Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Bigfoot does not exist.

...I just wanted Huntster to get at least one nickel...

You're not making friends with fellow disbeliever Starman.

But, then, you're not very good at making friends, are you?

 

[Huntster]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/woodpecker.htm

A whole lotta folks in the woods looking for a woodpecker, but they don't see bigfoot....

Ask them how many bears they see.

And remember that there are an estimated 200 bears for every sasquatch.

 

[Huntster]

....As a true skeptic I cannot say that bigfoot definitely does not exist. However, based on the evidence so far presented then I've got as much chance of winning the lottery as to meeting Mr Sasquatch ...

Living in Scotland, you have a much greater chance winning the lottery than meeting up with a sasquatch.

...FACT: Based on all available evidence bigfoot does NOT exist...

I'm not even counting yet, and the nickels are beginning to add up.

 

[UrsulaV]

It's my opinion that science is invested totally in any bipedal primate of the past as being the ancestor of man.

Whaaaat?

There are totally bipedal primates of the past that science doesn't consider direct ancestors of man. For example, so far as I know, Paranthropus is still considered a seperate lineage, an offshoot of the same tree, but not a direct ancestor. And then there's your Gigantopithecus...for being totally invested in viewing any bipedal primate as our ancestor, science sure left a coupla big ones out!

Even if your opinion were supported by the facts, why would the discovery of a Bigfoot dash previous theories? Gigantopithecus is hardly considered to be an ancestor of humanity--granted they were around at the same time as Homo erectus they're way too late to the game...

 

[Hitch]

Whaaaat?

There are totally bipedal primates of the past that science doesn't consider direct ancestors of man. For example, so far as I know, Paranthropus is still considered a seperate lineage, an offshoot of the same tree, but not a direct ancestor. And then there's your Gigantopithecus...for being totally invested in viewing any bipedal primate as our ancestor, science sure left a coupla big ones out!

Even if your opinion were supported by the facts, why would the discovery of a Bigfoot dash previous theories? Gigantopithecus is hardly considered to be an ancestor of humanity--granted they were around at the same time as Homo erectus they're way too late to the game...

Follow the logic.

God doesn't like science.

Science tells us bigfoot most likely doesn't exist.

Find bigfoot, you break science.

God scores a slam dunk and wins!

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but religious nutjobs rarely do... or bigfoot woos.

 

[Huntster]

Whaaaat?

There are totally bipedal primates of the past that science doesn't consider direct ancestors of man. For example, so far as I know, ...And then there's your Gigantopithecus...for being totally invested in viewing any bipedal primate as our ancestor, science sure left a coupla big ones out!.....

Well,.........

that's been my point.

I've been arguing on this very thread that nobody knows if Gigantopithecus was quadrapedal or bipedal.

There seems to be universal agreement that they didn't brachiate, but we really don't know that for sure, either.

...Even if your opinion were supported by the facts, why would the discovery of a Bigfoot dash previous theories?...

It would prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that other sub-primated aside man walked bipedally to today.

 

[LTC8K6]

And remember that there are an estimated 200 bears for every sasquatch

Try your pseudo facts at a believer's board, please. Why bother to write such unsupported and unsupportable garbage?

 

[LTC8K6]

The film subject is indeed walking with a compliant gait.

No, the subject isn't, imo.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ask them how many bears they see.

I'm much more interested in anything out of the ordinary they might have seen, and why would they bother to note bears?

You are either saying they saw bigfoot and thought it was a bear, or they would not report seeing bigfoot, since they would not report seeing a bear.

Both of which are ridiculous, imo....

 

[LTC8K6]

The only compliant step I see in Patty is when she deliberately shows us the bottom of her foot.

 

[tube]

No, the subject isn't, imo.

As I say, the portion that MK Davis stabilized shows the subject walking with a much more subtle compliant gait than the earlier part. I have photographs of myself walking on the beach that almost exactly duplicate various poses seen in the first part of the film subject's walk. These were made while I was walking with a quite "deep" compliant gait. Again, I would post a link to the BFF with these photos but their site is down. If you insist, I can start posting other photographs I have to prove my point, Muybridge style.

Note how the film subject's arm is nearly straight down by its side while the lower leg is near level in frame 72. The head is pitched down and forward. This is completely consistent with a compliant walking gait. If you run, your arms will remain bent. The only way to get your lower leg to level while walking FLUIDLY is with a compliant gait.

