• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
You see, Knights and others have argued that the "lower leg lift" is higher than any person uses in a normal walk. It also strikes me as being higher than it should be for a creature that has always walked in those feet. It's unnatural and not economical. The toes are lifted so high that it appears to be overcompensating to prevent "stubbing the toes" on the forward swing of the foot. That suggests to me an actor wearing huge feet and is conscious of the need to lift them high - but goes too far with it.
 
Why oh why does bigfoot have this affect on people?

It also effected Patterson (or Gimlin) and Laverty as well. Though they did photograph Patty footprints, they never captured a single scene that showed multiple prints in the same shot. They both deprived us of a view of the trackway as it would be seen from a person standing there looking ahead.
 
I could see that it was around that time, but was mostly curious if Perez had heard (or read) the 1992 Gimlin/Green interview.
 
Patterson October 21 said:
"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it. My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."

Patterson November 1967 said:
My horse fell with me, I probably pulled him half over, and as he got up I was able to get up and control him until I went around the other side and got the camera out of the saddle bag and I turned my horse loose, and was able to start shooting and I yelled.

The first quote makes it sound like he fell onto the side of the horse that had the camera. The second quote has him switching sides to get the camera. Could he "see" the camera without lifting a flap first?
 
There's an animation of this skeleton out there somewhere. You have to see it to believe it, because it sure isn't Patty's walk, imo.

There appear to be 6 distinct features of the Patterson creature’s gait: hip rotation, high leg lift, ankle
rotation, non-locking knees, long strides and the legs swing in and out in a criss-cross fashion.

Hajicek knew if Steindorf could effect what he wanted,
scientists could study the strange yet graceful criss-cross,
hip-rotating, bent-kneed and ankle twisting gait of the
creature from any angle they chose.
 
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

Patty is not getting her foot very high at all here. Her feet never get anywhere hear parallel to her body. Nor is she taking much of a stride. She is walking just like I walk. Her toes are just clearing the ground.

The only time we see Patty lift her foot high is to purposely show us one of her feet. The perfect foot and block foot frames.
 
Krantz really fell hard for those fake wooden feet and the casting artifacts!

Dr. Krantz spoke with a scientific precision and an academic background
in anthropology. He explained the details of his track casts. A
track cast is made by filling the impressions in the ground made by
animal footprints with plaster, or plaster like substances such as dental
stone or hydrocal-30, both of which are more expensive than plaster
but are harder once dry. Krantz explained how casts of bigfoot
tracks suggested a foot anatomy that made sense for an animal that
was much heavier than we were. A larger footprint from a taller and
heavier animal would have a different metatarsal hinge or “ball” of
the foot, maybe even two "balls" in the foot just behind the toes. Sure
enough, the track cast he had seemed to show two balls in the foot.

They also seemed to show a foot that had an ankle that was not in a
vertical line with the heel as in our human foot. A much heavier creature
would have an ankle that was closer to the center of the foot. The
track casts he held seemed to show evidence that they were made by
a foot whose ankle was more distant from, and forward of the heel.
Krantz also spoke of other characteristics of the track casts that he
used to determine their authenticity, though he didn't reveal them in
the taped interview.

Years later, I crossed paths with Krantz in January of 2001 during
a conference on the Skookum Cast (Chapter 6). I asked him about the
characteristics of track casts which he used to separate the genuine
ones from the fakes. It turns out that one was the "dermal ridges" or
fingerprint-like lines that swirl around the hands and feet of all primates,
but which are found only on primates. If the earth or mud that
contains a bigfoot track is fine enough, the fingerprint-like dermal
ridges will be faithfully preserved in the plaster cast. The dermal
ridges will not make tightly curving swirls such as the ones seen on
our fingerprints. On tracks that appear to be genuine, the dermal
ridges can be expected to make coarse, widely curving patterns that
encircle the margins of the entire foot. Then there are the “Krantz
Three,” which Joe Beelart and Larry Lund found mention of in an old
letter that Krantz wrote to Rene Dahinden: A two-section foot, square
toes, and a straight line across toe ends.
Personally, I do not feel that
these three traits are common to all authentic sasquatch tracks but
they are interesting observations to bear in mind when inspecting
track casts.

Page 13 of The Locals, by Tom Powell.
 
Last edited:
Thanks and a belated welcome to JREF.

I've never noticed the legs or feet to rotate. To me, both appear to maintain a straight aspect (for lack of better term). What I have mentioned before is that the feet (toes) are lifted higher than necessary to clear the sand. It reminds me of a person walking for the first time in snowshoes and lifting them more than needed to clear the substrate.

Just find a clip of a clown walking in big shoes .. They have to swing them high and wide to clear the ground..
 
AtomicMysteryMonster,

Those are pretty exagerated forearm extensions. But they are simple and can be easilly made. Here you can find some alternatives that can produce extended forearms, moving fingers included.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2491685&postcount=3704
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2488918&postcount=3675

Tube, as I predicted, figured out the simplest solution of all...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2543300&postcount=4028
And if Patterson modifyed a gorilla costume by extending its arms, this would be the easiest solution.

Thanks for reposting those links. Those were what I was referring to in my last post, but was too lazy to look up the URL to in order to post them. Both that mechanism and tube's glove are excellent examples of lengthening an arm without looking ridiculous.

I wasn't too concerned with the moving fingers argument, seeing as how someone proved that the "fingers bending" .gif was made from two nonconsecutive frames. I once fell for the notion that Patterson would have to make the hands move or else it'd look fake. But thanks to Diogene's .gif showing a rigid hand creating the illusion of movement and the realization that most people don't randomly move their fingers while walking, I realized that this was a complete non-issue.
 
Though I've read Powell's The Locals, I did so some time before I became interested in desiccation ridges and fake tracks. I had evidently forgotten about two of the criteria that Krantz put forth for "real" Bigfoot tracks:

"square toes, and a straight line across toe ends."

As some here know, I came to discover by myself that these are two characteristics of tracks made by Ray Wallace style wooden feet. I went so far as to coin the term "monolithic margin" to designate this feature.

For those joining us late, an in-depth discussion of this feature is found here:

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/fake_feet_and Monolithic Margins.htm
 
Here we have a BFF thread about making a Bigfoot costume for a short film. It contains many interesting links to suits detailing the creation of muscle suits using foam rubber

As was the case with the muscle suit used for the 70's version of "King Kong," the foam muscles in suits like this aren't exact replicas of real muscles. However, this doesn't matter once the covering goes over them.

If you read the entire thread, you'll notice that the guy making the suit comments on how the suit's long fur hid the muscles from view. Imagine spending time and money on a muscle suit, only to find that the costume you're using has fur that makes the muscles impossible to see. Do you scrap the idea or do you take some scissors to the costume's hair/fur...

For more suitbuilding, sculpting, and fake muscle information, please visit this site. This is probably far more complicated than what the maker of Patty would have to go through, but it's still worth a look.
 
Rotation in walk

OK, the claim is that the hip rotation to swing the foot around can be seen before the famous frame. It's a relatively new claim, I believe, and wasn't around before Steindorf's animation work for Legend Meets Science.

Non-stabilized at normal speed: I can't see it.

Stabilized at normal speed: I see a duck-like placement of the right foot right before entering the debris field. The left doesn't look like it's doing anything unusual.

Zoomed and slowed down (available on S:LMS): The left still looks normal to me at both steps. The right looks normal for the first step, and then looks like it takes this inward fish step and then splits right for the duck step. There is a blur in the images on the LMS DVD that could explain what I'm seeing.

