Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[bf2006]

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.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Thanks, Correa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Melissa]

Melissa,

Is that the best you can come up with? Why even bother?

m

Im sorry Mangler, is there an actual conversation going on here? Conversations are actual discussion designed to provoke thought and encourage more discussion and or debate.

Where is the discussion? I just see people telling me what I should think and feel. There is no discussion, at least none that will help further this mystery to understanding.

Thanks for the laughs though.

 

[Correa Neto]

bf, I'm glad you understood my point.

Getting rid of bad data and arguments makes things easier for both sides. Its survival of the fittest, after all.

Of course, disagreements will appear when it comes to certain informations and reasonings that some will consider as wrong while others will not...

 

[mangler]

Melissa,

"Im sorry Mangler, is there an actual conversation going on here? Conversations are actual discussion designed to provoke thought and encourage more discussion and or debate."


Apparently not much of one from your end. BTW, apology accepted (bold emphasis mine).

m

 

[Crowlogic]

The protractor is interesting but the foliage is far more indicative of Autum than Spring and certainly not of early summer since why is Patterson wearing a coat in May or June?

Now here's Roger making the cast at Bluff Creek. He's filthy, and he has a considerable amount of beard shadow especially since the photo is so washed out. If it was as dark and well focused as the standing cast photos it would be darker but maybe a a day or two lighter. But the man in this photo is not freshly shaven!



[img=http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8649/2ndreelrogerub2.th.jpg]

 

[Aepervius]

It is summer here in Frankfurt but I am still wearing a coat. Also a few years ago we had a very warm November. please consider that clothing is more an indication of the weather/temperature condition, but not always a good indication of the season, although it can be.

 

[mangler]

Logic,

Your washed out don't fly. Get over it.

m

 

[Crowlogic]

Logic,

Your washed out don't fly. Get over it.

m

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826446be18e00f948.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826446be18f164f04.jpg[/qimg]

You've just posted a photo that shows Patterson/s beard shadow at Bluff Creek very well! Roger at Bluff Creek is just about as unshaven as the standing photo. Maybe a little less but if the standing photo was a day or day and a half later what would you expect? There are men whose beard growth is so fast that they need to shave twice a day. Thanks you made my point better than I did with the photos I was about to post!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The protractor is interesting but the foliage is far mor indicative of Autum than Spring and certainly not of early summer since why is Patterson wearing a coat in May or June?

Maybe Patterson put on a jacket so he could later claim the photo was shot in October..

The angle of the shadows are indisputable ..

Maybe they are using klieg lights.. You think ?

Have you bothered to check the average temperature in the area in May ?

I have.

 

[tube]

Roger at Bluff Creek is just about as unshaven as the standing photo.

So, just to be totally clear, you're suggesting that Roger is NOT clean shaven as seen at the end of this segment, pouring plaster into tracks?


http://www.southwestdj.com/patterson.html

 

[mangler]

Logic,

I'm not sure what photo's you're looking at, but you may need to see an optometrist, like today.

m

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Correction:
In the interest of accuracy, the highest angle of the Sun on 10/20/1967 was 38.3 degrees.

Still far less than the angle seen in the photo in question..

 

[tube]

But the man in this photo is not freshly shaven!

Well, there you have it folks, Bigfoot research at its finest.

This hovers at "bone clasp" level, which is not much higher than "extra baboon head"...

 

[bf2006]

Excellent points on the Patterson shaved/unshaved controversy, mostly by the skeptics here (sorry, Crowlogic!). It is possible that Patterson might have gotten some casts made of footprints he found near Yakima sometime in the Spring of '67 and had those photos taken of himself unshaven wearing a coat. There is no absolute proof that film or series of stills from that film was taken at Bluff Creek, and as far as I know no one has proven that was taken at Bluff Creek. The photo of Patterson casting a track COULD have been taken at Bluff Creek, or it could have been taken in Yakima, we really don't know. The point is, why is there so much focus on a 40-year-old film and whether or not Patterson wore a coat there or not, or whether he was shaven or not, or whether the film even shows a Bigfoot or BH in a suit? Isn't there fresh evidence for my colleagues in the Bigfoot community to focus on? Why hang on to a 40-year-old film which cannot be determined to real or hoax, if only to have something to argue about and debate with the skeptics? Can't my colleagues realize that even if that film is proven to be a hoax it does not mean there is no Sasquatch? Or will there be a lot of Bigfooters dropping out of the field en masse if this film is proven a hoax since in their minds, if the film is a hoax it means there is no Sasquatch, and this is the only evidence that matters to them? To me that is not very objective or sensible. In order to be a good Bigfooter (and not a "Pattycake"), we as Bigfooters have to have better standards for evidence, look for evidence NOW, not from 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Leave behind all the film footages, the videos, the hair samples, the fecal matter, the footprints, all the evidence found more than 10 years ago, and look for evidence NOW!!!!!!

 

[kitakaze]

Well, there you have it folks, Bigfoot research at its finest.

This hovers at "bone clasp" level, which is not much higher than "extra baboon head"...

And 'pner' is funnier than 'pion'.

Sorry, just felt like playing obscure bigfootery reference. You know, beaver dams and Joyce and all that.

 

[RayG]

Isn't there fresh evidence for my colleagues in the Bigfoot community to focus on?

There should be exciting fresh evidence from Pine Ridge any day now Henry.

RayG

 

[mangler]

"Isn't there fresh evidence for my colleagues in the Bigfoot community to focus on?"

Where, what? Come on, lets have that evidence.

M

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Excellent points on the Patterson shaved/unshaved controversy, mostly by the skeptics here (sorry, Crowlogic!). It is possible that Patterson might have gotten some casts made of footprints he found near Yakima sometime in the Spring of '67 and had those photos taken of himself unshaven wearing a coat. There is no absolute proof that film or series of stills from that film was taken at Bluff Creek, and as far as I know no one has proven that was taken at Bluff Creek. The photo of Patterson casting a track COULD have been taken at Bluff Creek, or it could have been taken in Yakima, we really don't know. The point is, why is there so much focus on a 40-year-old film and whether or not Patterson wore a coat there or not, or whether he was shaven or not, or whether the film even shows a Bigfoot or BH in a suit? Isn't there fresh evidence for my colleagues in the Bigfoot community to focus on? Why hang on to a 40-year-old film which cannot be determined to real or hoax, if only to have something to argue about and debate with the skeptics? Can't my colleagues realize that even if that film is proven to be a hoax it does not mean there is no Sasquatch? Or will there be a lot of Bigfooters dropping out of the field en masse if this film is proven a hoax since in their minds, if the film is a hoax it means there is no Sasquatch, and this is the only evidence that matters to them? To me that is not very objective or sensible. In order to be a good Bigfooter (and not a "Pattycake"), we as Bigfooters have to have better standards for evidence, look for evidence NOW, not from 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Leave behind all the film footages, the videos, the hair samples, the fecal matter, the footprints, all the evidence found more than 10 years ago, and look for evidence NOW!!!!!!

I think you make some excellent points..

I'm sure you notice there doesn't seem to be ( relatively ) that many proponents that even argue for the authenticity of this film; however it does seem to be at the core of the belief system for a few..

One recently said " If Patty is not a Bigfoot, then Bigfoot doesn't exist " ...




For the skeptics, it provides excellent fodder to show the lack of anything coming close to a scientific method when examining the alleged evidence.

Do you think Patterson ever imagined someone would be examining Sun azimuth/altitude astronomical tables to verify the shooting date of his pictures ?

I don't; any more than I think he thought it was important to pay his debts..

 

[kitakaze]

The point is, why is there so much focus on a 40-year-old film and whether or not Patterson wore a coat there or not, or whether he was shaven or not, or whether the film even shows a Bigfoot or BH in a suit? Isn't there fresh evidence for my colleagues in the Bigfoot community to focus on? Why hang on to a 40-year-old film which cannot be determined to real or hoax, if only to have something to argue about and debate with the skeptics? Can't my colleagues realize that even if that film is proven to be a hoax it does not mean there is no Sasquatch? Or will there be a lot of Bigfooters dropping out of the field en masse if this film is proven a hoax since in their minds, if the film is a hoax it means there is no Sasquatch, and this is the only evidence that matters to them? To me that is not very objective or sensible. In order to be a good Bigfooter (and not a "Pattycake"), we as Bigfooters have to have better standards for evidence, look for evidence NOW, not from 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Leave behind all the film footages, the videos, the hair samples, the fecal matter, the footprints, all the evidence found more than 10 years ago, and look for evidence NOW!!!!!!

We say this a lot around here. IMO, if bigfoot were real as commonly reported we could find them lickety-split. We don't have to look for 8ft bipedal monkey men being reported all over the world, though. Mind you, it wouldn't hurt if those who wanna look would think about why 8ft monkey men, and UFO's, and ghosts are claimed to be seen so much with a little more objectivity.

Of course if you wanna grab your hat and play the bigfoot game, knock yourself out. I mean look at that...

Doesn't that look fun? And man! What a stress reliever! Phone bill? Screw you! I'm goin' to the forest to scream like a monkey and smack some trees. After that I'll have some beers with my buddies. We'll watch the PGF a few times,feel bad for the poor souls who have know clue about the majestic monkey men in our back yards, and shake our fists at the evil scoftics who try to keep the squatch down.

It's bigfootery, come with us.

 

[Crowlogic]

Logic,

Your washed out don't fly. Get over it.

m

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826446be18e00f948.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826446be18f164f04.jpg[/qimg][/QUOT

You're using two different photos to demonstrate Patterson's face/beard growth at the cast pouring. The little pic is the better of the two to show his face better. Locate a good one of those. Once again I'm not saying Patterson is as dark as the standing photos. But I am saying that he's got a beard shadow at the cast pouring and I am saying that given the amount of beard I see in the pouring photos and allowing for a day or two of growth till the standing photos and you've got the same man during the stated or considered sequence of time between making the casts and arrving home to make the standing photos. But you can also have the same man the next day still at Bluff Creek.

Now if you have to start considering that he put on the jacket just to simulate an event that haden't happend yet but just might in 6 months then that's some serious mental Calisthenics. For certain it didn't happen AFTER he went public with Bluff Creek since there are no records of him doing so, and for what reason anyway?

As for the sun angle standing shot measuring the angle of the sun how useful is it unless you know the time of day and the location of where the photo was actually taken. .

So let's see if I've all this right so far. The proponents of the event see a timeline where Patterson and Gimlin go into the wilderness for three weeks hunting Sasquatch and use up almost an entire roll of film on non Sasquatch material. Then towards the close of the third week the happen onto a creature and shoot the remainder of the first reel on the creature. Reload the camara, make some casts and within 24 hours of the filming are packing up and heading back to civilization. They then travel from Bluff Creek to Yakima area, a distance of some 600 miles and 20 hours driving time then upon arrivial they take a couple of photos of a still unwashed unshaven, road worn Roger Patterson holding some plaster foot casts. Not a bad seneriao, after all who, if they had just made the discovery of a lifetime ,would have stopped to shave before getting on with the business of gettin home to tell the tale.

The Skeptic point of view as I see it goes something like this. Patterson and Gimlin decide to make a hoax Bigfoot film and set about in the upmost secercy to create a mind blowingly good costume. Also they create phony casts and dress Patterson up in a very convincingly good field condition of dirt and hygine and photograph all this many months before they are actually going to film the costume creature. Now after securing a walker (Bob H )Patterson and Gimlin disappear into the wilderness for a couple of weeks while Bob H eventually meets them at the Hoax site better than two weeks later. Then they ,according to the walker, crank out the Bluff Creek Sasquatch film in one take and dispatch Bob H to drop the film off in the mail while they stay behind for what reason? If they'd already made the phony casts many months before. And they manage to maintain a continuity of clothing and field patina over the course of the whole thing. All this and they notify the Press and University that they've captured a Sasquatch on film without having themselves seen what is actually on the film! Any con man as smart as Patterson needed to be to pull this off would have been smart enough to keep his mouth shut until the film was seen.

I think if you're going to maintain this thing as a hoax you're going to have to start looking beyond Roger Patterson as being any more than a bit player.