Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[rgann]

9) To anyone who saw the film site before time altered it, Heironimus’ story makes it immediately obvious that he was never there. He tells of Patterson and Gimlin helping him to put the suit on and to stand up, then, “I started walking. I came to the creek. I walked through the sand.” p 349

He does not know that the creek bottom is not sand, but slippery rocks that are best walked on carefully, or that on the far side he would have encountered a vertical cut in the bank of the sandbar which was more than two feet high (it shows in the film) that would have been an unforgettable obstacle for a man in a suit with legs so stiff he needed help to get to his feet from a sitting position.

Henry

Was reading through your post and I noticed this point (BH not at site because he claimed to have walked on sand not rock) and wanted to ask about your source on this:

From the Ivan Sanderson Argosy Feb 1968 story Patterson specifically states that the incident occured in sand as BH states:

RP:
"On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall. Both Bob and I estimate — and this pretty well matched what others told us from examination of the depth to which her tracks sank into hard sand— that she would weigh about three hundred and fifty pounds."

"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!"

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm

Are there other accounts that mentioned rocks and no sand?

Rick

 

[Crowlogic]

Henry

Was reading through your post and I noticed this point and wanted to ask about your source on this:

From the Ivan Sanderson Argosy Feb 1968 story Patterson specifically states that the incident occured in sand:

"On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall. Both Bob and I estimate — and this pretty well matched what others told us from examination of the depth to which her tracks sank into hard sand— that she would weigh about three hundred and fifty pounds."




"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!"



Are there other accounts that mentioned rocks and no sand?

Rick

A slippery rock bottomed creek does not negate that there was a sandbar adjecent to it. I've sometimes considerd that the sandbar was actually in the middle of the creek which was flowing around it on either side.

 

[LTC8K6]

We rounded a sharp bend in the sandy arroyo of the creek. Then it happened.

The stream beds were sandy. The only mention I recall of a rock is one that Patty supposedly left a wet footprint on as she left the area.

 

[LTC8K6]

She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me.

No, she didn't Roger. You had already seen the film numerous times when you said this, too.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/2ndReelStills.jpg

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I left the ' no sand ' part alone earlier, but we have been shown pictures of Patterson casting what are supposed to be Patty's tracks, in what is clearly sand.

 

[LTC8K6]

Who was running the camera for those supposed second reel stills? Has it been established that the guy on the horse wearing the shirt that looks just like Patterson's shirt is not Roger?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/2ndReelStills.jpg

Did you ever notice that the 2 stills of the horses at the creek are in exactly the same spot at the creek?

 

[LTC8K6]

Patterson on the left, Gimlin and Heironimus on the right:

http://www.geradts.com/anil/br/vol_004_no_002/reviews/books/book001/039.jpg

Looks like Patterson to me in the same sort of shirt:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/2ndReelStills.jpg

Not sure where I think I'm going, though....

 

[LTC8K6]

Branch circled. These must be first roll stills then. Or have I been up too late with this line of thinking?

 

[bf2006]

Henry

Was reading through your post and I noticed this point (BH not at site because he claimed to have walked on sand not rock) and wanted to ask about your source on this:

From the Ivan Sanderson Argosy Feb 1968 story Patterson specifically states that the incident occured in sand as BH states:

RP:
"On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall. Both Bob and I estimate — and this pretty well matched what others told us from examination of the depth to which her tracks sank into hard sand— that she would weigh about three hundred and fifty pounds."

"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!"



Are there other accounts that mentioned rocks and no sand?

