Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

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.

I think if you're going to maintain this thing is a real animal you're going to have to start listening to Henry and looking beyond this film. For some reason you guys never seem to want to do that, though.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Crowlogic,
You just don't' seem to get it.

The jacket comment was a joke ..

The Sun only rises so high in the sky, relative to your position on the globe, every day of the year ..

We can show precisely how high it was, on any day of the year, since the earth began.
This is a fact. We have come a long way since Galileo ..

On October the 20th, 1967; the rays of light from the Sun , striking the Earth at Location: 123 42 W - 41 26 N, never exceeded an angle of 38.3 degrees .. ( It wouldn't have varied by much, within a radius of several hundred miles. ... )

In the Photo of Patterson holding the casts, the altitude of the Sun, clearly exceeded 38.3 degrees ..
( If you insist, I can tell you how far south you would have been for the Sun to have reached 45 degrees on that date, much less the 70 or so, indicated in the picture ) )


You have made a good point here and there ..

You need to give it up on this one.

 

[bruto]

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!!!!!!

Well said. I only enter this thread sporadically, but this is a point I've tried over and over to make with some others, especially Lu (LAL) and the now absent and regrettably banned Huntster (I kind of liked Huntster, but he just couldn't hold his temper). Lu, in particular, has, somewhere back in the depths of this thread, accepted evidence as useful even when it came from people known at other times to have faked evidence, excusing the fakers because, according to her, they were so frustrated by the poor acceptance of their real evidence that they felt they must produce bogus evidence to help it along. Nobody will ever get to the truth, and nobody will ever get really good scientific participation in the hunt for the truth, when so much of the evidence accepted by many bigfooters is so tenuous and so compromised, either by poor quality or by the poor reliability of those who have gathered it.

I think the best thing serious and sincere, scientifically inclined bigfooters could do would be to start from scratch. Toss everything, fire everybody, and start gathering new evidence with a new set of standards. Whether anything comes of that, I couldn't say. I suspect that the really interesting, worthy evidence will turn out to be very sparse, if there is any at all, because I suspect that bigfoot does not exist; but I'd be happy to eat my words if better evidence appeared. So far I think the hunt for bigfoot has been hampered considerably by what can only really properly be called incompetence.

 

[tube]

But I am saying that he's got a beard shadow at the cast pouring...

 

[kitakaze]

The multidimensional multi-tasking female bigfoot in the middle looks like a penis.

 

[Normal Dude]

What are they multi-tasking?

 

[mangler]

In response to post 6940:


Logic, a few things jump out here.


I for one am certainly not convinced BH had anything to do with Bluff.


Photos and timing;

Tube tried to explain to you what the most likey senario was. I agree at present Meldrum probably calls it right with this one. Bluff Creek film then Yakima stills. In yet I find what Dio is implying kind of interesting.


As far as the time that they spent down there, I don't think that has truly been established. There is no evidence that I know of in which they move their base camp.


"and then all of a sudden Mr. Patterson comes in for a couple of days and 'bang!' "

Laverty


"Green: How long were you there?

Gimlin: I think we were down there [California] a total of three weeks."

Green Interview


"Last Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night."

The Times-Standard EUREKA, CALIFORNIA,SATURDAY, OCT. 21, 1967


One other thing;

Driving mountain roads for three weeks in a one-ton, even if you are driving only at night is unheard of as far as fuel goes. I find it interesting that there is never any mention of a fuel or grub run, or any talk/questions about the rest of the time they were supposedly up Bluff Creek.


"Then the way we do is just ride the roads, when these guys were working on the roads with bulldozers and everything, as quick as they’d quit working, we would ride up in that area and search for tracks or whatever we’d run into - then we would take the one ton pick-up when the equipment was off the road, so we could drive the roads. We would drive the roads at night real slow looking for tracks crossing the road."

Green Interview


As long as we're talking discrepancies.

How far is it to the site??


"R: We didn't have plaster, 'cause we went, we had to go back to the, to the truck and get plaster and come up and cast them.

W: How long would that take you, to leave the scene, go back to the truck and come up again?

R: We were at that point about two, what, maybe two miles from that area then?"

Jack Webster with Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin


"Green: About how far was it from your camp to where this a...

Gimlin: Oh a calculated guess, I think it was about four miles...

Green Interview


This is what Bob say's about what they thought they got on film. In yet the next day they pack up and bail because of the rain.


"Gimlin: we didn’t even have an idea that we had anything on film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything."

Green Interview


I could understand this reasoning if they discussed before hand that they would go to town and await word on the film before heading home, but there seems to be no mention of this. If Gimlin was worried about the truck and trailer getting stuck he could have drove them and one horse to the Hwy and road back up.


Green and others seem so moved (psychologically) by the actual film that their investigative interviewing skills go down the crapper. I'm sorry but the whole episode seems just a bit fishy. There are many more discrepancies then I mention and it just gets to a point where it becomes difficult to ignore.




m

 

[TjW]

What are they multi-tasking?

Well, it's not easy balancing a forty-year career as a film and television star with the needs of a family -- especially if your significant other is out beating on trees and hooting at all hours of the night.

 

[Crowlogic]

[qimg]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/matthetube/l_c970b4b283638840863ddb6f428a2bcf1.jpg[/qimg]

May I have the formula the mind altering substance that has provoked you to post this photo?

As I have stated from the beginning I consider myself a moderate skeptic and my concern is not so much whether the PGF creature is a real creature or even if Sasquatch does exist. I am 100% positive that it did once exist. Was it ever common? No. Was it still around by the time white settlers came to North America? Maybe. Is it still around now? Your guess is as good as mine. But getting back to PGF its creation is as much the of the allure as is the confounding images contained on it. It does indeed demand an explaination on all accounts. The who, the what and the how. The only thing we have is a why. Knowing that the film is a hoax makes the film no less interesting. That is to say if it were absoloutely proven a hoax there would still no doubt be those who would scrutinize its unrealness and seek an understanding of it unrealness. But it wouldn't diminish the accomplishment of its creators. The film is its own reality so to speak. I for one do want to know why the apparent muscle movement exists, why breast movement is the way it is,why the light plays off the subject the way it does. At the end of the day nothing looks right about it and yet everything looks right about it.

 

[onyxraven1979]

As I understand it, the guy "shooting" the film was thrown off his horse, stood up, and took the film with a handheld camera. I have known a few people bucked off a horse. They were injured, many badly. If you look at this film, you will notice it is shaky (very in many places) except for a few seconds where is it tripod steady. Coincidently, this is also where "Bigfoot" looks at the camera (the money shot). Come on, how much more fake do you need this to be?
I also saw a documentary 'Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot' where a gentleman stated none has ever found a dead Bigfoot (or skeleton) because animals eat them, as they do other animals. True enough. He also stated he knows of none who has found a skeleton of a bear in the woods. While I have never found a bear skeleton in the woods, I have found a deer skeleton (in near perfect condition) and several raccoon ones too. A great ape of that size would have been hit by a car, or shot or trapped by now if it was really in the woods of North America. This is not a fish at the bottom of the sea, or a bird that lives way the heck out there on some distant uninhabited island. a seven to ten foot tall animal would have been seen by a satellite ( I found my mom's Jeep on Google Earth) or as roadkill by now

 

[tube]

This thread is like the last scene in The Alternative Factor, where Lazarus and anti-Lazarus fight for eternity, locked within the confines of the negative magnetic corridor...

 

[mangler]

I'm not sure what the hell that means but I'm guessing there's a starship involved.

 

[LTC8K6]

When roger is pouring the casts, he has been out in the woods for at least a week. Unless he was bothering to shave, he should have a week's worth on his mug.

We can see from the standing photo, that when he does let it grow, it's very obvious, even up near his ears.

 

[LTC8K6]

Roger did something then that I have never known any professional photographer to do, even if his camera was loaded with the right film: he had the cap off the lens, and the thing set at the right F stop and so on. He started running, hand-holding his Kodak sixteen-mm, loaded with Kodachrome film, trying to focus on this "creature". What he got was just about what any amateur would get in such circumstances. But then he got a real break. As he puts it:

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. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her."

Note that Sanderson is suspicious of Patterson's lucky filming abilities. Roger explains his luck with an obvious lie about Patty standing still for him because of camera noise. Sanderson does not call him on it.

Why?

Note that Patterson says "the first part of my film".

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/chapters.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

This brought me up sharp, because I had by this time viewed their film (and half a dozen out-takes, blown up, in full color as transparencies, examined under strong magnifying lenses on an illuminated shadow-box several times and projected by three different projectors). In every case, the creature was--at standard speed for photogs, i.e., twenty-four frames per see--as Roger said, at first just ambling along, swinging her rather long arms, not running-scared, and even stopping for a brief look-see over her shoulder as it were; then ambling on again into the deep woods. Yet here was the back-up man saying that she had "taken off for the hills".

Sanderson seems to agree that in the film he looked at very thoroughly, Patty stopped to look back and then continued walking.

Why?

 

[LTC8K6]

"About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature. My horse reared, and then fell as I tried to control it. But I got the camera out and yelled to Bob to cover me with his rifle while I tried for pictures. The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it. It was obviously a female, for although it was covered with hair you could see it had large breasts. It stood about six feet tall, maybe more, and was very broad. We figured the weight at somewhere between 350 and 400 pounds. She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight."

Where are the shots of Patty standing still?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/province2.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

I just love the fact that Bob Gimlin didn't even bother to watch the movie when DeAtley first showed it.

 

[Orthoptera]

This thread is like the last scene in The Alternative Factor, where Lazarus and anti-Lazarus fight for eternity, locked within the confines of the negative magnetic corridor..

I salute your, sir, for one of the finest uses of a ST reference I've seen: obscure without being trivial, yet wonderfully apt. Even the photo adds a sly nod to ST's to-a-budget FX department and its PGF connection.

It's as if you feel by laughing together at the topic, we can starve the entity of the negative energies it needs to thrive...

 

[Correa Neto]

What two cowboys were doing for three weeks in the woods if they just wanted to make a hoax?

Are you guys blind?

They were out for some "Brokeback Mountain", of course. Filming a bigfoot hoax to grab some cash was just an elaborate excuse. You know, prejudice, etc.

The above "theory" wraps neatly all the details, don't you think?

C'mon, making suppositions will not help anyone's point, since nothing can be proven...

 

[Crowlogic]

As I understand it, the guy "shooting" the film was thrown off his horse, stood up, and took the film with a handheld camera. I have known a few people bucked off a horse. They were injured, many badly. If you look at this film, you will notice it is shaky (very in many places) except for a few seconds where is it tripod steady. Coincidently, this is also where "Bigfoot" looks at the camera (the money shot). Come on, how much more fake do you need this to be?
I also saw a documentary 'Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot' where a gentleman stated none has ever found a dead Bigfoot (or skeleton) because animals eat them, as they do other animals. True enough. He also stated he knows of none who has found a skeleton of a bear in the woods. While I have never found a bear skeleton in the woods, I have found a deer skeleton (in near perfect condition) and several raccoon ones too. A great ape of that size would have been hit by a car, or shot or trapped by now if it was really in the woods of North America. This is not a fish at the bottom of the sea, or a bird that lives way the heck out there on some distant uninhabited island. a seven to ten foot tall animal would have been seen by a satellite ( I found my mom's Jeep on Google Earth) or as roadkill by now

Patterson was an expierence horseman, a rodeo rider. Expect that he was able to recover form a fall or rearing up. I've wondered myself why bodies aren't found but I don't subscribe to the idea that there are thousands of these creatures. If they're still out there a few hundred at best. As for Google Earth showing up anything don't even amuse yourself with that. Try going to Google Earth and panning in on a wilderness area and try and locate an animal, any animal dead or alive. You won't. Now Google Earth some well defined urban areas and you may see people and cars but only if it is an area that has been surveyed under the highest magnification in the first place. The entire Google Earth is not in the same high resoloution.

The so called "money shot" is far from tripod stable. The film goes from considerble camera movement to somewhat stable in one continous triggered take. If there was a distinct stop and restart then sure put a tirpod into the making. So many other fantastic things both pro and con have been postulated that lets say Patterson constructed an entire gantry that ran on an overhead track that by design made the camera simulate a hand held condition by a man running along a sand bank chasing a costume. That no one ever found the gantry is because Patterson paid off the road construction crew to tear it down and haul it away immedately after the filming.

I understand that in 1978 the late nature photographer Sherman Mitchell found a mysterious metal object embedded in the Bluff Creek sandbar that resembled a stopsign post. The time has come to stop thinking about this film as a few cowboys out to have some laughs.