Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

Abandon all hope.

 

[Aepervius]

Once again the skeptics have no more to offer than the same speculation as the non skeptics.

If what you pretend above is true, then all it prove to me is that the pgf cannot be used for any kind of evidence whatsoever, when all that is discussed on it is subjective.

Personally I disagree due to the burden of proof. Skeptic have no burden of proof. Believer have. For each assertion they have to bring evidence. And right now I see no evidence whatsoever receivable in a scientific way.

Now skeptic like to play a game which is called "you don't bring evidence to your claim, but I skeptic will in addition hammer the nail and demonstrate that your claim could also very well be an hoax (or have an ordinary explanation). And in absence of extraordinary evidence, your claim must then be analyzed into having an ordinary explanation".

Thus comes dfoot and other and bring evidence that such costume could be built, that the footprint can be reproduced in cheap way, that some "researcher" are known hoaxer, or fell for known hoax, that some obvious evidence (elk imprint) are ignored etc...etc...

In my opinion those input from them are fun, make the brain work , but when skeptic are wrong, you have to understand it does not validate the pgf or bigfoot ! The burden of proof is still on believer side, and up to now they are doing NADA.

So the status now is : no evidence and hint of an hoax.

PS: speculation without evidence when speaking of a believer claim is fun, but speculation without evidence on a believer side is weak and sad and speak a lot against their claim...

 

[Drewbot]

On BFF I proposed that the biggest obstacle for those in support of the PGF being real is "The lack of Bigfoot"

The response was of course "There's one right there on the screen", and "the Lack of Type sample does not equal lack of species"

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21716&view=findpost&p=441721

 

[LTC8K6]

Skiptics often say that Gimlin didn't go to the PGF showing upon arrival back in Yakima because he didn't think the film was worth it. Or to put in another way that it looked like a bad suit. Claims are made that Gimlin stayed home because he was either tired or not feeling well. For what its worth I'd be tired too after the events of the previeous days. I may also be sick from having gone out in the rain trying to protect the tracks they found at Bluff Creek.

The point is that if a person believed they had just filmed bigfoot, they'd want to watch the movie. If Gimlin was too sick to go see it, it was never mentioned in the stories and interviews done at the time. I have never heard anyone claim Gimlin was sick until now, and I've been at this for a long time.

Consider this too for a moment. It has been speculated that Patterson set up the mime in the suit that morning then went back and tampered with Gimlin's rifle by putting blanks in it ,just in case Gimlin got trigger, happy before having Gimlin accompany him back to the "hoax site". Yet nothing has ever emerged that Gimlin later found blanks in his rifle. Are we to assume that after Bluff Creek Gimlin hung up his guns? What I'm saying here is loading the hypothetical blanks into Gimlin's gun is one of the more silly arguments skeptics make.

This is the first I have heard of blanks in Gimlin's rifle, actually. I don't recall anyone here offering that up as a valid scenario. If I were Patterson, I would have adjusted Bob's rifle sights while he wasn't looking. Bob is unlikely to notice this, and he will miss by a lot if he fires, and it will take him several shots to figure it out. If there is a first shot, Roger can then tell Bob not to shoot anymore.

Lastly this character Dfoot recently made the bold statment that the PGF was shot around Labor Day 1967. Yet the foliage in the PGF is clearly in Autumn color.

It's not unusual for the foliage in the mountains to turn early and the last time I checked September is in Autumn.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

If there is a first shot, Roger can then tell Bob not to shoot anymore.

Of all the "analyseees" done on the PG film....this statement has got the most useless of them all....I must say!

I can hear Roger planning it all out, now....."I'll only let him get one shot at you, Bob, and then I'll tell him to "cut it out! I'm figuring there's a 90% chance he'll miss..."

 

[Drewbot]

Maybe that's what the look back was all about, also, maybe why the walk speeds up.

Quick glance sees gun, starts walking faster, then looks right at Roger, as if 'WHAT THE BLANK ARE YOU DOING WITH A GUN ON ME?"

 

[LTC8K6]

this statement has got the most useless of them all

Since it was intended to be useless, I'm glad you thought so.

Sweaty, what are you talking about?

I wasn't analyzing the film and I don't think Roger loaded blanks or messed with Bob's sights.

Did you miss a few posts or what?

 

[LTC8K6]

I can hear Roger planning it all out, now....."I'll only let him get one shot at you, Bob, and then I'll tell him to "cut it out! I'm figuring there's a 90% chance he'll miss..."

Sweaty clearly missed a few posts. BH would not have been in the suit in the game we were playing about Gimlin being an innocent dupe.

BH, or whoever played Patty, would already have done his part earlier, when the PGF was filmed.

 

[Crowlogic]

It's not unusual for the foliage in the mountains to turn early and the last time I checked September is in Autumn.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on now! Mountains or no mountains the foliage in virtually All of the lower 48 states is still in green. The only possible exception is Walnut which start to shed its leaves around early September or at least here in NE it does. So once again please explain what appears ,to my eye at least, a scene that is actually a little past "peak Autumn color".