There... clear as pea-soup. LOL
 
I'm sure that most people here remember Dfoot's Patty mask (as seen on the bottom and in these pictures), which was made from materials available in the 1960's. For the uninitiated, a guy who went by the name "Dfoot" created a Halloween dummy (and later did an unfinished attempt at a costume) based on the P/G footage in 2005. Interestingly enough, the total cost of the dummy was about $250! The pictures of the dummy are gone, but the comments about it were very positive. The mask was made by taking a Don Post Tor Johnson mask, attaching a mouth and, apparently, chin cut from a Don Post "Bongo the Chimp" mask to it, parts from a skeleton mask, and then building up some details and adding hair to it. Dfoot claimed that this naturally created the "dent" seen on Patty's face/chin (His comments make it seem to have been prior to when the mask got its details built up;I think the picture on the bottom right is the "unfinished mask with a fake eye"). This head was then either altered to include features from a caveman mask (Dfoot couldn't find a vintage Don Post caveman mask and had to make due with a similar-looking modern mask) in order to create an open mouth or Dfoot just built another mask that incorporated those features. As you can see, that combination (along with some building-up, painting, and fur) and you get a great-looking Patty mask. I also find it interesting that the fur Dfoot used for his mask reminds me of the short fur seen on the Kong costume from "King Kong vs. Godzilla."

I attempted to find out what those masks looked like to see if this was plausible (and to potentially aid anyone who attempts to pick up where Dfoot left off). Here's what I found:

Here is a picture of a "Bongo the Chimp" mask; I haven't found a picture of a Don Post Caveman mask yet. I've found several Don Post Tor Johnson masks, but I'm not sure when they were made or which style they are thicker, high quality masks that cover the entire head (I'm not sure of the date or maker of that Yeti mask, but this shows what I'm talking about) and thin, less sculpted versions for the cheap crowd/kids (as seen in pharmacies around Halloween). The pictures of Dfoot's mask pictures implied that he used an overhead-style mask, so I decided to see if Don Post manufactured such a mask during the 60's and if it would be in Roger Patterson's price range.

This 1964 ad for what seems to be these types of masks for $30.00, whereas this ad advertises $8.95 masks. This site claims that this is a 60's Tor Mask and that it sold for $8.95. Here are some other $8.95 masks. To me, the price implies that this could be one of the "thin, cheap" masks. Searching this site's gallery section for "Tor Johnson"found several masks, one is said to be a 90's redesign and the others aren't dated (and often have custom paint jobs). Further complicating matters is the Don Post reissues of the old-style masks like these.
This site makes a reference to a 1978 Tor mask. This is either a dating mistake or a variant of the mask, seeing as the Don Post mask was made from a "lifecast" of Mr. Johnson, who died in 1971 (which would make doing a 1978 lifecast impossible; I should also note that the mask shown in that last link isn't a Don Post mask). You can see a picture of the lifecast at the bottom of this site and in this video (which notes about who was there when the casting was made).

This seems to show that the Tor Johnson mask was an overhead-style mask. As do these pictures, although the mask depicted could be a recent version/redesign. Here's another picture of a Tor Johnson mask that seems to show that it was an overhead-style mask. This site shows other vintage Don Post masks seem to be high quality/deluxe overhead only. A Tor mask is shown as being one of those types of masks and the context of the description implies that it's the original style. These all make it seem like that type of mask was available in the 60's and that it was within Roger Patterson's price range.
 
Can't Wait 40 Years

What's that?

You can view this photo at Webshots.com
member - oheokai
album - Cryptids and Natural Phenomena

(My other albums show my dogs and my 'reconstructed Hanging Garden'.)
Note- plants in hanging garden are for info only, no specimens available.

Time's up. It's just a simple picture of the moon (Great Woo) and it's effect (moonbow, similar to rainbow, but full circle, all colors present) on the clouds.

There's a debate at BFF as to what organisation should be presented with any evidence regarding bigfoot. Myself, I don't believe any organisation is prepared to honestly (no bias) and intellectually evaluate any definitive evidence. That leaves one option: big bore munitions.
 
Here is an idea. Instead of you guys wasting your time, time that you can never get back, in trying to rationalize that the PG film is not authentic, why don't you just sit down in your favorite chair and chant "bigfoot is not real, bigfoot is not real, bigfoot is not real", over and over again until you pass out from exhaustion. It will be infinitely more productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom