Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Patterson frequently describes Patty's breasts as droopy, pendant, pendulous, etc. That's pretty odd since the film doesn't show this at all.

In the very first newpaper article:

PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved."

There is absolutely nothing of the sort on the P/G film.

 

[LAL]

The owners of BFF can ban me if they don't like the way I dot my i's ..

However I don't believe they are as petty as you seem to be

Do you have anything else ?

You challenged me to report you and I admitted I'd thought about it. I need to write to Paul anyway on another matter, but this isn't worth wasting his time.

I told you I'd had a bad day; I was in a really bad mood. When I found myself snapping at Matt because I thought he was Bill I realized I needed to detach from this. It used to be fun, but sometimes it's like stepping into a hornet's nest.

4. is clear. When you're using their stuff, credit the author and the board, that's all. I would think that applies to composite photos, too. Someone goes to the work to put them together. If I were to post Correa's work, e.g., over there I would give credit. One can click properties or just look at the URL when replying, but that's not what they're talking about.

I actually don't have a go to picture source feature when I right-click. Is that an XP thing? I don't have XP. I was going to note that when my heater blew a fuse, and rather than restart the computer, let it check for errors and then edit the post, I said to hell with it and went to bed.

I have to edit the URL to get to the source, and often that doesn't get me to the photo. I find these old photos interesting. It's one thing to read about these people, but seeing what they looked like gives it another dimension for me. I wish I could find a picture of Bryne when he was young. I met him when he was already old, but in his youth he was drop dead handsome. No wonder Green didn't like him.

But I digress.

 

[LAL]

Patterson frequently describes Patty's breasts as droopy, pendant, pendulous, etc. That's pretty odd since the film doesn't show this at all.

In the very first newpaper article:

There is absolutely nothing of the sort on the P/G film.

I thought you said you hadn't seen the film? They're actually not visible at all through most of it. Both men saw her before any filming started, Gimlin for the whole time. The human eye can pick up things the camera can't. Interestingly, the eyewitness accounts of females in other areas describe the breasts in the same way.

 

[tube]

Patterson frequently describes Patty's breasts as droopy, pendant, pendulous, etc. That's pretty odd since the film doesn't show this at all.

In the very first newpaper article:



There is absolutely nothing of the sort on the P/G film.

Well here is where it gets sort of weird, and I'm going to delve into speculation. Have you seen Patterson's book? His book came out in 1966, before his film. In his book he includes several of his own illustrations of Sasquatch. His own illustrations depict female Sasquatches with droopy National Geographic magazine native woman type breasts, i.e. NATURAL breasts.

But then his film shows something exactly opposite. If it is a hoax, why did he do this? I propose two possible reasons. One is that if his 'Squatch looked exactly like what he drew in his own book he could be accused of following a template of sorts. Better to do the exact opposite what you have previously proposed.

The second reason may have to do with ridicule. I certainly remember as a child growing up gawking and laughing at National Geographic magazine photos of "Native" women with severely droopy breasts. I suspect that Patterson knew that if he put floppy breasts on his costume it would draw undue attention and perhaps ridicule, especially if broadcast on TV.

On BFF people openly ridicule a still photo put forth by Tom Biscardi which is almost certainly a photo of one of Ivan Marx old Bigfoot suits. One photo shows a hairy figure with what appears to be a rather pendulous scrotum. Despite the fact that this is a not unreasonable anatomical feature it draws ridicule. If Patterson did hoax it, he certainly did it for money, and money will not be made if it is ridiculed or too "prurient" to be shown on TV.

On the other hand, maybe he filmed a real Sasquatch...

 

[tube]

But they aren't habitual bipeds with a compliant gait.

QUOTE]

Habitually bipedal human females whose breasts are as big as the film subject's will most definitely "jiggle" more than the film subject's. Especially if they never wore a bra. Especially when twisting sideways.

This issue even goes beyond biology into simple material science. Breast tissue is mostly fat, or if lactation is occurring, additional fluid. Neither fat nor fluid is rigid unless pressurized.

As for fur, please post a photograph of ANY mammal that has FUR on the breasts or teats.

 

[LTC8K6]

He knew they should droop and move a lot, but was unable to make them do this.

So, he goes with what he has, rigid fake breasts, and simply describes seeing the breasts do what they should, reinforcing the idea that Patty is real.

Hoping, or possibly correctly realizing, that few would question him on that aspect of the film.

Does Bob Gimlin ever mention the breasts other than noting their presence?

 

[LTC8K6]

Perhaps Patterson thought that a male bigfoot acting the way Patty does would reek of falsehood?

That is, a large male would not simply meekly walk away and allow itself to be followed and filmed. It it more likely to stand it's ground, or perhaps even advance toward the pair and challenge them. Particularly in light of the claims of a family unit inhabiting the area.

So, maybe in Roger's mind his subject had to be a female?

 

[LTC8K6]

I just noticed that in the Nov 67 radio interview, Gimlin said Patty's cheeks were bare.

W: Now when you looked at it, describe her physically to me. Was there
any shred of
clothing of any kind?

B: No clothing at all on this creature, it was covered with hair only, except around the face and nose. The nose was bare and around the cheeks were bare.

 

[LTC8K6]

 

[RayG]

Page 88 here, too.

You sure? (you'll see why in a minute)

I'm having trouble interpreting it. It think my brain is still fatiqued from trying to figure out Dahinden's diagram.

That's cause yer looking at two 'maps' on the same page, the leftmost one is from Bob Titmus, the one to the right of that represent the camera directions and actual distances Krantz came up with.

Apologies accepted. Chess is more my speed.

Chess is good... consider for a moment the movement of the rook. In the case of the Titmus map, the rook (Patty) starts on the B1 square, moves from there to B6, then from B6 to E6, then from E6 to E5.

And it doesn't show her route going up the mountain and then coming back to watch them.

Again, you sure yer on page 88, looking at Figure 44? Krantz calls it 'Ground plan of Patterson's Film'. The X on the map marks the location of the sasquatch at the moment of sighting, and the dashed lines represent its course as it walked away. The Titmus map follows the subject's trail, after the filmed part, up the hill to where it sat and watched for some time at the position marked by a circle with a dot inside.

Somehow they managed to follow her for 3.5 MILES, yet she had walked less than 200 yards away from them (according to the Titmus map, page 88 of Krantz).

That does seem a little weird; I think that's why I kept asking for a source to begin with. I know from experience what 3.5 miles is like on a small mountain, even with 1/2 of it on the level.

It seems a LOT weird. Titmus had no trouble following the tracks (once he found them) and he claims Patty was at most between 125 - 150 yards away from them when it sat down to observe them. If, as Patterson suggests, he and Gimlin attempted to follow Patty as she strode away, and followed her for 3.5 miles, there's no way on earth that jives with what Titmus is saying. Something smells, and somebody ain't telling the truth.

Here's the Titmus account as reported in John Green's Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us, pages 120-121.

"I found the place where the pictures had been taken and the tracks of Bigfoot the following morning. The tracks traversed a little more than 300 feet of a rather high sand, silt and gravel bar which had a light scattering of trees growing on it, no underbrush whatever but a considerable amount of drift debris here and there. The tracks then crossed Bluff Creek and an old logging road and continued up a steep mountainside...

This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns. About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him. The distance would have been approximately 125-150 yards."

Sounds like immediately after disappearing out of sight from Patterson and Gimlin, Patty circled back to her vantage point where she could observe the men below.

Oh, wait a minute. Maybe she returned after they started jumping and casting, et al, but if so, why didn't Titmus indicate that on his map? No, I think Krantz got it wrong. She wasn't watching them casting;; she was watching them catch the horses, then moved on and they followed her for whatever distance, returned, went to camp, went back to the site and then did the casting.

It still doesn't jive with what Patterson said:

(from http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php )

At that point, I asked Bob "Just what was Roger doing?"

"He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush."

"Did you see her [Patty], too?"

"Yeah, Ivan, but way ahead and really taking off for the hills."

...Roger, however, backed up his back-up man unprompted.

"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. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel. Man, she was running just like you and I do!"

Patterson confirms that Patty was NOT sitting quietly in some vantage point observing them cast tracks, because they had already pursued her for about 3.5 miles right after the encounter took place. They only took plaster casts AFTER the 3.5 mile pursuit took place. Yet this COULD NOT BE TRUE because Titmus claimed Patty only walked a short distance away before coming back to her vantage point. If Patterson and Gimlin had truly pursued her they would have encountered her a second time as she sat there among the ferns, regardless of whether they were on foot or horseback. (I can't see them leaving their horses behind to pursue on foot anyway.)

If they'd caught the horses, why wouldn't they ride?

According to the Sanderson interview, Gimlin caught the horses while Patterson was filming.

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

While Roger took the film, Bob got the horses calmed down and then rode over the creek.

Who said they didn't ride?

Would they leave spooked horses in the area while they went after her and risk losing them for good, 20 miles up a dirt road?

No, I don't belive they would.

Not if she returned [to her vantage point] after they went to the base camp. The spot wouldn't have been there when they tracked her if she didn't come back 'til later. The map is wrong or Krantz' account is, one. He never went to the film site, did he?

