Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/titmus_story.htm

Bob Titmus had already encountered Patty at Bluff Creek before Patterson filmed her. He says it was the same sasquatch.

Puts a little different light on his tracking of Patty movements at the film site.

Titmus had seen Patty's footprints before, and recognized them again.

No wonder he thought the film of Patty was real...

 

[LTC8K6]

What you believe is simply shadow, shows up as a possible track in the sand, next to a piece of wood. It shows up best in the clipped piece of footage, not the more distant shot that you are showing. View this imprint in the cropped footage and you will see it more clearly.

Taken in totality, the idea that it is a footprint is now questionable by objective viewers, imo. It might be a footprint, but objective people can no longer say it is a footprint, imo. You can't look at one cropped and zoomed and pixelated example and make a conclusion.

When all of the views of the item in question are considered, it's not clear at all that it's a footprint, imo.

 

[Correa Neto]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/titmus_story.htm

Bob Titmus had already encountered Patty at Bluff Creek before Patterson filmed her. He says it was the same sasquatch.

Puts a little different light on his tracking of Patty movements at the film site.

Titmus had seen Patty's footprints before, and recognized them again.

No wonder he thought the film of Patty was real...

Hmmm... A very different behavior was recorded at PGF...

"There were branches covered with hair samples"
I wonder what happened to these samples...
Should not be just a few strands...

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty must really have liked the area, too...

Strangely, no real effort was made to find her again...

She must be nocturnal and diurnal. Conveniently in her diurnal mode for Roger.

 

[William Parcher]

... easy to film too because she doesn't run and hide right away. Roger had lots of time to film her strolling away while remaining visible.

It's weird that Titmus refers to Patty as a "he" (when writing to Green) after he's already seen the film and no doubt heard all the talk about it being female.

 

[Correa Neto]

All of a sudden it started screaming, breaking branches and throwing rocks in his direction. Titmus held very still, very quiet. The sasquatch started moving around, pacing back and forth through the forest continuing to scream, bellow and throw debris. Titmus related that this behavior continued on until about an hour before daybreak. Then, as the sun began to rise and light trickled through the forest canopy, the creature went away and the forest fell silent again.

Note that Titmus claims to have been laying down on makeshift bed composed by a pit he digged by himself, covered

with a thick layer of leaves, branches and pine needles.

Giant aggressive animal finds man laying down and just throws rocks and branches while running around and screaming from 1 am untill sunrise. Human does not seems to have been hit or harm.

What will most likely happen to you if an enraged large animal gives you fair "go away" warning and you do not go away? What's the warning that's always given to people in case of facing with wild animals? Something that has to do with not standing down and slowly retreat while keeping eye contact?

And later...

It looked like a bulldozer had gone through the forest. Saplings had been pulled out of the ground, larger trees pushed over, broken or snapped in two.

Giant ape has not smashed human (that was laying down) with a tree...

Call me thick as brick, but this tale is just not right IMHO.

Maybe after a similar night of rage, Patty was too tired, so she just walked away from P&G...

 

[LTC8K6]

A bear would have dug old Bob right up...

 

[mangler]

I've given Titmus the benifit of the doubt since I was a kid. Now, at this point in my life I feel a bit silly for doing so.


The above statements ring true of most that is bigfoot, a large animal who's senses are said to be nearly impeccable that is unable to find the source of it's apparent grief. It throws a fit for quite sometime tearing up the forest yet there is no photo conformation or (on scene later) second hand account.


After a while researching Titmus it also becomes apparent that the guy doesn't own a camera. The man has had at a minimum two sightings and possibly more if you believe Will Duncan, he also found no less than seven track-ways in the Bluff Creek area alone, yet photographs none?


"1942 Alaska coast, probably Wrangell Narrows Bob Titmus Witness on board ship saw 'upright ape' on beach"

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/cb/ak.html


It seems apparent by the statement below (if true) that he had at some point had a very good view of one.


"It should be noted that Bob Titmus, a taxidermist and tracker who had several face-to-face bigfoot encounters, told Dr. Krantz that the eyes of his Gigantopithecus reproduction were closer together than in the creatures he had seen."

http://www.strangeark.com/crypto/Cryptohominids.pdf page 49


On the Slick expedition he mistakes horse crap for bigfoot spoor.


"Bob returned to camp and summoned Tom Slick to accompany him back to the site to validate his find. After a difficult ascent through thick brush, they finally arrived at the spot. Tom himself became excited at the sight of this massive pile of feces and began to think of what it could represent to the expedition. Just then, they were both surprised to hear the sound of heavy footsteps approaching their location! Could this be the chance that they had been hoping for? They withdrew into the brush to await the long anticipated arrival of their elusive quarry. To their amazement, an elderly Hoopa Indian came ambling up the hill on the back of his trusted steed. After tying the horse to a nearby tree, he turned to see two wide-eyed white men staring back at him. One of the men asked him what he was doing up there, to which he replied that he had been coming to this spot on a regular basis to gather spices for nearly 40 years. At that point, Tom asked, "I don't suppose you tie your horse to that same tree every time do you?" The old Indian replied, Yes. Why do you ask?" Upon hearing his reply, the two adventurers turned and left. Peter went on to say that, after a rather long and silent trek back to camp, Bob quietly packed his gear and left camp...never to return. This was just one of numerous great stories shared around the campfire which I will treasure forever."

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


He pretty much pre-determined patty was real before viewing the track-way.

"By the end of the day it became apparent that a few of the viewers felt that there was a possibility the whole thing was a very elaborate and expensive hoax. I felt that this possibility was so extremely remote as to be almost non-existent. (None of these individuals witnessed more than one showing, I believe). However, I did have to take into consideration the fact that I believe that I viewed the film through somewhat different eyes than most of the persons present." Letter to Green, sorry can't find the link.


I don't know, call me stupid, but after thinking about all of this I have to laugh. If Bob Titmus could never get verifiable proof, there is not a chance in hell anyone else will. How many chances does one person need?



m

 

[tube]

From Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed, page 41:

Regarding the Pacific Northwest Expedition,

"At certain points Bob Titmus was appointed team leader. His unorthodox approaches for finding Sasquatch struck Dahinden as absurd, particularly the technique of baiting trees with used sanitary napkins"

http://books.google.com/books?id=G3...ts=jC9722P3Ix&sig=b2FuyRn3DKQRcM2hJFcKcOCL3Pc

 

[Geno]

There is an interesting parallel between the error of Davis and Luminous (the above still frame) by declaring a shadow to be a Patty footprint and the errors of others in Bigfootery.

1) Declared Bigfoot dermal ridges are an erroneous interpretation of casting artifacts.

2) A declared Bigfoot heel and buttprint in mud is an erroneous interpretation of an elk lay.

3) A declared Bigfoot caught on film is an erroneous interpretation of a man in a costume.

4) A declared Bigfoot mid-tarsal break is an erroneous interpretation of a photographed and cast footprint.

5) A declared filmed Bigfoot making a visible footprint is an erroneous interpretation of the shadow of some wood debris.

These are all misinterpretations or misidentifications of things that are right in front of our eyes. These things are often positively proposed and advocated as secondary evidence for Bigfoot. They do not stand up to trumping the alternative hypotheses. If these things were submitted scientific theses (they could be), they would have serious trouble at the stage of peer review. The scientist author would be forced to explain how the alternatives could not possibly account for the proposed interpretion of the evidence. If any of these were presented as theses in a scientific publication arena they would have a difficult time advancing beyond peer review.

What is interesting to me is that MK takes these pics from the film and enhances them with computer software to supposedly bring out greater detail yet if he had done that with this particular pic he would have seen that it was only wood debris.

 

[Mad Hom]

The above statements ring true of most that is bigfoot, a large animal who's senses are said to be nearly impeccable that is unable to find the source of it's apparent grief. It throws a fit for quite sometime tearing up the forest yet there is no photo conformation or (on scene later) second hand account.

Yeah I kept thinking the same thing the whole time I read his tale. Bigfeetsus couldn't find him in the dark huh? A nocturnal animal with piss poor night vision I guess.

After a while researching Titmus it also becomes apparent that the guy doesn't own a camera. The man has had at a minimum two sightings and possibly more if you believe Will Duncan, he also found no less than seven track-ways in the Bluff Creek area alone, yet photographs none?

I don't know, call me stupid, but after thinking about all of this I have to laugh. If Bob Titmus could never get verifiable proof, there is not a chance in hell anyone else will. How many chances does one person need?

To me a person who has had multiple sightings and cannot produce any corroboration (photos,feetprints,samples etc) for any of them always sets off my Biscardi Freeman device.

I mean C'mon Bob...feel free to mix in a camera on the next camping trip to deepest darkest Northern California would ya?? Ya know...just in case!!

 

[Correa Neto]

A bear would have dug old Bob right up...

But... Bigfeet ain't no beer bear!

"At certain points Bob Titmus was appointed team leader. His unorthodox approaches for finding Sasquatch struck Dahinden as absurd, particularly the technique of baiting trees with used sanitary napkins"

yuck...
Beats baiting sharks with fish guts...
But again, bigfeet ain't no bear shark!

The above statements ring true of most that is bigfoot, a large animal who's senses are said to be nearly impeccable that is unable to find the source of it's apparent grief.

And Titmus was lying down on a pit covered with branches and leaves!
Angry bigfoot made a rage display from 1am untill sunrise and never managed to find Titmus?
You can't prove that!
Bigfeet ain't no ordinary animal! Bigfoot may have know where he was and was just making sure Titmus knew about of her strengh and saying "THIS IS MY LAND!" Patty wanted Titmus to carry the word to the puny humans that were trepassing her territory.

I mean C'mon Bob...feel free to mix in a camera on the next camping trip to deepest darkest Northern California would ya?? Ya know...just in case!!