Rick

Rgann, first of all, hello. Second of all, that quote is from some of the information I copied and pasted to this forum from I believe Roger Knights, it is not anything I wrote. Roger posts over on Bigfoot Forums as RogerKni and seems to be getting rather exasperated with Diogenes here (who posts as Skeptical Greg on Bigfoot Forums) and has decided to filter Dio as well, which shows in my mind a bit of unobjectivity on his part and means that he is not willing to listen to the other side of the coin, which I am. I am what would be described as a "skeptical believer" in that I have actually had two sightings of Sasquatch creatures and think this film is real overall, but still I have misgivings about it and also I have acknowledged that even if that film turns out to be a hoax it does not mean there is no Sasquatch, and I will continue to search whether the film shows a real Sasquatch or just Bob H. in a suit. I also do not blindly buy into every piece of so-called evidence there is, such as the Skookum Cast, mainly because there were no Sasquatch tracks leading to or away from it, but there were plenty of elk, bear, coyote and bird tracks. It is just a case of some Bigfooters seeing what they wanted to see in it. The footprints with dermal ridges were shown to possibly have casting artifacts in them by our very own Tube. Also, it is possible that some of the tracks found in the late-50's-early-60's in and around the construction sites of a certain Ray Wallace may have been Wallace creations. As to the hair and fecal samples, I cannot speak to those (other than a sample of feces which was found somewhere in the US that had parasites native to Asia in it which is unusual, and may be, just MAY be Sasquatch hair). But, again, these are pieces of evidence subject to interpretation, and they are not absolute proof. In other words, I cannot PROVE there is a Sasquatch, nor can I prove I had two sightings to anyone. I can only tell you what I saw, and if you believe me, that's fine, but if not, that is fine too. I will not get bent out of shape if some of you here do not believe me, because it would be impossible for me to convince any of you anyway. I do acknowledge that even though I am no-kill when it comes to Sasquatch, I also know it will take a body to convince skeptics (including some of you here), and would not get upset if someone shot and killed one and brought it in. My preference would be if bones or remains were found, but I still would not get upset if someone kills one. Until then, I am a skeptical believer.

 

[bf2006]

Rgann, first of all, hello. Second of all, that quote is from some of the information I copied and pasted to this forum from I believe Roger Knights, it is not anything I wrote. Roger posts over on Bigfoot Forums as RogerKni and seems to be getting rather exasperated with Diogenes here (who posts as Skeptical Greg on Bigfoot Forums) and has decided to filter Dio as well, which shows in my mind a bit of unobjectivity on his part and means that he is not willing to listen to the other side of the coin, which I am. I am what would be described as a "skeptical believer" in that I have actually had two sightings of Sasquatch creatures and think this film is real overall, but still I have misgivings about it and also I have acknowledged that even if that film turns out to be a hoax it does not mean there is no Sasquatch, and I will continue to search whether the film shows a real Sasquatch or just Bob H. in a suit. I also do not blindly buy into every piece of so-called evidence there is, such as the Skookum Cast, mainly because there were no Sasquatch tracks leading to or away from it, but there were plenty of elk, bear, coyote and bird tracks. It is just a case of some Bigfooters seeing what they wanted to see in it. The footprints with dermal ridges were shown to possibly have casting artifacts in them by our very own Tube. Also, it is possible that some of the tracks found in the late-50's-early-60's in and around the construction sites of a certain Ray Wallace may have been Wallace creations. As to the hair and fecal samples, I cannot speak to those (other than a sample of feces which was found somewhere in the US that had parasites native to Asia in it which is unusual, and may be, just MAY be Sasquatch hair). But, again, these are pieces of evidence subject to interpretation, and they are not absolute proof. In other words, I cannot PROVE there is a Sasquatch, nor can I prove I had two sightings to anyone. I can only tell you what I saw, and if you believe me, that's fine, but if not, that is fine too. I will not get bent out of shape if some of you here do not believe me, because it would be impossible for me to convince any of you anyway. I do acknowledge that even though I am no-kill when it comes to Sasquatch, I also know it will take a body to convince skeptics (including some of you here), and would not get upset if someone shot and killed one and brought it in. My preference would be if bones or remains were found, but I still would not get upset if someone kills one. Until then, I am a skeptical believer.

Oops, that one line should read "MAY be Sasquatch scat." Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Melissa]

Nice try, but I didn't say that.

So how'd he know the horse was red?

He can say whatever he likes, that does not make him right. Who says he is right about the red horse hair? Just because he said it, that does not mean he is right.

Like falling off your horse, getting pinned, and bending a stirrup?

Like Patty has droopy, floppy, breasts?

Like 3.5 miles?

Like Patty stunk from 90 feet away?

Well I promise you I wasn't there that October day - but even I know by reading and watching the film - Patty appears to have floppy breasts, Mr. Patterson appears to stumble or trip in the beginning (falling maybe). How would BH know Patty stunk from 90 feet away - he says he was in the costume??

All these things he says may be true but it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear BH had actually watched this footage at some point over the last 40 years. What I am surprised by is BH has not given us anything to say he was really in that suit. Usually if one is involved in something they have details that are verifiable, and not known by anyone else.