Krantz is making statements based on the Titmus account. (see the Green reference earlier). Titmus is the one claiming Patty only walked a short distance away before circling back to observe from her vantage point. Since we also know, according to Patterson, that they didn't cast the tracks until AFTER they had pursued Patty for some 3.5 miles, Patterson and Gimlin must have been truly pathetic trackers, or Patty DID NOT walk a short distance away and then circle back. That would mean Titmus was lying.

If they were mounted they could have ridden right by it without seeing it, but did they go up the mountain at the same place or ride up the creek? I'd hestitate to take horses up a mountain with no trail.

But Patterson said they tracked her for some 3.5 miles. Do you see the conundrum presented by the two scenarios?

It doesn't show her going up the mountain and doubling back. It just shows a turn to the right. I don't see it as a circle. It's more of an arc.

I don't see anyone claiming she circled back completely to her original starting point. The Titmus map clearly shows her circling back (for lack of a better term) to her vantage point among the ferns.

I think it's a mistake on Krantz' part. He corrects three in Chapter 4 in the appendix of the newer edition, but seems not to have caught that one.

Granted Krantz has no way of knowing whether Patty was watching them cast tracks or not, but with regards to everything else, he's only reporting what Titmus claimed.

Her trail would have been fresh.

Exactly. So, they must have been incompetent trackers, or Patterson was telling the truth and Titmus is the incompetent tracker.

What does Gimlin say?

No idea.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

When did Wallace make this suit?

 

[LTC8K6]

Quoting zartimus from BFF re William Parcher's earlier point about Patterson casting for the camera:

OK, on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

Krantz also says in his book that Patterson took two castings immediately after filming Patty (the clearest right and left prints he could find). Then they went around and covered the prints they could see with bark to protect them. Nine days later Robert Titmus located the site and made 10 castings. Something interesting about his visit is that Titmus said that 4 of the tracks showed distinct evidence of being cast (I'm assuming plaster residue trimmings), but Patterson said he only did 2. No one knows what's up with that. Did someone else visit the site in those 9 days? Titmus also did a map sketch of the site based on Gimlin's and Patterson's and Patty's footprints so another person's prints would have probably been detected.

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm thinking of filtering you, actually. You will then have all the time you need to write your paper and impress Meldrum with your brillance, or try to anyway. I see no point in continuing the discussion when you can't even tell the difference between a question and a claim.

Bye, for now.

Please provide the evidence backing the claim that I "can't even tell the difference between a question and a claim" or remove your claim.

Hey, I´m in LAL´s ignore list! Cool!
Bye for now for you too! Feel free to come back to me whenever you manage to find reliable evidence backing bigfoot´s existence! The invitation is also extended to Meldrum.

 

[LTC8K6]

Heck, I've had LAL on ignore for a while now.

 

[LAL]

Well here is where it gets sort of weird, and I'm going to delve into speculation. Have you seen Patterson's book? His book came out in 1966, before his film. In his book he includes several of his own illustrations of Sasquatch. His own illustrations depict female Sasquatches with droopy National Geographic magazine native woman type breasts, i.e. NATURAL breasts.

But then his film shows something exactly opposite. If it is a hoax, why did he do this? I propose two possible reasons. One is that if his 'Squatch looked exactly like what he drew in his own book he could be accused of following a template of sorts. Better to do the exact opposite what you have previously proposed.

The second reason may have to do with ridicule. I certainly remember as a child growing up gawking and laughing at National Geographic magazine photos of "Native" women with severely droopy breasts. I suspect that Patterson knew that if he put floppy breasts on his costume it would draw undue attention and perhaps ridicule, especially if broadcast on TV.

On BFF people openly ridicule a still photo put forth by Tom Biscardi which is almost certainly a photo of one of Ivan Marx old Bigfoot suits. One photo shows a hairy figure with what appears to be a rather pendulous scrotum. Despite the fact that this is a not unreasonable anatomical feature it draws ridicule. If Patterson did hoax it, he certainly did it for money, and money will not be made if it is ridiculed or too "prurient" to be shown on TV.

On the other hand, maybe he filmed a real Sasquatch...

If I may butt in.....I used to own the book. It perished in my house fire along with those early, early books of Green's and my Library of Congress records of Leadbelly and almost everything else I owned.

He included William Roe's daughter's drawing didn't he? That's a notable exception to the droopy breast descriptions; they're adolescent and perky. Chovinsky saw a strong similarity between that drawing and the creature in the film. I certainly see none when it comes to the breasts.The fact that Roger could draw, some, and sculpt heads that are hardly museum quality is proof to some he could have built a suit Disney Studios couldn't have duplicated, but even if he did, he'd have to have been inspired by real sightings and descriptions, which had been around for decades. Why choose a mature female rather than an easier-to-imitate young male? Oh, yeah. Height. But what about weight?

One writer found the evidence for Chambers "compelling"-he was in California at the time. Chorvinsky noted Ray Wallace's brother had money, therefore he could have financed a suit. That sort of thing makes me splutter in my coffee.