Trust me, I was also skeptical about the compliant gait claim UNTIL I EXPERIMENTED MYSELF AND PHOTOGRAPHED THE RESULTS.

LTC8K6, while I read and respect your ideas on this highly contentious subject, you are wrong on this particular point. The film subject is walking with a compliant gait.

 

[pdw709]

The film subject is walking with a compliant gait.

Agreed, even experts agree that this is a compliant gait (sorry I can't post the URL yet - I need 15 posts!)

However such a gait can be EASILY reproduced by a human, and when when it is it produces an unusually large stride.....

So much has been written or discussed about the "gait" when in reality it is totally irrelevent!

Phil

 

[UrsulaV]

It would prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that other sub-primated aside man walked bipedally to today.

...so?

Why would that dash any theories? I don't recall reading any papers titled "Humans: The Only Real Bipeds, I Swear!"

Your theory is that "science" would freak out if something that wasn't an ancestor to man walked upright?

Evidence?

 

[Correa Neto]

Well,.........

that's been my point.

I've been arguing on this very thread that nobody knows if Gigantopithecus was quadrapedal or bipedal.

There seems to be universal agreement that they didn't brachiate, but we really don't know that for sure, either.

Evaluation of avaliable reliable evidence indicate they probably were not bipedal. They could stand still, like gorillas, chimps and bears, but usually did not used bipedalism for locomotion.

On the other hand, based on unreliable evidence, footers declare bigfeet are real. Instead of saying "maybe bigfeet are real".

It would prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that other sub-primated aside man walked bipedally to today.

Homo neanderthalensis is nowdays considered an ancestor of Homo sapiens?

Australopithecus africanus is considered an ancestor of Homo sapiens?

I think you should review your statement. And your sources.

 

[William Parcher]

Agreed, even experts agree that this is a compliant gait...

What exactly is a compliant gait? "Patty" is mostly upright and striding with big fake feet across sandy strata. Also, "she" only seems to bring her foot/calf close to horizontal in some of her steps.

From my perspective, the PGF looks exactly like how a bloke in a Bigfoot costume with fake platform feet would walk across a creek sandbar.

 

[TjW]

To me, the gait looks like someone who is walking with bigger shoes on their feet than they are used to, who is trying to be really careful not to stub the ends on the ground.

 

[William Parcher]

Tube, you don't really look like Patty here. Your legs are much more weird and wonky than Patty. She seems more "human-like" than you are demonstrating.

 

[RayG]

I have already documented how Meldrum was pretty ho hum on the skookum cast, and later he is basically calling it proof. He went from inconclusive to proof for some unknown reason.

You seem to have it backwards. He initially described it as compelling and then later claims he never suggested the cast was compelling.

In the Oregonbigfoot.com Newsletter, dated January 2005, during an interview, when specifically asked, "The Skookum cast - what makes it so compelling?"

Meldrum replies:

"I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling."

Yet years earlier, and still preserved on the bfro website, from an Idaho State University Press Release dated October 23, 2000, we have Dr. Meldrum stating:

"While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere."

So originally he not only called it compelling new evidence, but 'significant' new evidence as well. He seems to have really toned that down in his later statement.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

To me, the gait looks like someone who is walking with bigger shoes on their feet than they are used to, who is trying to be really careful not to stub the ends on the ground.

No kidding. If Tube would just put on some big platform "clown feet" and walk across the sand (without trying to imitate anything), he might look a lot more like Patty. Patty was a bloke in a Bigfoot costume. Wearing something like this while walking across uneven sand would possibly produce a similar visual result.

 

[rgann]

NOTE: I am unable to post links my references can be found using the url in a search string or adding "www"

That means he's an accessory. And an assessory that got ripped off later.

He maintains his story, despite being kept out of the money.

Do you want to continue down this line

This is an interesting hypothesis I see regularly at BFF, IF/SINCE Gimlin was cheated out of money by Patterson and De Atley AND he has not revealed that the film was hoaxed THEN the film must not be a hoax. It clearly is a false dilemma there are other possibilities why Gimlin might not reveal a hoax after being wronged, he still profits from appearances to this day, he does live in the same small community as anyone remaining, he might feel the myth is more important etc. I find this a weak argument for the validity of the film

I believe the chain of custody was well documented. I'll have to research it to verify that, but I believe you're barking up the wrong stormpipe.

Actually to the best of my knowledge there are severe gaps in the chain of custody to this day, such as where is the original, where was it developed etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson_film see legal status

You're saying that they did this without leaving any sign of "creating" the tracks?

In other words, they created this costume that still defies any attempt to expose it as such, then created a trackway that also still defies any attempt to expose it as a hoax?

Not sure what your contention is, are you suggesting that the area or the trackway was reported as being free of all human tracks and only had Patty prints? If so who made this claim and based on Patterson and Gimlin they examined the prints immediately made casts and even protected (Gimlin) from weather, how could anyone tell the difference between this reported activity and someone faking. Both would show human prints nearby.

From Titmus he claims that evidence of Patterson and Gimlin riding and walking where all over the area, there has never been a claim that the site was pristine,

rfthomas.clara.net/papers/faq.html

Patterson himself went to the film site or nearby the very morning of the filming.

bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm
Green: What happened on this particular day?

Gimlin: The day we got the film footage, I left early in the morning and Roger slept in. I just rode out and around, I always got up early and so I rode on out. My horse loosened a shoe and I came back in to tack the shoe on tighter. About 10:00, mid morning or so, I sat around there for a little while, because Roger was gone when I got back. Supposedly he had gone down the creek there, ..ah Bluff Creek there and after awhile he came back and asked what area I had covered that morning?

Patterson himself has confirmed that they filmed the process of casting tracks for reenactment purposes by creating fake tracks clearly allowing for the possibility of the trackway being hoaxed.

Here’s Krantz confirming Patterson knew how and did fake tracks:

Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

Do you realize that Lafferty showed up there because there had been a number of reports of tracks in the area at that time?

Are you prepared to accuse him, too, of being in on the hoax?

isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html from Meldrums site

The next day the site was visited by Robert Laverty, a timber management assistant and his sales crew. He took several photographs including one of a footprint exhibiting a pronounced pressure ridge in the midtarsal region. This same footprint, along with nine others in a series, was cast two weeks later by Bob Titmus, a Canadian taxidermist.

The Patterson creature didn't just leave her image on film, she left tracks in the sandbar. As usual they were far deeper than the tracks of the humans that walked around them. Roger Patterson and his partner cast two of them. A day or so after they left the area a forestry crew happened on the scene and three tracks were photographed by a young man who later became one of the top executives in the U.S. Forest Service.

rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html

Laverty worked in the area as a timber management assistant, there is no evidence he went to Bluff creek because of the tracks he simply worked in the area.

You may mean that Patterson showed up because of reported prints? Heres what Gimlin saw when he arrived

Green: So you went to an area where you heard tracks had been seen fairly recently?

Gimlin: Yes. Just prior to the time we had gotten there, they had sighted tracks on that Tuesday after being off over the Labor Day weekend. It had also started raining all up and down the West coast. By the time we got down there, these tracks supposedly were 3 different sizes and were just globs in the mud as far as I was concerned. We couldn’t get any plaster cast definition of them at all.

Green: I never realized that you went down there for that specific set of tracks....

Gimlin: Yes, that’s the reason we went into that area. I wasn’t real anxious to go down there because I needed to go back to work, but Roger kept saying these guys were pretty good down in that area, I can’t remember the fellow’s name that called up here...

Green: ... probably Al Hodgson.....

Gimlin: Yes! It was Al Hodgson, but there was somebody else who had talked to Roger too, a guy that worked for the Forest Service.

Green: Syl McCoy maybe?

Do you have any idea of the whereabouts of these men prior to October 20?

Apparently they where in the area searching and filming sometime after Labor Day I don’t see exact day mentioned for arrival to the best of my knowledge they where in the area days before filming

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to indicate that they left Washington and went to the site "weeks before"?

From Gimlin it appears they where at Mt St Helens searching and filming then received reports of activity and headed south to Bluff Creek.

Do you think that sign of the filming "weeks before" would be so gone that Lafferty and Titmus wouldn't see it?

Do you think the sign of the horses being there "weeks before" would be gone?

Yes See Gimlins report on the weather and the conditions of prints discovered a week or so before. Apparently rain washed away a lot.

You're making up a story, with nothing to back it.

Patterson's and Gimlin's story sounds better.

I have seen very tight and in my opinion hopeful timelines for the entire Patterson (as he describes) episode, ranging from arrival, filming, casting and then developing and while I am not certain William Parchers scenario is accurate the idea that the timeline for the PGF is beyond dispute is still in question.

Rick