Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Excellent point, but I still have some questions. Would hairspray still let the fur have the tell-tale indicators of it being fake (specifically, the details at Stan Winston and Dr. Heuvelmans noted)? Also, would hairspray allow for the movement of fake muscles to be seen? However, if the "moving muscles" can be shown to be just film grans (as it has been alleged elsewhere), that question becomes a moot point.
...snip...

Hairspray would leave the hairs a bit rigid. Some of the gorilla costume pics posted here show what may be the effect on the heads; Chaka (sp?) from "Land of the Lost" would be a prime example. I would use it over the costume flaw lines. I guess it would not be able to completely mask the flaws, specially at areas with movment.

I suppose it would not mask the contour of foam "muscles". As for the movment of the muscles, my personal opinion is pareidolia.

 

[LTC8K6]

W: Now, okay, so you then gave up . you took the plaster tracks . How deep were these tracks by the way, in inches? . Inch and a quarter or .

B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil. These particular ones we took here were, weren't quite so deep because they were flatter tracks.

W: Alright now, many of the zoologists that were people you consulted, have they given you any idea of the weight of this creature? The height or the weight?

B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches.

W: What was the length of the stride?

R: Just pardon me, this was estimated on a fourteen and a half inch, excuse me a fourteen inch track and these tracks were fourteen and a half inches, which would, would add quite a considerable bit .

Here again in the Nov 67 radio interview they discuss the track depth, and Gimlin says nothing about a stomp test or comparing the horse's tracks.

We also have the odd claim that someone estimated Patty's height off of a 14" track by measuring the soles of the feet shown in the film.

Why would anyone do that when Roger had already cast Patty's tracks and it was immediately known that they were 14.5" long?

Why is Roger trying to make Patty considerably taller than the 6'9" estimated?
He'd already told the newspaper that Patty was between 6.5 and 7 feet tall and 350 -400 pounds.

 

[William Parcher]

About Gimlin not being at the first showing: He may have already seen it by then, or possibly wanted to spare himself the embarrassment of watching those Classic Era Bigfooters forced to hoot and holler with glee that Roger finally got a film of "that Son of a Buck". The social dynamics of that moment in DeAtley's basement must have been something to watch. Even if one of them strongly suspected a hoax - just what do they say and do at that moment? "Roger we don't need this hoaxy suit business. We would really like you to film a genuine Bigfoot."

But if Gimlin does show up, does he wear the wig too?

Bigfooter Party Line: Bob Gimlin was tired.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you aren't there, you can't be tripped up by any questions any observers may ask you about the circumstances of the incident. No need to worry about different answers from Rog and Bob if Bob isn't there. Bob can't blurt out anything he isn't supposed to either if he might see anything on the film that won't match his experience that day.

Better if Bob isn't there at the unveiling if it's a hoax.

No reason for him not to be excited to be there if he just witnessed bigfoot and his buddy got it on film.

 

[William Parcher]

See, the stakes were high and the clock was ticking from the moment Roger called the newspaper to say that he had filmed Bigfoot. What a nightmarish situation if any of the Bigfoot Buddies in the basement decided to Cry Hoax. The whole world was already expecting to see Bigfoot on film and some numnut Bigfooter Buddy blows it by not hootin and hollerin with glee. It's not like Roger could just call up the paper again and say sorry because his friend declared it a hoax and that it was all a big joke after all. Bad ju-ju all around. Roger Patterson was too important and involved in Bigfootery to declare him a hoaxer. Fast forward to today, and you see much of the same kind of circle-jerking.

Bigfoot only exists for Bigfooters.

 

[LTC8K6]

For all we know, the incident with Gimlin was just staged to have Gimlin as a witness to some furry biped running past them that day, while Patty's scene had actually been filmed earlier. With Roger just pretending to film, reload the camera, cast the fresh tracks, etc.

To get Gimlin in, you would only need to make him believe the incident in the PGF happened that day. It would only need to match the PGF in very general terms. A dark furry biped taking off when they got near it, with Roger running around pretending to film it. Gimlin's own mind will fill in the details and make the match, as would anyone's.

 

[Drewbot]

Does anyone get the feeling that in the '92 Green/Gimlin interview, that Green was giving Gimlin a refresher course in what he should be talking about if he does any more interviews?

* The comments about who was called after the film was made(Green says "probably Al Hodgson" & "Sil McCoy maybe" Gimlin replies 'YES!! That's who it was') ,
* the stomp test, (You realize this couldn't be right, with the Bigfoot print sinking lower, don't you? Of course the horse would have sunk deeper) i.e. Don't mention the stomp test ever again OK?
I don't know it just seems like he's asking leading questions.

Also, It is brought up that the reason they went to Bluff Creek was that there were tracks sighted down there, but in the Green interview, Gimlin states

"They had sighted tracks on Tuesday... It had started raining... by the time we got out there, these tracks were supposedly three different sizes and were just globs in the mud."

Is he saying- The tracks were three different sizes, or is he saying the rains transformed one set of tracks into three different sizes?

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't use the 1992 interview. It was more of a conversation between believers, and it was 25 years later.

I agree it seems a bit like a coaching session at times.

I rely on the earlier statements to make my points.

Like when Roger has to reel Bob back in, in the 1967 interview:

W: Describe it to me, Bob.

B: It was a large hairy creature with arms that hang down beside its, you know, far down on its sides, below its knees, and it was quite ..

W: Do you agree with that?

R: No, I think Bob's a little excited here, I don't believe they were below the knees, they were above the knees.

