or on horseback, it still eats into the timeline of events. If they tracked on foot it would take them even longer to traverse the six (or seven) miles before attempting to plaster cast tracks.

Do you believe they attempted to follow Patty, and if so for what distance?

None of this adds up to hoax in the first place.

No, but the numerous discrepancies in their recollection of events certainly make it hard to determine what actually happened.

Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of an unexpected event are normal and memories bleed over time.

That's why I take Patterson's recollections over Coleman's, Patterson was recounting events within four months of it happening. When, and how, did Coleman's come up with his three mile guesstimate?

I'm interested in getting the most accurate account possible.

Me too.

Knights has done extensive work on the timeline. Did you find that thread on BFF?

Is there a specific link?

The photo with Roger shows four but they aren't identified and Coleman says he cast several...

I wasn't aware Coleman was there.

If you come up with anything important, you might even convince me.

Exactly how it's supposed to work.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Speaking of Meldrum, I just read he had an article on the Skookum Cast published in New Scientist. I'll try to find this after work.

I wonder whether the article will be compelling or not.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newsletter/01_05.php

"I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling." -- Dr. Meldrum

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.asp

"While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere." -- Dr. Meldrum

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

From the original news article 10/21/67:

"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up.

Okay, so you have finally, after years and years, managed to creep up on this creature and it is still crouching down by a river, you have a camera with you to get it on film, and you are on horseback so you can follow it, and you are armed for protection.

Everything is perfect.

I think I will now yell out loud to the guy riding near me, spook the creature only 80 feet away from me, scare my horse, and blow the whole thing.

If I were Bob, I would have considered shooting Patterson.

You'd think these guys had never been hunting or tracking in the woods.

 

[Correa Neto]

Bigposts are transdimensional critters that can morph the size of their pics and text. Its a chamaleonic adaptation, an enhanced form of deception, that allows bigposts to live undetected even at a skeptics' forum! However, disturbances in EM fields along cable and phone lines (fiber optics can be affected also), created by ley lines, solar flares or hovering UFOs, can create some interference with their changeling skills. But they can compensate quickly.

If that's not a joke, send it to Erik Beckjord. He'll eat it up.

No, its not a joke. I do belive in bigposts! I even own some footprint casts from a bigpost taken at Crackpot Creek! And some high-quality footage from Lisa, a female bigposter, avaliable only to the few selected believers that know the secret handshake!

Now, on a "serious" side, do you think I can make some money with that sort of stuff?

You might want to examine actual fake feet from the era, e.g., Wallace's and Mullens'. Several investigators, Meldrum and Krantz included, have made carved feet and experimented with them to see what kind of tracks they leave. Krantz has photos and diagrams in his book. Are you sure you read it?

I find the conclusions of the "several investigators" quite shaky. LAL, why do you think someone would be convinced that bigfeet are real by reading Krantz?

You might want to examine some actual evidence, too, instead of relying on photos on the Internet and "logic".

Are you using anything else than photos and texts on the internet, videos, etc.? Define "actual evidence".

"Logic" is what bigfoot creduloids use to find excuses around many contradictory issues and implausibilities.

Like the appendix and wisdom teeth? Why are you comparing the feet of knuckle walkers with those of hominids? They're not habitually upright. They have fangs as well. Does that mean we have to have them too?

LAL, your analogies are not correct. The appendix interferr negatively with the digestive function? The wisdom teeth negatively affects the efficiency of the act of chewing?

Now, an extra articulation in the feet will have a negative effect on the efficiency of the act of walking (see below).

Bipedalism is efficient compared to knuckle-walking. Read Tattersal.

Homo is descended from an arboreal ancestor too. All the apes are.

And feet with mid-tarsals breaks render bipedalism inefficient. Remember this pic?

It does not take a specialist in biomechanics to see how ineficient the mechanics of the foot in the left would be...

I think the reasoning is faulty to begin with. (Lu's to do list: Take Physics. Take Logic 101.)

Then please provide a better one. Not necessarily yours. Bring on Krantz's or Meldrum's take on the issue, for example.

I've never claimed the works are masterpieces, but they are the result of serious investigation and research as opposed to armchair speculation.

So what? All "serious investigations" always result in the correct conclusions? PhDs and experts are always right?