Cameras are heavy, expensive, cumbersome and hard-to-use devices! I'd rather have my rifle handy than a camera, weakling-pink-skinned-city-boy! And I will not shot bigfeet, they are too human and who knows, might be a guy in a gorilla suit!

OK, that was my wearing-someone-else's-shoes moment of the week. If I keep doing it for a longer time, I'll have to register a sockpuppet at BFRO forum...
Come closer and be accepted by the clan! Just like "Gorillas in the Mist" or Goodall and the chimps! If I were making an undergratuation on social sciences, I would have material for a thesis...

 

[LTC8K6]

particularly the technique of baiting trees with used sanitary napkins

Don't throw that away, honey!
Excuse me ma'am, are you through with that?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bigfoot-attack/

Bigfoot attacks!

Actually, I think if the perps had not done the attack part, the video might have had some credibility with the footers.

 

[tube]

Bigfoot attacks!

This reminded me of something that fits in with the comic conundrum of why hunters never kill Sasquatches, yet a man in a monkey suit risks getting shot.

The BFRO published a long apologetic about why hunters don't kill Sasquatches here:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=411

Yet within the BFRO's own database, we see this lurid account, known as the "Siege at Honobia" in which a number of rounds were fired at what was believed to be Bigfoot:

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/ouachita/siege-at-honobia.asp

And don't forget the classic Ape Canyon account retold in many a Bigfoot book and now on the Internet.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/classics/beck.html

 

[Marcus]

This reminded me of something that fits in with the comic conundrum of why hunters never kill Sasquatches, yet a man in a monkey suit risks getting shot.

The BFRO published a long apologetic about why hunters don't kill Sasquatches here:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=411

http://

I especially liked the part where they explain why video footage is more important than a body. Don't need it, don't want it, you are silly for requesting it.

 

[Mad Hom]

I especially liked the part where they explain why video footage is more important than a body. Don't need it, don't want it, you are silly for requesting it.

Yes the don't shoot (with a firearm) policy has long left me befuddled. I recall a website (hell might have been the BFRO) where they laid out what was allowed to be brought on a Bigfeetsus safari...and it explicitly said....NO FIREARMS of any kind...my very first thought was....well...WHY THE HELL NOT?!?!?

Bigfoot Nation still has yet to wrap their collective heads around just how difficult an actual stinky dead Bigfeetsus would be for science to debunk.

I guess they figure scary stories,umpteen thousands of plaster casts and one immensely ambiguous 40 year old film should do the trick.

"See that?...What? ...Those marks on that tree...where?...right here....where?...you see those are Bigfeetsus knock marks...made by that noisy animal we heard but didn't see last night....Now.....where's my grant money??"

 

[tube]

The BFRO's page on "no roadkill" is interesting too, in light of what they continue to maintain as a centerpiece of strong evidence for Bigfoot: The Skookum Elk Cast.

From this page:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410

"They try to stay out of view or at least in the shadows when near people or moving vehicles."

That is, unless they are wallowing in the mud, in the open, 25 feet from a roadway:

In the July 2007 issue of Bigfoot Times Daniel Perez writes of Jeff Meldrum's recent lecture at the Bigfoot Discovery Museum in Santa Cruz CA.

"When asked by me about the questionable Memorial Day footage he stated he was still "open minded", on the Skookum Bigfoot body casting his response was "no way it was an elk" and the telling clue for him was the "heel aspect".

 

[LTC8K6]

When they say "the heel aspect", instead of "the heel", that tells you something.

25 feet to the center of the road?

So it's what, 15 feet to the edge then?

And no tracks?

Why in the world would anyone put bigfoot bait there anyway?

 

[RayG]

Why in the world would anyone put bigfoot bait there anyway?

Have you not read bigfoot reports? Because bigfoot is often seen crossing a road. Gosh, what do you think?

No, wait, they didn't deploy cameras at the fruit piles, so there would be no pictures of bigfoot crossing the road.

No, wait, bigfoot can detect cameras, so that wouldn't have worked anyway.

No, wait, they wanted to place fruit lures in places "where approaching animal tracks would be visible."

No, wait, it's suspected that bigfoot hides his own tracks, so the fruit has to be placed where a buttprint is more likely.

No, wait, bigfoot is more intelligent than all other animals with the exception of man (and some might argue even that point). He would obviously use some sort of tool to procure the fruit from the pile without leaving foot OR butt prints.

No, wait, they only live in forests so thick, and areas so inaccessible to man, that few if any roads have even been built there.

No, wait, they're shy and stay away from roads, only crossing when absolutely necessary, and only then when there's no possibility of being spotted by pesky humans in their noisy vehicles that throw beams of light.

No, wait, they're curious about us hairless humans, and want to remain undiscovered, but interact with us as well. So, they hide beside roads and play some sort of squatch-chicken-tag-game where they dash across the road only when a vehicle comes along.

No, wait, the researchers realized they might get lucky, so they didn't want the plastering materials to be more than 15 or 20 feet away. That buttcast weighed a few hundred pounds ya know.

Take yer pick.

RayG