Now, who should have seen Patty better and for a longer time? Roger through the little viewfinder, or Bob with his eyes?

 

[LTC8K6]

Roger: Well first of all, the reason that we were in this place was that I'd been filming a documentary on this thing for the past eight months or so and I'd been going to areas interviewing people that have seen these creatures, other than myself now, and we went to this
particular area because a month before this they had found three different sets of tracks up in that area.

Who would expect month old tracks to be any good? In the 1967 interview, the three sets of tracks are why they go to Bluff Creek, and they are already a month old. No mention of a phone call about fresh tracks being the reason for the trip.

 

[LTC8K6]

BOB GIMLIN, 36, and a quarter Apache Indian and also of Yakima, has been associated with Patterson for a year. Patterson has visited the area before and last month received word of the latest discovery of the giant footprints which have become legend.

Last Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night.

In the 1st news article, it is also month-old tracks that they went looking for.

 

[Drewbot]

Right, the 92 interview says the tracks were spotted the Tuesday after labor Day, because the workers didn't work on Monday due to the holiday.

We also have another contradiction here.
Roger: "they had found three different sets of tracks up in that area. "
Bob: "by the time we got out there, these tracks were supposedly three different sizes and were just globs in the mud"

Can you even determine three different sizes of tracks after a month which included rain storms?

 

[LTC8K6]

You'd think that a guy who has been filming a bigfoot documentary for 8 months would have quite a bit of film...

 

[Drewbot]

Were there any casts taken of the tracks by any of the locals on the Tuesday after Labor Day? Reason I ask is that there is an assumption that Patty is one of the beasts that left the tracks back on labor Day. If there were casts taken, then they could be compared to the official 'Patty' cast. If those matched that would mean that either the costume was in possession of those in California, or that the prints cast by Patterson were made by a wooden foot in both cases.

 

[William Parcher]

If they went to Bluff Creek with the purpose of hoaxing they can lie about almost anything they want. They didn't have to see any globs before telling the world that they did. If they say that they saw decent tracks, then they might have to answer why they wouldn't film or cast them.

It's interesting to me that Lavery never found any BF evidence there in spite of working that road regularly. When Bigfooters show up at Bluff Creek they find BF tracks without fail. Again, maybe it was because Laverty wasn't being paid to look at the ground.

It's also interesting that throughout RP's Bigfoot hunters documentary - we never see any riders looking at the ground. Even the scenes at Bluff Creek suggest that Roger isn't looking down as he is being filmed. Weird. Kinda looks like one big hoax.

 

[LTC8K6]

Were there any casts taken of the tracks by any of the locals on the Tuesday after Labor Day?

Apparently, yes.

Don Abbott, an anthropologist with the provincial museum in Victoria, said Tuesday he has some evidence to support the film, -plaster casts of huge footprints found in the same California region in September.

"I went down there (it's a remote region about 100 miles northeast of Eureka) two months ago and examined many of the footprints," he said. "It's either a highly elaborate hoax, or some of these hairy humanoids exist.

Like everyone connected with the provincial museum, I started out completely skeptical; I just laughed at the idea. But now I'm not sure at all. If the idea of Sasquatches weren't so fantastic I'd be prepared to believe it now."

 

[William Parcher]

Roger Patterson "About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature. My horse reared, and then fell as I tried to control it. But I got the camera out and yelled to Bob to cover me with his rifle while I tried for pictures. The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it. It was obviously a female, for although it was covered with hair you could see it had large breasts. It stood about six feet tall, maybe more, and was very broad. We figured the weight at somewhere between 350 and 400 pounds. She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight."

Stood for 30 seconds before walking away. She waits for him to calm the horse and grab his camera before strolling off.

The Province, October 25, 1967

 

[William Parcher]

Don Abbott, an anthropologist with the provincial museum in Victoria, said Tuesday he has some evidence to support the film, -plaster casts of huge footprints found in the same California region in September.

"I went down there (it's a remote region about 100 miles northeast of Eureka) two months ago and examined many of the footprints," he said. "It's either a highly elaborate hoax, or some of these hairy humanoids exist.

So what was the deal with Abbott? Did a Bigfooter lead him to the tracks he saw at Bluff Creek, or did he poke around until he found them himself?

 

[Crowlogic]

Has anyone ever made plaster casts of a wild animals footprints in the wild? Plaster will pick up a layer of soil and other debris that will set into the plaster. When you see nice clean plaster casts of animal tracks its because they've been re cast from cleaned casts. I would be more suspect of Roger holding pure white casts then the off color ones he posing with. And yes the soil at Bluff Creek has a bluish grey color to it. Also it is not reasonable to assume that ROger is holding those casts immedately after they were pulled from the ground. My guess is those photos were taken the next day or even after they had returned to Yakima.

Now about Bob Gimlin not attending the first showing of the PGF at DeAtleys house upon the return to Yakima. Gimlin was taken ill and hadn't been feeling well since they were getting ready to leave Bluff Creek.

 

[JohnWS]

Where are those "grey" casts from, and are they made of something other than pure Plaster of Paris?

Ultracal 30 gypsum cement is greyish when hardened (seen photographic & written reference) Ultracal 60 may be (written reference it is similar in all properties to 30 with the exception of extended setting time). Written reference to 'Ultracal plaster' being used in 1969.

But of course that doesn't address:

If Krantz flips the casts on his desk, will they look white?

 

[LTC8K6]

Gimlin was taken ill and hadn't been feeling well since they were getting ready to leave Bluff Creek

.

Never heard that before.

Why would he ride out in the cold rain the next morning if he were taken ill?