Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[manofthesea]

Maybe after for a little added perspective read 'When does BFRO "research" resemble religion?' under Websites and Organizations.

Just to display some of my devoutness, how 'bout this: Are there any threads concerning the search for the elusive "li'lfoot"? By this, I mean is there anybody discussing the possibility that the 'hobbit', or florens man, has managed to survive until present? C'mon, just think of all the possibilities, and the comparative ease it would be to conduct individual research. For example, I'm assuming that a person would need a relatively small amount of plaster and such. And we could just bang some small sticks and stuff. But, seriously I would like to know if this has been proposed here. It would be darned interesting to me. Just imagine, people traipsing through the jungles of New Guinea searching for 'small head'-ed people.
Thanks, man. They have some really good (to me) articles on the 'hobbit' at Livescience.

ETA: I have been to Port Moresby and had a good, safe (and inebriated) time there.

 

[Drewbot]

Actually, the Hobbit or 'Florence Man' has been proven to live in Northern Michigan:

This older lady kept having these things happen to her... She lived in a trailer home, and often late at night while watching Leno, (She hates 'That Letterman, he's so smug'), she would fall asleep, and then the screen door would slam, and the garbage can outside would be turned over in a loud crash. She would leap up and look out the window, and see only the top of somethings hairy head, and a pipe with smoke rings drifting up.

Investigator measured the bottom of the window at 4'6" and the top of the Hobbits head was estimated at 3'11", so therefore there are Hobbits in Northern Michigan.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Tube had written...

To create something of a summary of the issues regarding Patterson's "plaster pour" film segment and the "cast display" film segment, I've decided to create a webpage about it here:

Tube says there is an issue regarding the plaster pouring and cast segments.....but when asked for for more details about these "issues".....all you smart skeptics can come up with is....

1) Who said it did?

Perhaps it will decrease it?

2) In what way does it decrease the likelihood that there is no Bigfoot ?

3) Put a number on that yet, Sweaty? You have calculated that, right?

And from Tube........golden silence.

Apparantly there is no real issue, or problem, concerning the plaster casts.


Actually.....the problem I see regarding the footprints at the scene, was how Roger even made them, considering how much weight was required to depress the soil as deeply as it was.

In addition to that...why did he bother making the fake trackway continue so far beyond the point where the filming stopped.....when all he had to do was turn left and go up into the woods. Instead the trackway turned to the right and continued across the open creekbed.

Perhaps Roger was enjoying carrying a few hundred pounds on his back, making the fake footprints???

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....
Actually.....the problem I see regarding the footprints at the scene, was how Roger even made them, considering how much weight was required to depress the soil as deeply as it was.

... Where is your evidence regarding how deeply the soil was depressed?

As soon as you provide that information, then you can duplicate the substrate conditions and proceed to show us what weight and foot dimensions are required to produce a print of the same depth..

Holding up a cast, showing us a photo of a print and proclaiming:

" A real, live, walking foot made this print, and here is a cast of that print. "

.... may pass for indisputable evidence in some circles, but it doesn't even come close, here ..

 

[William Parcher]

So what? Maybe Chris Murphy's version is wrong.

In what way does that increase the likelihood of the PG film being a hoax?

It can support a theory of a hoax if we see incongruencies in event sequences, film documentation, timelines, and less-than-full disclosure from P&G.

Knowing that Murphy is obviously wrong is not just a trivial fact that was just learned. It points directly to an outstanding problem for any student of the PGF. It tells you that when any PGF author makes a statement, it may not be true. We learn that those authors will say things that are unsupportable by the evidence on hand. Almost nothing can be taken for granted. These authors all face a similar problem. The only way to tell the story of how the PGF happened is to tell the story(s) told by Patterson and Gimlin. That story is always told with the unstated presumption that P&G are telling truths. Everyone writes about how Patty was filmed in the afternoon of October 20, 1967. But that in itself is assumed because it's the story that P&G told everyone. We have no direct evidence that the date is accurate.

