Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Never mind what you are willing to accept. Where can we find every photograph that Laverty took of the Patty trackway? How can we learn how many photos he did take? Where can we find original transcripts of Laverty's testimony (story) about what he saw and photographed at Bluff Creek on October 21, 1967?.....

Well, here's why I haven't disregarded my beliefs and provided you with the precise pieces of evidence that you demand:

because I don't have it.

Now, I suppose you can opine now that Laverty is (and always has been) on the Patterson payroll, and that he is holding his photos back because he's sure that Mr. William Parcher will see them and denounce him as a fraud, and you may be correct.

I don't think so, but I'm never-minding what I believe..................

...Above all, the burden-of-proof is firmly held and remains held by anyone who thinks that the PGF is authentic or that Bigfoot is a real creature...

The film stands. It has been claimed by the photographers that it was a real, live sasquatch. It looks like a real, live sasquatch. It left large footprints in the very trackway where the film showed it. Laverty showed up the next day and checked the site.

That's evidence enough for me.

...Rational and reasonable people are not supposed to accept extraordinary claims without detailed and comprehensive evidence that these claims are true....

I consider myself both rational and reasonable. I have seen the film. It looks real to me, unlike all the other purported sasquatch films and photos I have seen.

I consider many of the people on this thread to be unreasonable and irrational. They even appear angry. The refuse to reason, and demand proof delivered to them.

That's reasonable?

It's actually quite humorous.

...Bigfoot might be mythological and all of the presented evidence is somehow false....

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that all the sightings and all the footprints are false?

What are the mathematical odds that that could be true, especially when added to the native traditions?

 

[William Parcher]

I don't think so, but I'm never-minding what I believe..................

May I bronze that quote by you?

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that all the sightings and all the footprints are false?

That's not how it works. Bigfootery needs to provide conclusive evidence that Bigfoot exists. Right now it's looking like it may very well be a fantasy dream myth. The best damn campfire story that ever was. Make it real, Huntster. Don't claim that others must demonstrate that it isn't real!

What are the mathematical odds that that could be true, especially when added to the native traditions?

You tell me what the odds are and then tell me how those odds are confirmed against reality. Do you not even care about the real world? We have got people claiming for 50 years that a 9-foot tall stinky bipedal ape is living in American forests. We have no conclusive evidence that there really is such a bipedal ape.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that all the sightings and all the footprints are false?

What are the mathematical odds that that could be true, especially when added to the native traditions?

If it is true, It doesn't matter what the odds are. Asking what the odds are that an unlikely event occured, is a common creduloid position..

What are the odds that all those elve and fairy sightings, along with the cultural traditions surrounding them, are false ?

They can't all be false can they ? Can you provide evidence that they are ?

 

[William Parcher]

Diogenes, would you please perform a favor? You have a photo editing program and a photo hosting website. I am asking you a favor to help support my argument that at least on two occasions, Patty has been reconstructed (by means of artistic and technological means) to change her appearance from being "a bloke in a suit" to a real Bigfoot.

Please use this posted image. Use your program to isolate only the right hand and forearm, similar to the image that you drew that red line upon. Please enlarge the cropping to about 500 x 500 pixels, while maintaining the most resolution that you can. Post the result in this thread please.

Thank you very much.

 

[LTC8K6]

It looks like a real, live sasquatch.

Compared to what? How do you know what a sasquatch looks like? It also looks like a man in a suit to a lot of people.

It left large footprints in the very trackway where the film showed it.

I can't recall any work done to link the tracks with the film. Unless Gimlin covered all of the tracks, most of the trackway had to be gone the next day due to the rain.

According to that history of P/G film by Chris Murphy, it started raining at midnight, and Gimlin did not cover the tracks until the next morning.

Gimlim claims it started raining really hard in the morning, so he decided ride back out and cover up the tracks, but Roger told him not to bother.

Either way, it was raining hard for a while before Gimlin claims to have covered up the tracks. Either all night, or the time it takes to ride from the camp to the site and find bark to cover them, those tracks were being rained on heavily.

 

[LTC8K6]

Photo editing was an advanced art long before the P/G film. There could have been a lot of manipulation of the P/G film and stills.

 

[LTC8K6]

Just to refresh everyone's memory. From the 1992 interview Gimlin/Green.

