Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tube]

Obviously Patterson holding up cured casts means the set of casts in the sandbar photos were hard enough to remove and handle. As for Patterson's beard I can definately see that there is a 5oclock shadow on his face as she making the cast on the sanbar. Now the "dirty clothes" photo shows him wearing a jacket and a darker beard shadow. Remember the weather changed after the shoot and it rained which means it got colder and less pleasant than the film shoot weather. Hence Patterson has on a jacket, he still hasn't shaved and he's holding up the newly cured casts. My guess is this photo was taken the day after the shoot.

So, you are suggesting that these three images were all taken within 24 hours?

 

[Crowlogic]

So, you are suggesting that these three images were all taken within 24 hours?

[qimg]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/matthetube/IMG_5038.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/matthetube/0_rp67_221.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/matthetube/CastingTime1.gif[/qimg]

Why not? The first two are a simple sequenced from the same pose but I don't think the pics where he's standing was made before the casting photo. There'a another shot of the sasting pic where the side of Patterson's face is better shown.

 

[rgann]

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...

..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.

Henry,

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for putting things in context, I as many others here have read through big chunks of the debates at the BFF (for me specifically PGF stuff) and and I have had the opportunity to have conversations with RogerKni on his views of the PGF. I did catch the tale end of the SG/RK posts and was also curious about RK’s response.

I would like to know what your response is to the points I made, do you agree or disagree that RP’s account of the terrain makes point #9 incorrect and would you consider removing it from the list of reasons BH was not at Bluff Creek? (for future copying and pasting)

I also would like to see more info on the Asian Parasite anomaly, got a link to a story somewhere?

Thanks
Rick

 

[rgann]

I do see breast movement in PGF. The descriptive amount of movement is subjective and what is a little to some may be a lot to others. To Patterson's eye that may be a lot of movement. That was a time after all when women's fashions were more constrictive than they are today and we get to see "giggle" on a daily basis that would have had the culture of 1967 blushing. Yet we think little of it.

Crowlogic

Interesting point its one that in comes up in a lot of other forms, for some reason the 1960’s seems to get short changed on a lot of things (FX capabilities, creative capacities, available materials etc.) Just to put things in context here is a link to a 1966 film One Million Years B.C staring Rachel Welch I think this may have been the best use of fur for a costume ever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/

I understand the spirit of your post that what you see is subjective, however I just don’t agree about the lack of jiggle circa 1967. It was the dawning of the age of Aquarius after all.

Rick

 

[bf2006]

Henry,

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for putting things in context, I as many others here have read through big chunks of the debates at the BFF (for me specifically PGF stuff) and and I have had the opportunity to have conversations with RogerKni on his views of the PGF. I did catch the tale end of the SG/RK posts and was also curious about RK’s response.

I would like to know what your response is to the points I made, do you agree or disagree that RP’s account of the terrain makes point #9 incorrect and would you consider removing it from the list of reasons BH was not at Bluff Creek? (for future copying and pasting)

I also would like to see more info on the Asian Parasite anomaly, got a link to a story somewhere?

Thanks
Rick

Hello, Rick. As to your first question, well, since I have never been to the film site or am not familiar with that terrain, I cannot say one way or the other if Patterson was correct about the terrain or whether BH is correct. I would keep that point up just for future reference, but that's just me. As to the Asian Parasite anomaly, I may have to do a bit more digging on that. I will get back to you on that and let you know something right here. Thanks for the inquiries.

Update: Go to this link for information on unique parasites found in supposed Bigfoot scat: http://www.strangeark.com/nabr/NABR3.pdf

 

[Aepervius]

That statement does not not imply that bigfoot does infact exist - it only says no one can prove this animal does or does not exist at this point. Thats all.

To harp even more on what other stated, your post is totally utterly silly. At any point you can never prove an animal don't exists.

You can't prove unicorn don't exists
You can't prove Nessy don't exists
You can't prove dragon (the real fire breathing one) don't exists
You can't prove faerie, gnome and gremlin don't exists

heck,

You can't prove santa don't exist
You can't prove I am not the next Jesus christus
You can't prove the FSM don't exists

You have no idea whatsoever of what you are speaking about.
It is bigfoot proponent's job to prove it exists. And sorry, for the last 10 years I followed from far away the story, bigfoot proponent have nothing but contradictory hypothese. Not even a iota of evidence. Even their holy grail, the PGF, can easily be construed as a man walking in suit (see napier comment) and big foot proponent can blow "no it is not!" until their face come blue, they bring no evidence.