Imagine yourself now trying to write a 2-page essay on the story of how the PGF came to be and what happened at Bluff Creek. Which time-of-day do you pick for the initial Patty encounter? Did Roger's horse rear-up and crush his foot, or what? Did they track Patty for 3.5 miles, or what? How many Patty tracks did Roger cast? Do you describe the plaster pouring footage as being a staged demonstration, or as showing Roger making casts of the actual footprints of Patty?

The take home message is that there is still more to learn from the PGF, and that famous Bigfoot authors who try to document the PGF may not be stating facts.

We know that Murphy was wrong, and now we want to know what gave Meldrum the confidence to say that the cast display footage was taken back in Yakima after the Patty encounter.

 

[kitakaze]

Tube says there is an issue regarding the plaster pouring and cast segments.....but when asked for for more details about these "issues".....all you smart skeptics can come up with is....

1) Who said it did?

Perhaps it will decrease it?

2) In what way does it decrease the likelihood that there is no Bigfoot ?

3) Put a number on that yet, Sweaty? You have calculated that, right?

And from Tube........golden silence.

Apparantly there is no real issue, or problem, concerning the plaster casts.

Oh wicked. The master of golden silences and intellectual cowardice once again opened his mouth just long enough to stick his foot in it.

So for all your talk of weighing the probabilities, you can't tell me by how many percentage points I can jack up my likelihood of the PGF being a hoax statistic in light of some little knit-picks such as:

- Hey man, so the horse fell on you and crushed a stirrup or you did a Legolas off the back of the horse, camera in hand?

- Hey man, so did you bring the gear to stage a plaster casting and filming it before catching one in a million with Patty or did you film your self casting Patty's tracks after the filming.

- Yeah hey Bob, I know you don't remember using the camera and all but any thoughts on the shots showing you AND Rog?

That's just a few of many, mind you. That's not even including the great big easy ones.

Actually.....the problem I see regarding the footprints at the scene, was how Roger even made them, considering how much weight was required to depress the soil as deeply as it was.

We'd love to hear your math.

In addition to that...why did he bother making the fake trackway continue so far beyond the point where the filming stopped.....when all he had to do was turn left and go up into the woods. Instead the trackway turned to the right and continued across the open creekbed.

I love when Pattycakes drop whoppers like these. Yes, why would Roger put concerted effort into making a hoax appear legitimate? This is coming of course from the logic of the kid with the Martian civilization photo collection. Go get 'em, Sweaty!

I sense another golden silence coming soon.

 

[kitakaze]

Just to display some of my devoutness, how 'bout this: Are there any threads concerning the search for the elusive "li'lfoot"? By this, I mean is there anybody discussing the possibility that the 'hobbit', or florens man, has managed to survive until present? C'mon, just think of all the possibilities, and the comparative ease it would be to conduct individual research. For example, I'm assuming that a person would need a relatively small amount of plaster and such. And we could just bang some small sticks and stuff. But, seriously I would like to know if this has been proposed here. It would be darned interesting to me. Just imagine, people traipsing through the jungles of New Guinea searching for 'small head'-ed people.
Thanks, man. They have some really good (to me) articles on the 'hobbit' at Livescience.

ETA: I have been to Port Moresby and had a good, safe (and inebriated) time there.

MOTS, I'm going to go ahead and be the guy that barks USE THE SEARCH FEATURE at you. Usually I'm the guy that falls over bringing you a link but I'm still crippled by upgrade weirdness.

Tell you what, I'll meet you half way. For a good start and an easy read with both WP and Correa weighing in on the subject, click that search feature and look for the thread titled 'flores man... please be real'.

Here's your starter question. Do you think Homo floresiensis feet and purported orang pendek prints are a match?

("Inbreeding!" I hear the hairy homo apologists say.)

 

[LTC8K6]

In addition to that...why did he bother making the fake trackway continue so far beyond the point where the filming stopped.....when all he had to do was turn left and go up into the woods. Instead the trackway turned to the right and continued across the open creekbed.

Yes, a sasquatch should have hit the woods immediately. I'm glad you agree.

BH probably could not climb a hill or manuever through trees very well in the suit, in answer to your hypothetical.

 

[kitakaze]

BH probably could not climb a hill or manuever through trees very well in the suit, in answer to your hypothetical.

