Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
I wonder if that elk knows it's famous?
Click to expand...

Q: "Have you guys found Bigfoot yet?"

A: "Look at the grouse!"

famous_8.jpg
 
On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself. Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.
Click to expand...

So Gimlin rode out early that morning and came back to find Patterson gone. Patterson comes back to camp later and asks Gimlin where he had been riding. Patterson then decides that they will re-explore an area where they have already been.

Pretty suspicious to me.

At any rate, they left camp at around noon, and ran into Patty at either 1:30 or 3:30, depending on who you ask. So it took them either 1.5 or 3.5 hours to get from camp to the Bluff Creek film site. The camera only holds a few minutes of film, so taking their odd shots shouldn't have held them up much going from camp to the film site.

Let's say it was 1:30 to give the benefit of the doubt.

They have to see Patty and film her, catch their horses afterwards, reload the camera, scout around the immediate area for a while, track Patty for 3.5 miles and back, go back and forth to the truck for plaster, and still have good sunlight to film Roger casting tracks.

Did I miss anything?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm
 
Last edited:
Sometime after 6pm they are already on their way to the airport and have stopped at Hodgson's store and made a telephone call. So they are done at the Bluff Creek site sometime before 6pm.

Also remember how bad the weather was that night and the next morning. That must have been some kind of bark Gimlin used to protect those prints....

The two men then contacted a reporter for The Times-Standard newspaper at Eureka, to whom they related their experience in considerable detail. It is not known if this was a telephone contact or a personal contact. We do know, however, that it took place at about 9:30 p.m. The article appeared in the newspaper the following day, October 21, 1967. The men then immediately headed back to their campsite. By the time they arrived, bad weather was closing-in. By about midnight, it was raining heavily.
...
Back at the campsite, weather conditions had gone from bad to worse. Fearing a possible landslide on the Bluff Creek road, Patterson and Gimlin decided to get out of the area. They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.
Click to expand...

Remember this, too:

The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.
Click to expand...

Yet, in spite of that, Laverty arrives later that day and takes pictures. Something about the water of the creek dramatically rising too...
 
Does anyone think this footprint should look like this after a night of flooding rains? Even if protected by a piece of bark? Look at the ridges on the heel and the edges. Look at the edges of the cracked dirt in the "pressure ridge".

Water should have run under the bark and filled in the print, smoothing the edges and those ridges. And what is the straight line next to the print? One of the signs Huntster is looking for?

018.jpg
 
Al De Atley picked-up the film at the Seattle airport on the morning of Saturday, October 21, 1967. He had the film processed at the Alpha Cine laboratory in Seattle and returned to his home in Yakima that same day. Patterson and Gimlin arrived at Yakima sometime on Sunday morning, October 22, 1967. During this time, John Green arrived at De Atley's home and the two men awaited Patterson's arrival. When Patterson arrived, De Atley took him alone to the basement of his home and showed him the film. The film was then shown to John Green. Bob Gimlin was not present. We are told he was at home resting.

Dahinden and McClarin arrived at Al De Atley's home at about 3:00 p.m. the same day (Sunday, October 22, 1967). Upon their arrival, Patterson showed the film to all present and the group discussed how Patterson and Gimlin should go forward with the new evidence. Patterson did not show the group the general movie footage he had taken (i.e., the first 76-feet of the first roll). Nor did he show the other footage on the second roll if he did, in fact, have the developed roll. Nevertheless, the film of the creature apparently impressed the researchers. Nothing appeared to indicate that Patterson and Gimlin were being untruthful.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's picked up at the airport on Saturday morning, already being projected Sunday morning, and apparently already cut down to 24 feet by Sunday.
 
Diogenes said:
Yeah.. How did they get the film developed, to be shown on Sunday ?
Click to expand...

Tough question. They watched it Saturday morning. Witnesses to this say Patterson only showed the part of the Patty encounter itself. But the Patty bit was on the end of a full roll that supposidly contained prior scenery shots. Was the full roll inside the projector but Patterson had advanced it all the way to the Patty bit? Had he already spliced the film, or what?

Lots of info on these early occurances here.

Bigfooters have various theories about this (yet another) wacky timeline. Some say Patterson really did get the film developed as told. Some say it was done locally and therefore differently than told. Some say it really was probably developed before October 20th. It seems to me that how much anyone regards this issue as a smoking gun is related to their underlying belief in the PGF. As usual, we are told to put these questions aside and instead focus on the bulk of Patty and her inhuman gait.
 
Were making simultaneous posts about the same issue. We even linked to the same article.

Does anyone think this footprint should look like this after a night of flooding rains? Even if protected by a piece of bark? Look at the ridges on the heel and the edges. Look at the edges of the cracked dirt in the "pressure ridge". Water should have run under the bark and filled in the print, smoothing the edges and those ridges.
Click to expand...

I mentioned that months ago. Lu scoffed it off.

How about Titmus arriving several days later, and still being able to examine the tracks ?
Click to expand...

Nine days later!
 
William Parcher said:
How are we supposed to try to determine that with the "Patty tracks"?....
Click to expand...

Since the Patty trackway is long gone, we must rely on the testimony and photos of those who saw it.

None indicated any sign of manufacture.

...What boggles my mind is that Laverty observed the Patty trackway (which must have included many dozens of prints) and yet we only have 4 (maybe 5) photos taken by him. That is weird and begs questions. Again, here is a case where the available evidence doesn't even much allow for good inquiry....
Click to expand...

Actually, this is a case for reality.

I will assume that Lafferty photographed the best prints in the trackway. That has been my experience with animal tracks, including the sasquatch tracks I saw in 1972:

I see plenty of sign, but just a few of the actual prints will be of a good enough quality to photograph or try to cast.
 
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