I think it's more likely he merely filmed an animal like the ones others had seen and her breasts appear the way they do because that's the way they are.

Why would he fear ridicule? He got plenty of it without even trying, and would have gotten same with a male figure. He expected scientists to beat a path to his door. That's not what he got.

 

[LAL]

But they aren't habitual bipeds with a compliant gait.

Habitually bipedal human females whose breasts are as big as the film subject's will most definitely "jiggle" more than the film subject's. Especially if they never wore a bra. Especially when twisting sideways.

How about with a compliant gait? The legs act as shock absorbers. I can't get my butt to jiggle much that way either, and it's definitely not as muscular as Patty's was. I really don't see her breasts as "rigid" in the first place.

This issue even goes beyond biology into simple material science. Breast tissue is mostly fat, or if lactation is occurring, additional fluid. Neither fat nor fluid is rigid unless pressurized.

Milk-filled breasts are pretty rigid, but not as rigid as a blood-filled...........<um, prudishness prevails>

As for fur, please post a photograph of ANY mammal that has FUR on the breasts or teats.

Cats have fur except for on the nipples. See a cat. I don't think anyone's saying the nipples were hair covered; they were just dark. I've looked for the photo green referred to but haven't found it yet. Should be on the NG website if I can get the date.

 

[LAL]

Please provide the evidence backing the claim that I "can't even tell the difference between a question and a claim" or remove your claim.

Read the last few posts on the other thread. I asked a question, you took it as a claim.

Hey, I´m in LAL´s ignore list! Cool!

Not yet.

Bye for now for you too! Feel free to come back to me whenever you manage to find reliable evidence backing bigfoot´s existence! The invitation is also extended to Meldrum.

He isn't here; you'll have to go to him. Need the address?

 

[William Parcher]

Quoting zartimus from BFF re William Parcher's earlier point about Patterson casting for the camera:

OK, on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

It was mentioned in that BFF thread that it looks like the sand is the same in Patterson's "fake trackway documentary" and the sandbar location where Patty walked. Interesting.

Krantz also says in his book that Patterson took two castings immediately after filming Patty (the clearest right and left prints he could find). Then they went around and covered the prints they could see with bark to protect them. Nine days later Robert Titmus located the site and made 10 castings. Something interesting about his visit is that Titmus said that 4 of the tracks showed distinct evidence of being cast (I'm assuming plaster residue trimmings), but Patterson said he only did 2. No one knows what's up with that. Did someone else visit the site in those 9 days? Titmus also did a map sketch of the site based on Gimlin's and Patterson's and Patty's footprints so another person's prints would have probably been detected.

"They" didn't go around and cover some tracks with bark, according to Gimlin. He says he woke up during the early morning rain (October 21) and rode (in rain and darkness) back to the site to cover tracks himself alone.

When Titmus arrived at the site nine days later, he should have seen the tracks of P&G and Laverty. If it is really true that Titmus saw that four tracks had been plaster-casted (but Patterson only claimed and presented two)... it might be possible that the demo-fake-trackway created and filmed by Patterson and the "actual Patty trackway" are the same thing. I have burning questions about the footages that Patterson is said to have created before and after his encounter with Patty.

Concerning the testimonies and trying to reconcile where Patty went after the encounter: Gimlin also said that the last time he saw Patty she was rounding a bend in the logging road about 300 yards away from him.

 

[Correa Neto]

Read the last few posts on the other thread. I asked a question, you took it as a claim.

Care to show exactly where? Reliable evidence, not vague statements.

Hey, I´m in LAL´s ignore list! Cool!

Not yet.

Oh well, then I shall remove my statement... Sniff... I never managed to enter in an ignore list, not even in Interesting Ian´s... Someone, please, put me on ignore -but don´t forget to tell!

He isn't here; you'll have to go to him. Need the address?

Why? If you subscribed to his conclusions because you agreed with his interpreations and considered the data reliable, then you should be able to discuss it. Unless you subscribed to his conclusions due to some combination between argument to authority and because they matched your POV.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't understand this whole compliant gait thing. The subject appears to walk fairly upright and rather fluidly. Throughout the film, the armswings look disproportionately large relative to the striding and cadence. The armswings become crazy exaggerated at the time of the look back at Patterson.

If you put a guy in a bulky cumbersome Bigfoot costume, with tunnel-vision eyeholes and great big clown feet and then have him walk through sand... I would expect some oddness to the walk. Bigfooters make big noises that Patty lifts her feet to a horizontal after some steps and that a human does not or cannot do this. But if you are wearing giant fake feet through sand, you are probably going to lift them in an exaggerated way just to be sure that they clear the sand and don't cause a stumble.