The day of the film again. Gimlin rides out early, Patterson is gone when Gimlin comes back. Roger even sets it up so they can stay out longer than usual this time, into the night:

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? I told him and he says why don’t we ride up into this area we had ridden into before, a desolate type area down a couple of canyons, there’s a creek running through it. So we went ahead and fixed lunch and he said let’s get our gear together so when we ride out we can stay if we have to and stay a little bit later into the night if we need to. We packed up the pack horse and it was about mid day, perhaps a little bit after noon time when we went around this bend in the creek bed. There was a fallen tree and as we came around it there was this creature standing by the creek. That’s when everything started happening. The horses started jumping around, raising the devil and spooking from this creature. Roger, well his horse was rearing up and jumping around. . .he slid off him, got his camera out of the saddle bags and started trying to get pictures of this creature as it was walking away.

The rain:

Around 5:30 a.m. or so it started raining and it was just a pouring down rain. I told Roger we better get up and do something about the tracks or they’d wash out, and he said no, it would stop raining after a while. I went ahead and got up, put the saddle on my horse and decided I would ride up there while it was raining really hard and Roger says "ah it’ll quit, don’t ride up there." I said "no, I’m going to go ahead and ride on up there." I had gotten a couple of cardboard boxes from Mr. Hodgson’s to cover these tracks the night before. So when I went outside to get a couple of these boxes that were folded up out there, they were just soggy old pieces of cardboard. I disregarded taking those back up there - so I rode back up to the scene, pulled some bark off some trees and covered up the tracks as best I could and went back to camp.

By then we decided it wasn’t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep! We were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road. I said "well I’m going to go ahead and cross the creek with the truck and get started out." And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.

 

[UrsulaV]

The refuse to reason, and demand proof delivered to them.

That's reasonable?

Only in the weird little world of Bigfoot would somebody try to claim that a request for proof of an extraordinary claim is somehow unreasonable...

(Okay, that's not true, it happens other places. It's just sad is all.)

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/davis_animation.htm

I hadn't seen this animation before. I cannot make out what is claimed to be in it, though. Can anyone else?

What this clip shows is critical information that had been cropped out of all copies of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film.
Only the master copy remains uncropped and contains the full wide field frames that contain this information.
The National Geographic Channel recently broadcast this seldom seen full frame version.
In a frame-by-frame analysis of this version, Patterson can be seen pursuing the subject while filming.
A large limb passes in front of the camera and then off to the side.
At this point, Patterson realizes that he can't get an angle on the receding subject, so he back tracks himself, and in doing so, allows the camera to pan the ground. It is here that the camera picks up a barefoot track, complete with mid tarsal pressure ridge that is sunk deeply into the sand. The camera then swings over to reveal the boot prints of Patterson himself.
It was in this same National Geographic broadcast that Mr. Bob Hieronimus stated that Roger Patterson took the film from horseback. The bare foot track does not appear to be involved in the track way of the creature being pursued by Patterson.
Also note the depth of the barefoot track compared to Patterson's own boot prints. M.K.Davis December 2005

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty track reconstruction, I guess. Not much of a stride here.

 

[LTC8K6]

With 14.5 inch prints, there certainly isn't anywhere near a 40 to 42 inch stride.

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel

 

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/davis_animation.htm

I hadn't seen this animation before. I cannot make out what is claimed to be in it, though. Can anyone else?

No.

M.K. Davis has seen teeth, eye boogers and Patty going to all fours..

Even if the prints are there, this proves what, exactly ?

It does look like a good copy of the film.. Why can't we all see it? All of it ? What do they ' not ' want us to see ?

 

[RayG]

With 14.5 inch prints, there certainly isn't anywhere near a 40 to 42 inch stride.

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel

I don't recall Krantz mentioning this 130 inch stride (though they're measuring a step not a stride), he only mentions a typical stride (from the heel of one foot to the heel of the SAME foot) as being 81.5 inches. (Big Footprints, page 93)

RayG

 

[Z]

That's just a zoom in and sharpen... the image is pretty horrible, all pixels, pretty much; but the sharpen (I used Paint Shop Pro 8) makes it appear as if the so-called 'fingers' are just some background artifact... they definitely seem detached from the arm.

Of course, this is an amateur hack job. This doesn't count for squat, and I want that firmly recognized.

Still... fingers?

 

[William Parcher]

This doesn't count for squat, and I want that firmly recognized.

Recognized. Your enlargement is so pixel-distorted that it is completely worthless for anything other than demonstrating how worthless complete worthlessness is.

 

[William Parcher]

It's never too late to celebrate. I see that the JREF poster "tube" (Matt Crowley) has been crowned Bigfooter of the Year by Bigfoot Times Magazine. Go tube!

How does it feel to be King Bigfooter? Speech?

Limelight for Matt

 

[tube]

While it was certainly an ego boost to be chosen "Bigfooter of the Year", the biggest thrills were the moments of scientific understanding. As I began to elucidate elements of this puzzle I was swept with a deep and profound emotion that comes with scientific understanding.

Amateur scientists can still make valuable contributions to the world. Perhaps this will motivate other Bigfooters to study physical evidence more thoroughly.

With regards to the physical evidence of Bigfoot, I believe the greatest unresolved issue is WHAT ARE THE LIMITS TO HUMAN FABRICATION OF TRACKS. Skeptics assert that tracks are easily fabricated, but usually do not base their opinions on physical tests they have done. Advocates assert that certain trackways are virtually impossible for man to fabricate, usually without having done physical tests to determine what could, or could not, be fabricated.

After nearly 50 years of Bigfootery the question remains unresolved.

In the manner of David Hilbert, I propose this to be the greatest unresolved issue in Bigfootery, outside of producing a body.

OK, I shall now dismount my high horse and we can return to our normally scheduled bickering...

 

[Kell]

Please use this posted image. Use your program to isolate only the right hand and forearm, similar to the image that you drew that red line upon. Please enlarge the cropping to about 500 x 500 pixels, while maintaining the most resolution that you can. Post the result in this thread please.

I don't know what editor Diogenes uses, but I did what you requested using PSP7.
Two versions: first is a straight pixel resixe x5 and the second is 'smart size' also x5

HTH

 

[LAL]

Even after reading that post with as open a mind as I can manage, LAL, it still sounds like Meldrum is backpeddling. He once called it compelling, then later claims he didn't. He is only human, and likely to forget; isn't it easier to say he forgot that he called it compelling, and leave it at that, than to make a fool of him and yourself by trying to justify his wording away?

He said is wasn't conclusive and that it's compelling all in the same sentence. Green thought it was compelling. Meldrum may just not have been as convinced as Green that this was the compelling new evidence needed to prove their existance beyond doubt. If there had been a footprint, it might have been.

Meldrum's interest was in the heel imprint, with dermal ridges. It's too wide for an elk. Repeat, too wide for an elk. It was just right for a primate.

He didn't need the cast to convince him of their existance (as Swindler evidently did); his research had been ongoing for years. But he was impressed with the heel and tendon imprint, as was Swindler.

Nowhere have I found a retraction, or anything to indicate Meldrum now concurs with Crook and Daegling, who have not seen the cast, to my knowlege, and, yes, it's an elk after all, or even that he no longer stands behind his opinion. And he may have been misquoted. That happens in interviews.

"In an empty conference room at the Harbor Inn on June 7, Sarmiento, Swindler and Meldrum pointed to details in the impressions as hot TV lights burned.

A deep knob-shaped hole with a fluted groove running into it could have been made by the back of a huge heel jammed into the mud, Meldrum said. Fine lines, reminiscent of the fingerprint patterns on human heels, are faintly visible.

Another impression, lined with hair marks, could have been made by a huge hindquarters, Sarmiento said. Another looks like the impression of a massive forearm.

Interpreted in conjunction with one another, the marks could have been left by an animal reclining in the mud to eat its fruit, with one knee pointed in the air and one heel dug in, Meldrum said. Given the proportions, it would have been about an eight-foot animal."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/74860_bigfoot17xx.shtml

Multiple impressions were ruled out. Noll did not grant Radford a private showing and he hadn't seen the cast, but his comments were duly noted in the above article.

I suggest you see the very clear photograph in Chris Murphy's book. It's easy to see what they're talking about.

 

[LAL]

Photo editing was an advanced art long before the P/G film. There could have been a lot of manipulation of the P/G film and stills.

The original was examined and found to have no been tampered with. We'v been over this before.