I am sorry but the only conclusion up to that point in time is "you failed. Miserably.".

Bigfoot don't exists. If you purport that this is not the case, bring evidence. NEW REAL EVIDENCE. Until then all I see is a bunch of skeptic having fun tearing down argument of woo-people not having a case at all.

 

[rgann]

Hello, Rick. As to your first question, well, since I have never been to the film site or am not familiar with that terrain, I cannot say one way or the other if Patterson was correct about the terrain or whether BH is correct. I would keep that point up just for future reference, but that's just me. As to the Asian Parasite anomaly, I may have to do a bit more digging on that. I will get back to you on that and let you know something right here. Thanks for the inquiries.

Update: Go to this link for information on unique parasites found in supposed Bigfoot scat: http://www.strangeark.com/nabr/NABR3.pdf

Henry

Thanks for the link I will read it. Just for clarification, based on RP's quote and BH's quote, it appears to me that they both agree with each other, that the event occurred partially in sand. The point your post was making (hell now i will go reread it) was that BH claimed he walked in sand and since anyone who has been to the film location knows that there was only slippery rocks there he clearly was lying and was not at the site. I thought you might be interested in seeing that RP also stated that part of the encounter was in sand which contradicts point #9.

Rick

***Henry I read the report this is from the final paragraph

"This rich assemblage of worms can expected to exist in any omnivorous forest species and cannot be used to identify the species of origin"

Am I missing something? I dont see where what was found was anything out to the ordinary.

 

[bf2006]

Henry

Thanks for the link I will read it. Just for clarification, based on RP's quote and BH's quote, it appears to me that they both agree with each other, that the event occurred partially in sand. The point your post was making (hell now i will go reread it) was that BH claimed he walked in sand and since anyone who has been to the film location knows that there was only slippery rocks there he clearly was lying and was not at the site. I thought you might be interested in seeing that RP also stated that part of the encounter was in sand which contradicts point #9.

Rick

***Henry I read the report this is from the final paragraph

"This rich assemblage of worms can expected to exist in any omnivorous forest species and cannot be used to identify the species of origin"

Am I missing something? I dont see where what was found was anything out to the ordinary.

Hi again, Rick. Technically, the surface of that area of the film site is shale, which is a form of sand (I have a parrot food container half-full of shale from Bluff Creek given to me by M.K. Davis). It is not sand in the traditional sense, like you would find on the beach, but it is dark-grey and is composed of platelets, nothing at all like typical beach sand. So, it is possible that BH knew there was sand by a creek and called it as such, even though it is not traditional sand. As to the second question, that particular link is the closest thing I could find to anything mentioning unique parasites (the rest of the links that came back to me were unrelated or porn sites, LOL). But, if I do find anything on alleged Bigfoot scat with unique, Asian parasites in it, I will let you know.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why not? .....

Why not ?

Because the photo of Patterson holding the casts was taken in late May or June ....
Sometimes science is good..

What year ? I don't know .. It would be real interesting if they were taken in June of '67 ... No ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm also desperately trying to come to grips with the need for slurring the proponents of the PGF/Sasquatch question with terms such as Pattycakes. There's an old addage that when you're right the need to degrade those that you consider wrong evaporates. I could suppose that a term such as Randibrats could be invented and applied to the members of this forum as a blanket term for every opponent of PGF or any other opposiing view to an enigmatic element or occourance.

Yes, the proponents would never engage in slurring or name calling...

 

[LTC8K6]

Is there really any way to tell if the stills of Patterson making casts are from his pratice films for his documentary, or actually from the day he filmed Patty?

Other than getting to see all of both reels...

 

[tube]

Why not? The first two are a simple sequenced from the same pose but I don't think the pics where he's standing was made before the casting photo. There'a another shot of the sasting pic where the side of Patterson's face is better shown.

Have you read Jeff Meldrum's new book? I direct your attention to page 143 where he publishes two of the photos I uploaded here. The caption to the photos reads "Roger Patterson pouring a cast at the film site and displaying the cast UPON THEIR RETURN TO YAKIMA, WASHINGTON" (Emphasis mine)

Meldrum's account of the events contradicts Chris Murphy's.

Personally, I can't but perceive that the amount of hair on Patterson's face is WAY more than could be grown in 24 hours. I also asked Daniel Perez if BOTH film reels were shipped off for processing at the same time, and he claims they were, which necessitates that the "cast display" photo IF TAKEN AT BLUFF CREEK was taken Friday afternoon.

And this is were it ends, like it always does, in discussing the minutea of details like "how quickly could Patterson's beard grow" and the inevitable photo interpretation questions. I'm sure MK Davis could find two or three ingrown hairs on Patterson's chin, and the glint of a fly's wing on the cast...

What I'm really driving at is that the "Bigfoot experts" simply don't know for sure. What are Meldrum and Murphy basing their claims on? Where is the objective historical evidence?

 

[Crowlogic]

Crowlogic

Interesting point its one that in comes up in a lot of other forms, for some reason the 1960’s seems to get short changed on a lot of things (FX capabilities, creative capacities, available materials etc.) Just to put things in context here is a link to a 1966 film One Million Years B.C staring Rachel Welch I think this may have been the best use of fur for a costume ever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/

I understand the spirit of your post that what you see is subjective, however I just don’t agree about the lack of jiggle circa 1967. It was the dawning of the age of Aquarius after all.

Rick

Dawning of the age of Aquarius and so it was. However in 1967 the country's general populatin was still in the 1950's, or earlier even. There were a few "hip population centers" such as San Francisco, NY, Boston but the "Flower Power" revoloution was barely off the ground at that point. As a long haired NY collage student I made a 1971 visit to transplanted family in northern Alabama and it was like going 7 or 8 years back in time, on all fronts, cultural and social. In any event Patterson's cultural and social base
would have hardley had him in the forefront of what was just starting down the cultural pike.

Case in point search out some old Betty Page pinup photos from the 50's and ask yourself if they are racey. To our eye today they're downright tame. But in her time they were the height of explicit. No I think Roger Patterson's jiggle meter was tuned to a different scale than ours is today.

 

[Crowlogic]

Have you read Jeff Meldrum's new book? I direct your attention to page 143 where he publishes two of the photos I uploaded here. The caption to the photos reads "Roger Patterson pouring a cast at the film site and displaying the cast UPON THEIR RETURN TO YAKIMA, WASHINGTON" (Emphasis mine)

Meldrum's account of the events contradicts Chris Murphy's.

Personally, I can't but perceive that the amount of hair on Patterson's face is WAY more than could be grown in 24 hours. I also asked Daniel Perez if BOTH film reels were shipped off for processing at the same time, and he claims they were, which necessitates that the "cast display" photo IF TAKEN AT BLUFF CREEK was taken Friday afternoon.

And this is were it ends, like it always does, in discussing the minutea of details like "how quickly could Patterson's beard grow" and the inevitable photo interpretation questions. I'm sure MK Davis could find two or three ingrown hairs on Patterson's chin, and the glint of a fly's wing on the cast...

What I'm really driving at is that the "Bigfoot experts" simply don't know for sure. What are Meldrum and Murphy basing their claims on? Where is the objective historical evidence?

The cast pouring photos are very, very washed out, overexposed. So much so that the blue in Patterson's jeans is hardly there at all. Also if the casts were made before the Creature footage than Bob H wasn't in the suit because he claims Patterson and Gimlin dispatched him to deliver the Creature film for processing while they went back and played with the tracks etc. What I see are photo's of a man who looks the part of having spent several weeks in the woods. If he's posing back home in Yakima with the casts then he's still in his same wilderness attire. In any event the entire sequence of Creature footage, cast pouring, cast posing fits easily into the time frame of a few days post creature filming, which of course it would.

Unless Patterson of course poses with the casts way before or way after the creature film except the makup/costume department has done a convincing job of maintaining the continuity of the wilderness "patina" one would expect to see.

Sorry I see photos of a guy that's been out in the woods and practicing normal out in the woods hygine and is grabbed for a photo of his discovery either still in the woods or as he's just arrived home still in wilderness hygine.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is a crop of the ' Roger Holding Cast In Front Of Tree ' photo ..
( Sounds like a painting Van Gogh should have done )

The red lines indicate the approximate angle of the shadows, created by the altitude of the Sun..

The angle is about 70 degrees.. There could be some error depending on the angle and altitude of the camera, as well as the angle the cast is being held at.

But note, we also get a similar angle based on the shadow of the gathering of the fabric of Patterson's jeans. And we can postulate that Patterson's legs are pretty much vertical.

I have overlaid a protractor with an indicated angle of 38 degrees..

