Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

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.

Very severe gaps that look like the smoking gun of a hoax.

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.

I have mentioned this before. Lyle Laverty (on "the scene" the next day) and Bob Titmus (on "the scene" nine days later) could not have easily distinguished human observer tracks from human hoaxer tracks. Bootprints in the sand directly alongside "Patty Bigfoot prints" could either be P&G casting and observing the real things, or creating the fake tracks.

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.

This is something I have not yet expanded upon. We are told that two different footages of Patterson show him in direct contact (casting) with big footprints. One is a demonstration of plaster casting of created fake footprints. The other is of him casting the "Patty footprints" after the encounter. This is supposed to be on the "2nd Roll" that Patterson loaded into the camera after the Patty encounter. If this is true, there sould have been (and still could be) two different film footages of Patterson plaster casting tracks. One would show him casting created fake tracks as a demonstration. The other would show him casting the Patty tracks not long after his encounter with her. I did post some still frames of Patterson casting tracks here (they are missing because of the non-functional BFF). Those still frames showed very short shadows which suggests a near mid-day filming. This suggests that these still images were from the fake track demonstration footage. But where is the footage (or any still images) from the Patty trackway filming? This is from what is known as the "2nd Roll". We are told that the original PGF is missing. Is it also true that the "2nd Roll" is missing?

Can anyone provide the primary physical evidence (early copies of the films) concerning the PGF, so that modern inquiry may examine it?

 

[tube]

Last month I spent a bunch of time investigating what a compliant gait looks and feels like as well as experiments with a flexible fake foot. I posted all this on Bigfoot Forums, but as I say, they are down now. Here is a photo of me walking with a compliant gait. As you see I'm walking on sand. My original belief was that it would be easier to do "the walk" on a more compliant substrate like sand. I can also walk with a compliant gait on hard surfaces.

Note the resemblance to our friend in frame 72. My right arm is straight and my head is pitched forward. My left leg is nearly level. There is even a subtle hint of "knock knee" action here. It was suggested that the film subject is "knock kneed" in the DVD Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, though their computer animation was grossly exaggerated. Believe it or not, I did not consciously try to emulate these features, I was quite surprised when I saw this photograph.

 

[tube]

We have all seen photographs like this. Someone finds a trackway of Big Feet and a huge stride. To demonstrate for the camera how big the Bigfoot stride is, someone stands beside consecutive steps and poses for the camera.

In this case, I'm posing beside my OWN TRACKS. A compliant gait produces LONG steps. You don't need to be an 8 foot tall monster to make "inhuman" stride lengths.

 

[tube]

You don't need a rigid fake foot to make fake tracks. Here is a fake foot I was testing that is made out of some kind of plastic coated foam. I think the yellow plastic and the white foam are both polyethylene. As you can see it is as long as the tracks found at the Patterson film site but much wider at the heel.

I was amazed at how easily I was able to walk with such an awkward looking "prosthetic".

 

[tube]

Walking with a compliant gait making fake tracks.

 

[tube]

Walking with a compliant gait while wearing fake flexible feet can produce interesting mid-foot pressure ridges in a compliant substrate.

This is analogous to the mid-foot pressure ridge seen in the famous "Laverty" photo, though the pressure ridge seen in this photo is not as sharp as that seen in the Laverty photo.

While I cannot argue that I have "duplicated" the track seen in the Laverty photo it suggests to me that this is a reasonable line of inquiry. If the tracks at the film site were made by a guy-in-a-suit then the tracks were made by a flexible fake foot.

I'm not totally convinced that this was the case.

 

[tube]

Another mid-foot pressure ridge as a result of a fake flexible foot. This was obviously made in less compliant sand than the previous photograph.

Note the unintentional "hourglass" shape of the track.

I suspect many fake Bigfoot tracks are not made with Wallace style fake feet at all, but rather with something like I'm demonstrating. While I have not yet carved and tested the obligatory wooden fake foot, I assume it would be more difficult to walk with than a flexible foot.

 

[tube]

Pronounced mid-foot pressure ridge produced by "poly-foot".

 

[William Parcher]

Tube, again I say that you don't really walk like Patty. You are forcing a "compliant gait", while she is pretty much upright and striding with massive feet. You look goofy and she looks humanish.

Here, your left leg is in a position that she achieves (at least in one frame), but your right leg is at an extreme bent angle which is unlike Patty. Try putting on big platform clown feet and walk across the beach without forcing a compliant gait. IOW, walk the way the big fake feet cause you to walk. Keep your torso mostly upright. It might have you looking more like Patty than anything you have done yet. Remember, you are not trying to duplicate any particular moment (PGF still frame), but rather are trying to simulate her dynamic walk as we see it in animations and the LMS DVD. Nevermind Roger Knight's demand that you lift your feet/calves to full horizontal after each step. Patty does not do this for nearly all of her walk.

 

[LTC8K6]

Tube, you posted most of those here before. You are making way more of an effort than Patty. I do not think you look much like Patty at all. Except for your footprints.

Why in the world would a sasquatch need to walk with a compliant gait? Compliant to what? We have no idea how sasquatch ought to be walking, do we? There is no evidence whatsoever to support Meldrum's mid-tarsal break ideas.

Two well qualified experts, right after viewing the film said it looked and walked like a man. No mention of gaits other than those of a man. No mention of compliance.

Dr. John R. Napier
Director of Primate Biology Program, Smithsonian Institution

"First: I observed nothing that, on scientific grounds, would point conclusively to a hoax."

"I am satisfied that the walk of the creature shown in the film was consistent with the bipedal striding gait of man (except in the action of the feet, which were not visible). I have two reservations that are both subjective: First, the slow cadence of the walk and the fluidity of the bodily movements, particularly the arms, struck me as exaggerated -- almost self-conscious in comparison with modern man; second, my impression was that the subject was male, in spite of the contrary evidence of heavy, pendulous breast. The bodily proportions of the creature, as far as could be seen, appeared to be within normal limits for man. The appearance of the high crest on top of the skull is unknown in man, but given a creature as heavily built as the subject, such a biomechanical adaptation to an exclusively fibrous raw vegetable diet is not impossible. The presence of this crest, which occurs only in male non-human primates, such as the gorilla and the orangutan, tends to strengthen my belief that this creature is a male. Finally, it might be supposed that a creature with a heavy head, heavy jaw and musculature and a massive upper body would have a center of gravity placed at a higher level than in man. The position of the center of gravity modifies the gait and the easy stride shown in the film is not in harmony with a high center of gravity. Some of the questions I have raised might be solved by a scientific frame-by-frame analysis of the gait and body proportions, and a study of the joint angulations and limb displacements. This should be done. The opinions I have expressed on this remarkable film are those of an expert witness, rather than a member of a jury."
- ---

Dr. Osman Hill
Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Emory University

..."The creature portrayed is a primate and clearly hominid rather than pongid. Its erect attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion, as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb are all manifestly human, together with the great development of the mammary glands. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that it is indeed a homo sapiens masquerading as a hairy "giant."

... "All I can say, at this stage, is that if this was a masquerade, it was extremely well done and effective." "Without tangible evidence in the form of skeletal parts, a cast of the dentition or similar physical material, I cannot pronounce beyond this group· However, the most interesting evidence they have so painstakingly produced should serve to stimulate the formation of a truly scientific expedition to the area, with the object of obtaining the required physical data."

 

[LTC8K6]

Has anyone figured out what time P/G actually ran across Patty?

 

[Huntster]

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

I support it with the frequency of sightings.

 

[Huntster]

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

Bears are noteworthy.

...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.

When was the last time you saw a bear?

Didn't you "report" it?

To your wife? Brother? Child?

Somebody?

 

[Huntster]

...so?

Why would that dash any theories?.........

Who said it would dash any theories?

Again, it would prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that another sub-primate besides man walked bipedally to today.

Period.

...I don't recall reading any papers titled "Humans: The Only Real Bipeds, I Swear!"...

Me, neither.

But I have read many multiple theories regarding all manner of supposed bipedal primate of the most distant past.

They even intimate that these creatures are Man.

But, you're right;

that's all conjecture.

 

[Huntster]

.......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......

It is a factor. It addresses accusations against Gimlin.

Your rebuttal is weak. It would be interesting to know what Gimlin profits from speaking engagements.

...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....

I need to perform some research in order to appropriately address this question.

...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?.....

No. I’m stating that any sign of creating a trackway had to be eliminated immediately.

Lafferty was there too soon, he was completely independent, and he was a wild card. He couldn’t possibly have been in Patterson’s “plans”.

...If so who made this claim...

I’m making it.

....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....

Sign in the sand.

... Both would show human prints nearby....

Precisely.

...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...

Pristine isn’t the point. The point is that the creation of a trackway would show sign of manufacture.

...

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…..

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.

Precisely. He was completely independent.

One of the “scientists” that Correa wants so desperately to be in the woods.

And he had been aware of the sasquatch activity in the area.

...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.

Question?

When you combine the "question" over the timeline, and custody, and trackway, and film product, you end up with a final film that cannot be ruled out.

Sorry.

 

[tube]

Tube, you posted most of those here before. .

No, I did not. You must be thinking of Bigfoot forums.

I suspect the film subject is walking with much more deeply bent knees in the early part of the film (around frame 72) than in the latter part of the film. This would account for the "level lower leg lift", the straight arm at the side, and the forward lean of the head.

In the latter part of the film (around frame 352) the subject's knee's are less deeply bent and thus there is no "level lower leg lift".

The photographs I've posted match more closely the postures of the early frames of the film.

I'm not asserting that I've duplicated the gait of the film subject, though I believe I can come close; I'm asserting that the film subject is walking with a compliant gait, pronounced early on then less so by the middle and end of the film.

If you don't take my word for it, why not double check what Sasquatch skeptic David Daegling says about it...

 

[LTC8K6]

Pristine isn’t the point. The point is that the creation of a trackway would show sign of manufacture.

No it would not. Any hoaxer who can't create a trackway without leaving signs of it's creation is not worth the title.

 

[LTC8K6]

Matt, I think someone posted your "footprints in the sand" pics here. I don't visit BFF too much.

I have looked again, and I still see only the ordinary stride of a human. Manifestly human, to borrow Hill's words. In the early part of the movie, Patty barely lifts her feet at all, and her stride is very short. I jokingly referred to this as Patty taking a sobriety test because it looks like she is trying to walk a straight line for a cop, almost heel to toe.

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty taking her sobriety test:

 

[LTC8K6]

Same shot, without the mysterious zoom: