Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Drewbot]

The full blockfoot frame, I think...

[qimg]http://home.att.net/~ltc8k6/bfoot1.jpg[/qimg]

LTC-
Do you have the full-frame of perfect foot?

 

[Drewbot]

I just don't fathom the idea that Patty (an elusive and wary NA bigfoot), upon being approached by two riders on Horseback, casually walked along the creek, leaving perfect footprints in the only footprint medium for miles around. And furthermore, upon reaching the pines, took off at a great rate of speed, (Insert stride measurement differences and Patterson's description of her running here), which indicates that she must have been threatened.
If this is the case(that she was threatened), the logical thing for the beast to do would have been to take the shortest route to the woods, perpendicular to the creek, and make her escape that way. Instead of a leisurely stroll along the creek with a deliberate glance back at her antagonists.

Reasons this leads me to a hoax conclusion

1. Footprints in muddy medium, How would they explain casts taken from the riverbed, if the video didn't show her in the riverbed.
2. It would have made a much shorter film, if the beast had done what came naturally, and taken a few leaps directly into the woodline.

Seriously, by all accounts bigfoot doesn't hang around, if it does, it is out of visual range, and tossing rocks and things at the observer. So why did Patty decide to take such a shallow escape angle?

 

[LAL]

Some quick captures-

The two Bob's, assuming that's BH on the right, the two riders from the footage and what seems to be Roger on the small horse.

 

[LAL]

Seriously, by all accounts bigfoot doesn't hang around, if it does, it is out of visual range, and tossing rocks and things at the observer. So why did Patty decide to take such a shallow escape angle?

The trackways that brought P&G to California indicated three individuals in the area, two smaller than Patty. (Roger thought hers were the middle-sized ones and was afraid there was a larger mate in the area.)

If the smaller ones were youngsters and were in the area, she may have been trying to lure the intruders away.

They may not hang around, but they're seldom reported running. I don't think she had any reason to be afraid, but she didn't want them getting too close, either.

 

[Drewbot]

How about, they tried three different woodenfeet to make the impressions, and the one that looked most conduscive to casting happened to be the middle sized one?

 

[LTC8K6]

If the smaller ones were youngsters and were in the area, she may have been trying to lure the intruders away.

Except that they didn't get lured away at all in some accounts, and they got lured 3.5 miles away in other accounts, neither of which makes sense for a mother protecting a young one.

A large primate would have attempted to run the intruders off, of course, just like the real ones do.

 

[William Parcher]

Is that Roger's favorite red plaid flannel shirt?

 

[LAL]

Does it look like Roger in the shirt?

The lead horse's face isn't visible in the clip, so no way to tell if it had a blaze, but the packhorse is not the same pack horse.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, it's Roger's hat and Roger's shirt. It's Roger.

I never realized it, but the November 1967 radio interview with the two of them is hilarious!

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

There are things that point to it being real.

There are plenty of things that point to it being fake. If you want to discuss this more, I suggest making a new topic.

What's the difference between "Jeff Meldrum was wrong about Snowwalker, therefore he must be wrong about everything else" and "Larry Lund was wrong about Fred Bradshaw therefore he must be wrong about everything else"?

That's not what I was saying. The point I was trying to make was that Dr. Meldrum doesn't seem to be very reliable when it comes to estimating heights. Although now that I think about it, I do find it somewhat odd that after getting fooled by a costume that time, he doesn't seem to be very suspicious of the other films that he deemed to be real.

Have you seen any of the documentaries of the time?

You mean the ones referred to as "pseudo-documentaries" nowadays? Those things are in the same category as "Overlords of the UFO."

Try the rest of The Mysterious Monsters with its reenactments (the suits really make Patty look good) and Peter Hurkos.

Let's think about this...why would a pro-Bigfoot movie make use of a suit that'd outclass footage of a "real Bigfoot?" Oh, and here's a clip from that movie. They got a "psychic" to vouch for Bigfoot reality; that's freaking beautiful...

Gimlin was with him on St. Helens when Patricia got the call from Al Hodgson about new tracks in the area. (Al was a sceptic until he found some himself.)

Although I suspect that there is, I still feel the need to ask if there was any evidence confirming that they were at St. Helens. I've heard rumblings that Patterson faked a photograph of him camping at Ape Canyon...

Why not make it in Washington and save the expense of a trip to California?

Who says that wasn't the original plan?

"Roger, this place is amazing. We're out so deep in the the woods that even hunters aren't around!"

"You know, that gives me an idea. Let's get to a phone and have someone bring up the suit..."

Then again, wouldn't it look suspicious if he filmed it near his home? If someone decided to use the tracking dogs, there'd be a huge risk that they'd find the suit and/or actor. Now if you do it in another state and have the actor leave said state before you notify anyone...