I would love to see BH attempt to take Mrs. Patterson to court over money he wasn't paid. He would get on the stand, tell his side - then Mrs. Patterson's attorney would get up (maybe he wouldn't have to even leave his chair) it wouldn't last long.

At least in a court of law he would have to pick a story and stick to it, then we might get somewhere with his story.

 

[LTC8K6]

Who says he is right about the red horse hair?

No one. It makes no difference if he is wrong. The point remains. He could have said blue for all I care. Why give the color of the horse?

Well I promise you I wasn't there that October day - but even I know by reading and watching the film - Patty appears to have floppy breasts, Mr. Patterson appears to stumble or trip in the beginning (falling maybe). How would BH know Patty stunk from 90 feet away - he says he was in the costume??

No, Patty has rock hard breasts which barely move. Patterson always describes them as droopy, floppy, pendulous, etc., in direct opposition to his own film.

Anyone claiming Patty's breasts are floppy is nothing but a liar, or they are looking at a different film, imo.

Patterson said Patty stunk like a wet dog, yet he never got anywhere near her.

Why does Napier say Patty's feet are not visible? What PGF did they show him?

Why does Hill say Patty's gait is manifestly human? Napier says so too.

Why did qualified folks who saw the PGF initially not say anything about an inhuman gait?

Did they perhaps see the film at a different speed?

 

[Melissa]

No one. It makes no difference if he is wrong. The point remains. He could have said blue for all I care. Why give the color of the horse?

I understand the point you are making. Apparently BH thought giving it a color would give him more credibility? Would a red horse hide look black in color film with the sun on it? (I dont know thats why Im asking).

No, Patty has rock hard breasts which barely move. Patterson always describes them as droopy, floppy, pendulous, etc., in direct opposition to his own film.

Your opinion.

Anyone claiming Patty's breasts are floppy is nothing but a liar, or they are looking at a different film, imo.

Thats right, in your opinion. You can no more prove pattys breasts are not floppin around than I can prove they are. So, I would say to call someone a liar on that point is taking your opinion to a level of knowledge none of us have - unless you were there

Patterson said Patty stunk like a wet dog, yet he never got anywhere near her.

I thought we were talking about BH - if you are going to change players, let me know.

Why does Napier say Patty's feet are not visible? What PGF did they show him?

Some people dont see the breasts, doesnt mean they were not there - and missed. I have never read any comments by this Napier person - could you direct me toward something I can read? I would like to.

Why does Hill say Patty's gait is manifestly human? Napier says so too.

Why did qualified folks who saw the PGF initially not say anything about an inhuman gait?

Did they perhaps see the film at a different speed?

Gait and all that is way out of my league. I also dont know if people did or did not comment early on about the gait. Thats the kind of supposition I just dont care to get into. I like to discuss actual comments and quotes.

 

[Crowlogic]

So BH learned that the "dead red horse" from his brother? Well now we have another conspirecy cohort in that Patterson was in some sort of contact with BH's brother. Assuming he's still alive why didn' t Greg Long talk to brother H? Are we to now believe that Patterson was blabbing details of the hoax to anybody that would listen? And which brother H? BTW there is a clan of brothers.

As for Patterson's own description of the film he could have said just about anything he wanted in an interview since showing the film speaks for itself. He saw most of the film subject through the view finder of the camera and therefore had the worst vantage to actually see the thing.

Breasts bouncing/giggling etc .....most phony attached breasts (not implants)have even more movement than natural breasts since they lack the matrix of muscle and tissue support. Whether or not the breasts move or not move, seem hard or soft isn't IMO a decideng issue to confirm hoax. The PGF creature isn't human, only human like. Given the size of the creature the breasts are rather small overall there are many much smaller human women with natural breasts that dwarf the PFG creatures breasts.

 

[Melissa]

"It stunk .." is the only part that is definitive ..

The rest was hearsay ..

Do you know what ' hearsay ' is, Melissa ..

Diogenes, this is why people put you on ignore. Apparently you are clueless about what hearsay is yourself.

Heironimus: "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse."

It stunk may be a definitive comment, but so is the business about the red horse.