The PGF may well be a hoax but its downright laughable that it was filmend in early September!

 

[Crowlogic]

It's not unusual for the foliage in the mountains to turn early and the last time I checked September is in Autumn.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on now! Mountains or no mountains the early September foliage in virtually ALL of the lower 48 states is still in green. The only possible exception is Walnut which start to shed its leaves around early September or at least here in NE it does. So once again please explain what appears, to my eye at least, a PGF scene that is actually a little past "peak Autumn color".

The PGF may well be a hoax but its downright laughable that it was filmend in early September! Get with it all you knowledgeable skeptics and actually look at the film with open eyes its NOT SEPTEMBER!

 

[Avindair]

On BFF I proposed that the biggest obstacle for those in support of the PGF being real is "The lack of Bigfoot"

The response was of course "There's one right there on the screen", and "the Lack of Type sample does not equal lack of species"

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21716&view=findpost&p=441721

Huh?

Wha?

Huh?



I...just...don't...get...them...

Avindair

 

[William Parcher]

Use caution when trying to evaluate the intensity of the foliage colors.

Watch the autumn colors change right in front of your eyes...

Now watch the color differences between the scene of Roger pulling the white packhorse at Bluff Creek versus the Patty Walk scene here.

Hmmmm..... The PGF is the gift that keeps on giving. I love it.

 

[Crowlogic]

Let's look at the scene in its entirety shall we. Sure dosen't look like early September to me.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Since it was intended to be useless, I'm glad you thought so.

Sweaty, what are you talking about?

I wasn't analyzing the film and I don't think Roger loaded blanks or messed with Bob's sights.

Did you miss a few posts or what?

I did miss a few posts....I thought you were being serious.

But I'm glad you weren't!

 

[Dfoot]

Let's look at the scene in its entirety shall we. Sure dosen't look like early September to me.[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1875547a25567b95c0.jpg[/URL]

Crow --- You may not be as informed on fall color as you first thought.


This is a photo of leaves in Sept. in Northern California. More information is available at the end of this post.

The filming of Patty could have taken place anytime between Sept. 4 and Oct. 15, 1967 according to what we now know. It could not, however, have taken place on October 20th as the "official story" proclaims.

GIMLIN sez: After Patterson filmed Bigfoot walking (between 1:30 pm and 2 pm) he followed and watched it for 300 yards till it ran off. He returned to Patterson and they chased the horses up and down the creek for a while. Next, Patterson changed film rolls under a poncho and handed the camera to Gimlin (according to Gimlin's Nov. '67 statement) and Gimlin followed Patty's trail. They rode two miles back to camp, gathered plaster materials and rode two miles back to the film site. They did some print depth experiments on film using Gimlin and the horses. They took all the track footage of Roger making casts and then rode once again to their camp site, tied up the horses, and drove out of the primitive area.
Gimlin's story differs from the official tale here, however. He says it got dark at 4 pm.

That means ALL of the above took place between 2 pm and 4 pm. He says they only arrived at Hodgson's store between 8:30 pm and 9 pm and then drove to Eureka to mail the film. (Green interview '92). This is a problem...

AL HODGSON sez: Patterson and Gimlin showed up just after 6 pm. He recalls it well since he'd just gotten home after closing the store. Patterson excitedly told him that he JUST GOTTEN BACK from mailing the film from the Eureka Post Office.

The serious problem with all of this is that neither scenario allows time enough for Patterson and Gimlin to make it to the Eureka Post Office before the 5 pm closing time. Eureka is over two hours round trip driving from Willow Creek. To do all they claimed is simply not possible. Since airport records reveal no planes flew any air delivery of any sort that day that is not the answer either.

THE TRUTH: Is most likely the Bob Heironimus version. He says near the end of Sept. or first week in Oct. iswhen he drove down to Bluff Creek and shot the film. Gimlin and Patterson admitted they were in the area at this time supposedly checking out tracks.

THE REAL TIMELINE: In May Patterson attempted to shoot a film with his cowboy buddies chasing Bigfoot with dogs. He ran out of money. He obtained money to finish the film from the Radfords. He didn't spend it on the camera rental or anything else. He went to Hollywood to try to raise money. He had $700 of the Radford's cash ($4000 in today's money). This is verified by a contract that held up in court - despite Patricia Patterson attempting to claim it was forged.

In July or August Gimlin asked Heironimus to wear a suit that was being prepared. Patterson and Gimlin began pretending to hunt for Bigfoot around Ape Canyon and Bluff Creek, traveling back and forth. Tracks are found around the Bluff Creek vicinity and Canadians are notified.

In September or early Oct. Heironimus travels to Bluff Creek and makes the Patty footage. Gimlin says they were only there to check out some tracks. Heironimus mailed the original footage to DeAtley's business.