The highest the Sun rose in the sky on 10/20/1967 was 37.8 degrees ..

That picture was not taken in October, or anytime close .. Probably not within six months of October..

 

[Crowlogic]

Here is a crop of the ' Roger Holding Cast In Front Of Tree ' photo ..
( Sounds like a painting Van Gogh should have done )

The red lines indicate the approximate angle of the shadows, created by the altitude of the Sun..

The angle is about 70 degrees.. There could be some error depending on the angle and altitude of the camera, as well as the angle the cast is being held at.

But note, we also get a similar angle based on the shadow of the gathering of the fabric of Patterson's jeans. And we can postulate that Patterson's legs are pretty much vertical.

I have overlaid a protractor with an indicated angle of 38 degrees..

The highest the Sun rose in the sky on 10/20/1967 was 37.8 degrees ..

That picture was not taken in October, or anytime close .. Probably not within six months of October..

Yes and he's even gone to the extent of making it look as if he's been in the woods for a while to support the claims he's going to be making concerning the October hoax film he's planning. Now then as for the 37'.8 vs the 38.0 degrees I wouldn't want to be convicted on 2/10ths of a degree, would you? Unless ground where that photo is perfectly level a perfectly accurate angle of shadow cannot be relied upon. Do you know whether the ground in that photo is perfectly level? If the photo is taken a couple of hundred miles north of Bluff Creek (say Yakima) espect the angle of the sun to be lower. Go even further north and expect the angle of the sun to be lower still.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

P.S.

For anyone taking notes, I suggest the above analysis is a good example of ' research '..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes and he's even gone to the extent of making it look as if he's been in the woods for a while to support the claims he's going to be making concerning the October hoax film he's planning. Now then as for the 37'.8 vs the 38.0 degrees I wouldn't want to be convicted on 2/10ths of a degree, would you? Unless ground where that photo is perfectly level a perfectly accurate angle of shadow cannot be relied upon. Do you know whether the ground in that photo is perfectly level? If the photo is taken a couple of hundred miles north of Bluff Creek (say Yakima) espect the andgle of the sun to be lower. Go even further north and expect the angle of the sun to be lower still.

What 2/10ths of a degree are you talking about ??

A quick calculation tells me 70 - 38 is 32 .. Which represents about 6 months on the Calender..

Yes, go further north, and the Sun is even lower at noon..

Let's say I'm off 20 degrees.. We are still looking at early April or September..

The Sun will never be that high in the sky at that latitude except late spring or early fall..

You can't spin out of this...

 

[Correa Neto]

Hi again, Rick. Technically, the surface of that area of the film site is shale, which is a form of sand ...snip...

No. Shale is a clastic sedimentary rock composed by grains smaller than 4 µm with a very well-developed bedding. Sediment layers at Bluff creek's bed with such grain size range would be unconsolidated mud. "Sand" is the name given to sediment particles between 64 µm and 2mm; consolidated sand becomes a rock named sandstone. Sand grains are composed by fragments of minerals and rocks.

Sand from Bluff creek is different from the sands one can find at (some) oceanic beaches due to different provenances (source rocks) sedimentation histories (transport, selection, etc.). Each sedimentary deposit has its own unique "fingerprint".

This may have seemed a pedantic nit-picking for you; but trust me, it was not. Mistanken and wrong informations quite often are present within the arguments made by some proponents. One of our goals is to separate good data from bad data. As I said many times before, this may sharpen your own arguments and help you to build a better case. One's position may be ruined or loose credibility if some basic flaws are present.

 

[tube]

OK, just to evidence how Meldrum contradicts Murphy's chronicle, here is the relevant passage from Meet the Sasquatch, page 43:

"The men then returned to the film site and examined the path the creature had taken along the sandbar. They observed and filmed the creature's footprints in the soil and later made plaster casts of the left and right foot. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured about 14.5-inches/36.8m (sic) long by 6-inches/15.2cm wide. Gimlin jumped off a log to see how far his footprints would sink into the soil in comparison with the creature's prints. The results were that the creature's footprints were deeper. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment together with footage of horse prints alongside the creature's prints. Gimlin filmed Patterson making casts and also displaying the finished casts seen here."

"The same afternoon the men drove to Arcata (or Eureka) to ship the films for processing"

Murphy's text accompanies this photo:

If we take Murphy's version as the truth then we have Patterson going from clean shaven to that much beard growth WITHIN ONE AFTERNOON.