I should also note that some theorize that the footage started out as a reenactment of the Roe sighting for Patterson's documentary, but that he decided to pass it off as the real thing either after being pleased with the results or due to his desperation for money.

If they rehearsed all this, why didn't they get the story straight?

Because they're terrible liars who got a free pass since the film was good enough to fool people? Changing stories is usually a dead giveaway of a hoax, but he gets a free pass from many because of the footage. Or perhaps it's because Roger Patterson couldn't help himself when it came to changing details to the story?

His making Bob Gimlin dress up as/refer to him an "Indian tracker guide" in real-life discussions of the film don't exactly make a good case for his honesty, either.

The trackways that brought P&G to California indicated three individuals in the area, two smaller than Patty. (Roger thought hers were the middle-sized ones and was afraid there was a larger mate in the area.)

Wait a second, I thought Gimlin said they could only find blobs of mud that they assumed were the tracks.

Speaking of tracks, I stumbled across an early post in this thread that had an interesting question: has tried counting the number of steps Patty takes and see if they match up the the amount of tracks that were said to be at the scene?

They may not hang around, but they're seldom reported running.

Oh, really now? And here's a little something in honor of the Patterson's story where Patty takes off running after he runs out of film.

 

[LAL]

Yes, it's Roger's hat and Roger's shirt.

It's not Roger's face. Are you going to tell me it's the same packhorse?

 

[LTC8K6]

If they rehearsed all this, why didn't they get the story straight?

No one questioned the story they told, so there was no need to keep it straight.

 

[William Parcher]

No, it's not Roger's shirt. It's a zipped-up solid color insulated jacket. I now believe this is Jerry Merritt.

Look at the 3rd guy from the left in the "Six Cowboys" shot. Check the clothes, hat and horse.

Now watch the much better Mysterious Monsters clip.

I think it's a match for Merritt.

Lu, you can see it is Heironimus on his own Chico.

 

[LTC8K6]

The lead horse's face isn't visible in the clip, so no way to tell if it had a blaze, but the packhorse is not the same pack horse.

No, we've already been over the number of different horses and packs, etc. You took a vacation.

I see nothing that gives me any reason to think it isn't Roger.

How does Murphy know it's Roger's son?

I haven't heard mention of Roger's son being on one of the 2 reels.

Of course, I didn't hear that BH was on one of the 2 reels, either...

 

[LAL]

Then again, wouldn't it look suspicious if he filmed it near his home? If someone decided to use the tracking dogs, there'd be a huge risk that they'd find the suit and/or actor. Now if you do it in another state and have the actor leave said state before you notify anyone...

The first thing Roger did when they got back to town was try to get Don Abbott and tracking dogs.

Changing stories is usually a dead giveaway of a hoax,

That's Bob Heironimus for you.

His making Bob Gimlin dress up as/refer to him an "Indian tracker guide" in real-life discussions of the film don't exactly make a good case for his honesty, either.

It's called artistic license.

Wait a second, I thought Gimlin said they could only find blobs of mud that they assumed were the tracks.

Did I say they were tracks they found? The ones they saw were too old to be of use. The ones I was referring to were the Onion Mountain/Blue Creek Mountain tracks.

 

[William Parcher]

Gimlin told Perez that he doesn't remember filming Patterson or anything.

 

[LAL]

No, we've already been over the number of different horses and packs, etc. You took a vacation.

I think I need another one. They took three horses to California, did they not?

I see nothing that gives me any reason to think it isn't Roger.

How about the face is too young and full? The hair looks too light. The first rider's face looks too lean for BH and the hair is dark.

How does Murphy know it's Roger's son?

Maybe he asked Patricia.

I haven't heard mention of Roger's son being on one of the 2 reels

Nor have I. I don't know that that footage was on either reel. Gimlin mentioned Roger bought a camera and Patricia apparently had other reels. I've noticed these documentaries are terrible about identifying things. Ancient Mysteries misidentifies them.

Of course, I didn't hear that BH was on one of the 2 reels, either...

I think that's a Parcher hypothesis. The part where he was taking off the suit must have been on the second reel after the casting.

 

[William Parcher]

I think that's a Parcher hypothesis.

No it's not. In fact, folks on BFF were saying that BH was an extra in Roger's film. Nobody said that was not true. As far as I can tell, it's assumed to be true even for the diehard BH skeptics.

The part where he was taking off the suit must have been on the second reel after the casting.

BH said he jumped into a big hole to cool off from the heat inside the suit. It's possible that Roger was still filming when that happened. He would cut that part out and tell the world that he ran out of film. Roger seemed comfortable with lying to people.

 

[LTC8K6]

Couple of caps from that youtube video

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, do you know definitively that it's Roger's son, or not?

One guess is as good another, but if the facts are out there, then let's have them.