If I were defending bigfoot as a real creature by say, seeing muscles in Patty, would you complain about my armchair investigation? And, BTW, does it takes anything else than armchair investigation to find such obvious flaws?

I believe it was Meldrum who proposed midtarsal flexibility, not Krantz. Krantz gave them only a 10% chance of being real before he examined the Bossburg track casts, incidently.

And so?

Instead of wasting your time on this board, why don't you and Pat Kelley co-author a paper (with footnotes by Bearfoot Bill, perhaps) and submit it to the Society For Scientific Exploration where it would probably be sent to Meldrum for review? I suspect he would tear it to pieces in his mild-mannered way, but, what the heck, that's Peer Review.

I have considered writing a paper dealing with these issues even before you joined this forum, LAL. However, prepairing a paper is time-consuming, and spare time is something I don´t have too much in my hands these days, unfortunately.

If I lived in USA, I would use some extra spare time to hoax bigfoot pictures and footprints just for fun. Unfortunately, since I live in Brazil, I will have to keep on having fun with UFO and elementals creduloids. But who knows, its actually far from impossible for me to do some field work in the future in bigfootland... Or maybe to ask a friend or two a favor...

Speaking of Meldrum, I just read he had an article on the Skookum Cast published in New Scientist. I'll try to find this after work.

Sounds fun... Do you have any hopes that we will not be able to find flaws?

 

[William Parcher]

I wasn't getting my topic reply notifications and probably didn't skim back far enough. I don't remember seeing that.

That is a poor excuse for someone like yourself who seems to be an amateur researcher of the PGF and has a zillion factoids at your fingertips. The things that P&G said to reporters would seem to be important towards establishing authenticity, or otherwise. It seems that when Heironimus says things, they can be used to damage his credibility. When P&G say things, it is just water rolling off a duck's back. Apparently, their accounts are so meaningless that you don't even pay close attention to them... or care.

In fact, how would they know how far it was, precisely, and was it on foot or on horseback? I'm not finding that either. They did get to Hodson's store after closing.

It doesn't matter if it was precise. For whatever reason, they decided to give the distance in a way that suggests some precision, or at least a desire to appear precise. They may have truly gone to Hodson's store on the evening of October 20th, but that doesn't mean they are telling the truth about what happened earlier that day.

None of this adds up to hoax in the first place.

It is amazingly supportive of a hoax theory.

I'm interested in getting the most accurate account possible. Knights has done extensive work on the timeline. Did you find that thread on BFF?

I found an interesting thread by Knights. I don't know if it is the one you are thinking of. Here Knights tries to outline and reconcile the timeline of the film processing. This is a different bizarre timeline than the actions of P&G at Bluff Creek after encountering Patty, but is still related. It looks like Knights has the suspicion that P&G did not film Patty on October 20. Instead of the stench of a Bigfoot, the whole thing smells like a rat. Look here.

Right now, I'm interested in finding out more about the pictures.

Get in line.

Titmus found evidence four tracks were cast. The photo with Roger shows four but they aren't identified and Coleman says he cast several, but I've read he said he only cast two, the best left and right.

So Patterson cast four tracks and only presented two. How supportive is that of this not being a hoax?

Why don't you go back to Googling instead of trying to denigrate me? If you come up with anything important, you might even convince me.

Googling doesn't help much, because there seems to be a conflict of information coming from the sources themselves. Not to mention that all of the information is coming from Bigfoot believers in the very first place. I have no good reason to think that those types are completely honest and forthcoming.

 

[William Parcher]

There is another interesting discussion of Patterson's "second reel" over here on BFF. Apparently, the poster "Manzinn" has a video of this that was taken from a 1975 documentary called "Bigfoot Man or Beast". I can't get the link to work that he provided.

Anyway, there does seem to be the question whether it shows Patterson casting Patty's tracks or ones that he created himself for his "documentary". Some are saying that he created a fake trackway at Bluff Creek in the days before the Patty encounter and that is what we are seeing.

There is more to say about this and hardly anything is looking innocent to me.

 

[LAL]

"We couldn't duplicate it, so no one else could."

Same old silly argument.... we have to have an esoteric explanation since we were unable to do what someone else might have done. This seems to be universal among woos.

That's not the argument. Rigid feet graphically demonstrate what can and cannot be done. Good researchers experiment. They don't just sit around making stupid comments about the opposition.