In October Patterson and Gimlin stage their "coming out of the woods and mailing the film" scenario. The fact is that the film of Patty was already edited and ready to view.

The Canadians watch the film the next day and think they have prize footage of a real live Bigfoot to prove they are right. The hoax worked. So it begins...

Re: FALL COLORS: The change is based on weather and not some predetermined holiday date. I've been in the area and seen the foliage change in early September. The leaves do not have to be all green. The colors seen in the PG film also appear in September.
It works like this... As summer ends and autumn comes, the days get shorter. This is how the trees "know" to begin getting ready for winter. The green chlorophyll disappears from the leaves. As the bright green fades away, we begin to see yellow and orange colors. Small amounts of these colors have been in the leaves all along. We just can't see them in the summer, because they are covered up by the green chlorophyll.
The bright reds and purples we see in leaves are made mostly in the fall. In some trees, like maples, glucose is trapped in the leaves after photosynthesis stops. Sunlight and the cool nights of autumn cause the leaves turn this glucose into a red color.

 

[Crowlogic]

Dfoot

On the BBF you stated that Bob H. claims that the PGF was shot on Labor Day Weekend and not "sometime between Sept 15 and the first week in October. So you, just like everyone else, is speculating and nothing more. Do you have a signed sworn affidavit from Bob Herinimous stating that the PGF was shot at any time befor Oct 20 1967. Do you have a sign sworn affidavit from anyone affirming that what you're presenting is true? Why ,if there is any truth to your tale, did not Bob H. tell all this to Long when Long was pumping Bob H. for information when Long was writing his book? And why has he made you the special envoy of this information that would have done more to shatter the PGF myth than his silly suit made of a red horse hide?

I know why Autum colors appear and why. I also know that all one has to do is look at one of the full frame stills of the PGF (like the one I posted) to know that the scene is showing many bare trees that have already dropped leaves as well as leaves in color and even some still in green. But I've spent more than enough time in the woods at all times of the year to know what I'm seeing in terms of foliage. A few plants like the pics you posted say nothing. Show us some first week in September foliage pics from Bluff Creek with time and date posted on the photo and you may have something.

 

[LTC8K6]

Crowlogic, you would need to show that it could not be early September in 1967 when the PGF was filmed.

So far, you haven't done a thing but tell us what you know.

I do see a lot of dead trees in the area where Bluff creek floods.

 

[mangler]

I wasn't even going to bother posting about the autumn colors because I felt it would fall on deaf ears, der!


Logic, dude before you say something like this " I know why Autumn colors appear and why." you really need to understand what kind of foliage we are talking about and more importantly you have to understand why leafs change color in the first place. Photosynthesis begins it's shutdown cycle because of a couple of basic reasons, less daylight and variation in temperature. I'm not going to go into any depth here with the definitions of words like chlorophyll, carotenoids or anthocyanin and how they are associated with this topic. I will say the key to color is dry, hot/sunny and cold.

Basically what we have are deciduous trees and/or shrubs in a canyon basin. Cottonwood, Dogwood, Shrub Oaks, Oregon White Oak, Canyon Live Oak, California Black Oak, Mountain Dogwood, California Walnut, Aspens, these are a few of the trees that might be present in the Bluff Creek Drainage area. All of these trees are more than capable of being completely red and/or dropping leafs before the end of September. Since we don't seem to know what kind of trees/shrubs they are lets pretend they are Oaks.

The summer of 67' was unusually dry in the Bluff Creek area, this in itself would cause these trees to begin an early Photosyn shutdown. Remember it's in the mountains so the days are hot and the nights are cold, there is your big variation in temperature. Add to that it's in a canyon basin where the days are shortened by the topography, there is your lack of sun/shorter days.

1967 would have been a perfect year for an early Fall in the Bluff Creek Drainage.

Then there is Parchers idea of how the hell do we really know what colors we're lookin at. The original processing job on the film sucked, what we end up with is a bunch of guys color correcting how they see fit. Some clips seem to have Ektachrome properties, some Kodachrome. Personally I think the film looks on the cyan/cool side of the spectrum.

One more thing, between the end of September and the supposed filming date the suns azimuth and altitude didn't change much and it would be very difficult to discern between the two times.

IMO October 20th as a filming date is not set in stone.



m

 

[Crowlogic]

Crowlogic, you would need to show that it could not be early September in 1967 when the PGF was filmed.

So far, you haven't done a thing but tell us what you know.

I do see a lot of dead trees in the area where Bluff creek floods.

Well here are some photos of Northern California taken this past Autumn in Plumas County CA which is located very close to Bluff Creek. The range of photos starts in late September and goes into October 20 2007. I'll let the viewer make up their own minds as to how authenticly the PGF foliages matches the dates claimed. Going left to right the first 3 are 9/22/07, 9/29/07, 9/31/07. The rest were taken on 10/20/2007.

 

[devnull]

Isnt that a BF peering out from between a couple of trees in the first photo?