I'll have a side of Luminous bait, extra bold.

 

[Drewbot]

Did someone say 'little bigfoot'?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Yes, a sasquatch should have hit the woods immediately. I'm glad you agree.

Wrong, LTC. I did not say that a Sasquatch 'should have turned left'.

My question is why would ROGER turn right, and continue walking much further than he had ANY REASON to, with heavy weight on his back?

If the trackway was faked...someone would have had to walk a long way with a LOT of extra weight on themselves to make impressions as deep as they were.

It makes zero sense for that person to walk many feet longer than was necessary, to make a trackway to co-incide with the filmed walk.
Yet that's what the skeptics here propose happened.

BH probably could not climb a hill or manuever through trees very well in the suit, in answer to your hypothetical.

There would have been no need for the supposed 'man-in-the-suit' to continue walking more than just a few feet into the woods. The footprints would have naturally faded on the forest floor.

 

[kitakaze]

Good ol' Sweat. Just ignore whatever doesn't fit the point you think you got.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If the trackway was faked...someone would have had to walk a long way with a LOT of extra weight on themselves to make impressions as deep as they were.

Again ..

What trackway ? ( documented where )

How deep ?

How was it determined how deep it was and how it was made ?

You can't claim what someone can and can't do without experimenting ( or producing the documented work of others ) and demonstrating whether what you claim is possible or not...


You seem to be confused about which forum you are posting on ...

 

[Drewbot]

Is it even a given that the Patty subject made the casts that were casted? Perhaps the Patty Subject did not weigh enough to make any footprints, and with the oversized feet just glided across the ground without sinking in.

 

[LTC8K6]

The footprints would have naturally faded on the forest floor.

Yeah, after about 3.5 miles...

I guess Sweaty thinks if he keeps on saying the same thing, "heavy weight", we'll just get tired and let it go.

Well, we won't. There is no actual connection between any tracks found at the site, and the biped that was filmed by RP. There is no evidence that any tracks were any deeper than those that would be left by a human being.

"Roger said so", is not evidence. Gimlin filming Roger pouring casts is just a film of Roger pouring casts unless it can be shown that it's related to the PGF.

Sweaty, who filmed Roger and Bob riding the horses?

 

[William Parcher]

Sweaty, who filmed Roger and Bob riding the horses?

Oh now come on! A third person at Bluff Creek getting a panned shot of both Gimlin and Patterson, and then zooming in on Roger? You PGF skeptics will grab at any straw you can find.

 

[Drewbot]

Oh now come on! A third person at Bluff Creek getting a panned shot of both Gimlin and Patterson, and then zooming in on Roger? You PGF skeptics will grab at any straw you can find.

We don't have any proof that the camera man was even a man... perhaps it was Patty her/itself. hmmm?

 

[LTC8K6]

No saddlebags on either man's horse as far as I can tell. If they have rifles, they are on the left side of the horses as far as I can tell.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why was the pack horse with them when they were riding around looking to film bigfoot?

They came back to their camp to sleep and eat, etc. The camp was close to Bluff Creek. Even if they brought lunch and water for two, that would fit in their saddle bags.

If they did not eat lunch in camp, where did they eat lunch?

So, what was the pack horse for? It obviously wasn't carrying casting supplies. What was it carrying that they needed while riding around looking for tracks and signs of bigfoot? A second roll of film is small and should have been with Patterson in his saddlebags. Their rifles would be on their own horses in scabbards.

I suppose it could have been carrying horse feed, but it seems likely that they'd feed the horses back at camp at the end of the day. Gimlin says they fed the horses at camp the night of the filming.

Is there any indication that Roger and Bob were staying overnight away from their camp? Even so, you can easily camp out overnight without a pack horse.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......................
Is there any indication that Roger and Bob were staying overnight away from their camp? Even so, you can easily camp out overnight without a pack horse.

Gimlin related in the green interview that they loaded up the pack horse in the event
they decided to spend the night..

Of course, not taking casting material seems like a bit of an oversight, since the purpose
of the whole trip was allegedly to investigate tracks....