Where in that quote above does it say "Roger told me" or "I think it was" "I was told it was" ?? Roger told me, and I was told are heresay comments - not, "Roger skinned out a dead, red horse". He is not saying he was told it was a red horse or anything else. You wont get any more definitive than the statement "Roger skinned out a dead, red horse". His comment is not a question or a search for an answer to the question he was asked, it is an answer which implies knowledge of this issue someone who was not there would not have. In this statement he qualifys himself as an authority, by implying he has knowledge only someone who was there would know.

Now, if BH said "Roger told me it was a dead red horse" -- that is hearsay (considering RP is no longer with us and we can not either confirm or deny this statement) If a statement can not be verified it is Hearsay.

Yes, I understand hearsay very well, do you? Obviously not. I appreciate your attempt at trying to teach me things I already know, but seriously stop - if I listened to you my boss would fire me But thanks for thinking of me.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks for that, I will be sure to impart your wisdom on the actual scientists involved in the research, I am sure they will get a kick out of your comment. LMAO

And they'll come after you with Petri dishes and Bunsen burners and pie charts and your name will be Mud.

Any of those actual scientists got any reliable evidence yet or are they still with the 2000 pound Patty's and the MDF breasts?

 

[LTC8K6]

Your opinion.

You can no more prove pattys breasts are not floppin around than I can prove they are.

A fact just is, Melissa. Patty's breasts are not flopping around, as Patterson claims. No need to prove a fact.

I think Patterson knew they should, but he could not make them do so. So, he always described them that way to cover for the fact that he could not make realistic breasts.

I thought we were talking about BH - if you are going to change players, let me know.

See thread title please.

I like to discuss actual comments and quotes.

The comments I have mentioned from Napier and Hill are well known and readily available to anyone who is researching bigfoot. The fact that you are unaware of Hill's and Napier's comments says a lot.

I also dont know if people did or did not comment early on about the gait.

How can you not know that?

You don't seem too well versed in bigfoot to me.

**********

most phony attached breasts (not implants)have even more movement than natural breasts since they lack the matrix of muscle and tissue support.

Evidence please.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Who was running the camera for those supposed second reel stills? Has it been established that the guy on the horse wearing the shirt that looks just like Patterson's shirt is not Roger?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/2ndReelStills.jpg

Did you ever notice that the 2 stills of the horses at the creek are in exactly the same spot at the creek?

It is claimed that it is part of the Patty reel..

Did you notice those two stills are reversed. They are reversed in the film clip also when it is shown..
Showing that the piece of film has been cut and spliced..

 

[Melissa]

A fact just is, Melissa. Patty's breasts are not flopping around, as Patterson claims. No need to prove a fact.

While I agree with the majority of what you say, if you are going to make statements like that, you should be required to evidence this. Until someone finds a female bigfoot and can accurately assess the movement of any breasts - that is only an assumption on your part and your opinion. I stay away from statements like that - less I be accused of trying to sound like I know something I clearly can not. If I said "Its a fact" about anything seen in the patterson film, you would jump all over me, and rightfully so.

I think Patterson knew they should, but he could not make them do so. So, he always described them that way to cover for the fact that he could not make realistic breasts.

Wow, thats a lot of assumption. You cant even prove its a real animal or not - no one can.

See thread title please.

Yes, but we have been discussing BH - not Roger Patterson.. All I ask is if your gonna jump around just let me know.

The comments I have mentioned from Napier and Hill are well known and readily available to anyone who is researching bigfoot. The fact that you are unaware of Hill's and Napier's comments says a lot.

No, it just says exactly what I have been saying all along - I have read the statements of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. I have listened to and read comments by BH - but I do not think this film is the end all of this research.. I have patty in "her" proper perspective. If I happen along something that I find interesting I read it - if not, I move along. Reading everything ever published on this incident is not going to help me in my research.

I also dont know if people did or did not comment early on about the gait.

How can you not know that?

How could I possibly know that? I wasnt there back then, and I was not privy to conversations between Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin or anyone they may have spoken to. How can anyone not there know everything that was ever discussed? There is no way.. You are speculating about things...

You don't seem too well versed in bigfoot to me.

Once again, your opinion, I could say the same about your skepticism. It works both ways you know. Just because you can come up with the statement or the comment, doesnt make it a valid skeptical arguement. As a rule there should be some basis in fact for the arguement. At least I source my comments when necessary.

But I also know, because you said as much, you are not on the BH bandwagon - thats kewl, even if you were it wouldnt matter to me.