Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
LTC: you are thinking that both the white packhorse scene and the binocular scenes are in the fall at Bluff Creek?
Click to expand...

They aren't. There's a dog with the rider in the binoculars scene. I fast forwarded it to get to the other footage and didn't see the dog (the segments are separated by footage of Krantz). I stopped capturing when I realized it wasn't the right section but here's one with the dog.

I tweaked the color so now it's a horrible yellow.
 

Attachments

  • rider and dog.jpg
    rider and dog.jpg
    135.6 KB · Views: 119
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
We'd all be glad to. Where can we see the original film?
Click to expand...

Check with the owners. Dahinden saw it. The casting scene was cut from the second roll.

Seeing clips on YouTube doesn't really have the effect of seeing it on a large screen.

If Krantz' conservative estimate of standing height of 6'5" was correct (several others put her over 7'), BH is certainly ruled out. He said he was 6' and 200 lbs.
 
If Krantz' conservative estimate of standing height of 6'5" was correct (several others put her over 7'), BH is certainly ruled out. He said he was 6' and 200 lbs.
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting about the costume though, and we have a good estimate of the actual apparent height because of a tree that Patty passes.

You seem to keep forgetting to look at the film from the standpoint of it being a person in a suit as well as from the standpoint of it being bigfoot.
 
LTC8K6 said:
You keep forgetting about the costume though, and we have a good estimate of the actual apparent height because of a tree that Patty passes.

You seem to keep forgetting to look at the film from the standpoint of it being a person in a suit as well as from the standpoint of it being bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Other measurements involved the stick Dahinden found, Peter Byrne's pole and the foot length.

I find the idea of a person in a suit, given the bulk, the height, the proportions, the movement, the muscle groups and the state of the art in costumery at the time, ludicrous. The shoulder joints were a foot father apart than on a man of comparable size (Green, from the reenactment). Note I didn't mention the IM index this time.

The pro-suit arguments have been unimpressive, to say the least.

I saw the film decades before I read any analyses, so I doubt I could have been influenced by them.

The area had a long history of sightings and track events, but not, to my knowledge, guys in suits.
 
LAL said:
Other measurements involved the stick Dahinden found, Peter Byrne's pole and the foot length.

I find the idea of a person in a suit, given the bulk, the height, the proportions, the movement, the muscle groups and the state of the art in costumery at the time, ludicrous. The shoulder joints were a foot father apart than on a man of comparable size (Green, from the reenactment). Note I didn't mention the IM index this time.

The pro-suit arguments have been unimpressive, to say the least.

I saw the film decades before I read any analyses, so I doubt I could have been influenced by them.

The area had a long history of sightings and track events, but not, to my knowledge, guys in suits.
Click to expand...

Please explain the dark band between the hand (glove) and the arm (sleeve). Sweaty refuses to even try. Maybe you'd like to give it a shot.
 
It doesn't matter if you find it ludicrous, Lu. Unless you have eliminated the possibility, then you need to keep considering it. The film, until authenticated or debunked, is actually not very useful.

Lots of people fall into the trap of assuming the film shows this or that.

The difference is that by default the assumption is supposed to be that Patty is a hoax, until it can be established otherwise.

So, it's a bit of a double standard that believers have to overcome because they are attempting to make the unusual claim.
 
Since Lu probably still has me on ignore, ask her why the Steindorf model has Patty under six feet ..

When she waffles about the model not being accurate, ask her why she accepts the gait analysis as valid...
 
Interesting Laverty photos...

laverty1.JPG


laverty2.JPG
 
They make the point that somebody has to decide what is garbage. That issue is a key cause of the spawning of new BF forums and groups, as well as people abandoning one venue for another. MABRC's motto is that they think outside the box. To them, the box is how the BFF (and others) "think" about Bigfoot, its behavior, the evidence it leaves behind, etc.
 
Short and Simple
Perfect Foot = Wallace Foot

Look at the similarities between perfectfoot and Wallace foot.
Wallace feet are from Tube's website.



 
Last edited:
I understand your honest question.

One could simply answer yes because divergent thinking is often associated with rewards. But one could also answer with a caveat. Thinking outside the box is only good when it leads to good things.

But we can talk about specific "thinking boxes" in more detail and then maybe defend our answer better. One could say that abandoning Einstein's Relativity could open up new discoveries and an understanding of the universe. Ignore his ideas and look out at the stars with a fresh vision. That is thinking outside the box. Is it a bad thing? In this case, many would answer yes.

I also think I understand why MABRC now exists. It's partly because some BFF folks were slashing at you guys. What does he mean by "you guys"? I mean the Oklahoma BF researchers that comprised your local interest group. The birth of MABRC was partly represented by a small exodus from BFF. A meaningful number of BFF regulars don't even think that Bigfoot lives in Oklahoma. You can smell it in their postings. You guys had to get out of there. They have got to be wrong because MABRC researchers regularly see Okie Bigfoots. Not only that, but also those Bigfoots are facultative quadrupeds.

A strong Bigfoot skeptic like myself will answer that all thinking boxes that are based on a strong belief in Bigfoot are the wrong boxes. But all the different flavors of Bigfootery lure folks in like honey. I don't expect that to change much. I can identify with your enthusiasm and drive. I just think it ain't out there.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I just want to know where perfectfoot came from. I just don't see that nice shiny white clear perfect foot in the frame shot, yet I see blockfoot looking the same in the frame shot.

[qimg]http://www.gatzstuff.com/images/Bigfoot/bendpov.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I think your gif is flipping between frames 62 & 72. Perfectfoot is frame 61.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I just want to know where perfectfoot came from. I just don't see that nice shiny white clear perfect foot in the frame shot, yet I see blockfoot looking the same in the frame shot.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It may be that Perfectfoot only comes from a Dahinden Cibachrome.

Say, that vertical scratch on your .gif behaves strangely. It makes a huge jump between these frames (which are about 10 frames apart). Is it because the LMS producers were not just cropping frames, but were also panning across frames? It's like both Patty and the scratch are walking through the scene.

bendpov.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom