Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

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...

Congratulations, Matt.

I would like to see a sort of double blind experiment where casts are professionally fabricated and then presented to researchers along with authentic but little known casts to see if they can pick out the fakes.

 

[LAL]

Well you are right, and I am wrong: I thought it was general knowledge that the Redwoods video had been admitted to as staged, but I cannot find any record of that, so I'll retract my statement, and the implication that Dr. Meldrum had something to apologize for. Mea culpa.

I still feel it is an obvious hoax, and that far too many suppositions regarding Bigfoot have been derived from the video, which is apparently almost forgotten, judging by the information I could dig up on it. I will ask you, LAL, in real curiosity, why is it so little-regarded that almost nothing is made of it as far as I can tell? It makes claims just as great as the P/G film, and is much more recent, yet the video seems almost invisible, and I can find essentially no discussion of its merits outside of the BBC Wildlife article.

Since you quoted so much of the website, in fairness, you should have also quoted that last portion that argued against the veracity of the video, namely Dahinden's and Lund's assertions that the video was a hoax:

I didn't post it because I didn't find it. I tend to post on the way to work and I'm often running late, as now. I recalled the motor home measuring, and that was probably my source. Thanks for posting it..

 

[UrsulaV]

Congratulations, Matt.

I would like to see a sort of double blind experiment where casts are professionally fabricated and then presented to researchers along with authentic but little known casts to see if they can pick out the fakes.

While a good idea, the trick here is probably finding the "authentic" casts to begin with, since it seems like there's little consensus on that point...

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, if we had authentic casts we wouldn't need the experiment.

 

[Hitch]

Yeah, if we had authentic casts we wouldn't need the experiment.

We could always put a track made by a Wallace foot stomper next to a bear track and ask which is the authentic bigfoot track.

 

[LTC8K6]

You forgot that Wallace copied an authentic bigfoot track to make his alderfeet.

 

[William Parcher]

Zdragon & Kell, thanks for your help. It looks like the 5X resize is too big. It lost too much resolution. It's pretty decent if I stand 10 feet away from my monitor though.

Kell, would you please try 2X and 3X?

 

[Kell]

Sure thing

x2, pixel resize and smart size respectively ( not much difference, admittedly ):

x3, pixel resize and smart size respectively:

*just a note on the two methods of resize: I've posted both pixel- and smart-resizes because the pixel-resize remains an absolutely accurate representation of the original image, merely enlarged ( jaggies and all ) for convenience. Whereas the smart-resize, although more like what we are used to seeing for optical photographic enlargements and easier to discern, by neccessity introduces 'new' information by antialiasing the enlarged pixels together. Consequently I don't feel comfortable just posting the 'smooth' smart-resize versions as accurate in a context where the authenticity of even tiny details is of paramount importance. Of course, I don't know what destination you're currently driving at WP, so if both pixel- and smart-resizes are unneccessary for your purpose, just let me know which one to keep.

 

[William Parcher]

Of course, I don't know what destination you're currently driving at WP, so if both pixel- and smart-resizes are unneccessary for your purpose, just let me know which one to keep.

Thank you, Kell. These resizes are decent. It should be no question what I am "driving at". I think that somebody(s) took artistic liberties with the early Cibachrome of frame 352 and drew in a detailed hand. I may soon ask you to do the same with a color version of frame 352 (from the Cibachrome). When we see frame 352 from the film itself (as opposed to from the Cibachrome) or derived copies of the film, we see a "stumpish" right hand that shows no signs that lurking "background debris", film surface flaw or anything like a detailed hand exists.

 

[LTC8K6]

Rick Noll interviewing Krantz. Krantz did not cast his famous cripplefoot print until he made a second trip to Bossburg, where somehow Green still had one print covered up and in good shape. The very last one, as Krantz put it. This could explain why Krantz's cast and drawings do not match the photo that Dahinden took. Krantz was looking at a different cripplefoot. Our hoaxer could not keep his tracks uniform, perhaps?

Dr. Krantz: "It was taken around to small towns... you paid a couple of bucks or something. Ahh... either Patterson or one of his colleges, who I saw, gave a little talk about it and then showed Patterson's documentary he was making, after came the footage of the Sasquatch. Ahh, a little later...very early 1970 when the Bossburg crippled foot tracks showed up, I made it a point to dash up there and see what I could find out about studying it for awhile. Went up there a second time, still in the winter, and ahm just by pure dumb chance I ran into John Green. He was there, with notebook or something, I don't know exactly what. I was there with a couple of friends. And he had covered up a lot of the footprints with cardboard, paper and whatever, from the snow. And each time he came down he would uncover one more print for some visiting person."


Rick: "Nice of him."

Dr. Krantz: "The very last one... the crippled foot, he uncovered for me when I was there."

Rick: "And that was in snow?"

Dr. Krantz: "Yes. So me and my friends made a cast of that and we still got it."

 

[William Parcher]

Another B&W version of the Cibachome that shows the hyper-defined right hand...

 

[William Parcher]

Hand is completely missing...

 

[Correa Neto]

That all depends on who visited the site before I did. If everybody has been there, I doubt I could differentiate squat.

But Lafferty was there very quickly. He is very independent from the Patterson crowd (at least those who the skeptics try to incriminate with Patterson), and he indicated no sign of manufacture.

Well, they took plaster casts of the tracks, did't they?

They claim to have followed it's trail, don´t they?

They checked its footprints just after filming it, for sure...

So, there must have been some human footprints near Patty's trail. Not to mention horses' tracks. Along the logging road...

How could someone tell if they were not made while carrying on the hoax?

Really?

You mean the toes on the wooden feet will display various degrees of spreading while walking?

That's a neat trick. I've always wished I could whittle like that.

The links you posted shows some obvious wooden feet impressions, not to mention the bear tracks. Claw marks interpreted as impressions from fingers from feet with mid-tarsal breaks...

Have I mentioned that I find the whole mid-tarsal break argument... Well... How can I say without being rude... Quite possibly an error?

At 260 lbs, I will make a deeper impression walking on soft ground than my 140 lb. wife.

Put some "snowshoes" on me, and that will change.

I suggest that a wooden foot as large as what I've seen cast would generate a very effective snowshoe effect.

Standard argument... Aren't you missing something?

Sounds good. Let's get all our trained sasquatch experts on the trail.

Which institute of higher learning instructs in this discipline?

Oooooooooooh! What a fantastic argument!
Tell me, how many failed bigfeet sightings are reported?

Why would someone need to be trained in sighting bigfeet?

Oh, because no one is looking for bigfeet?

Or to choose the best booze to summon a bigfoot sighting?

 

[William Parcher]

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

You forgot to mention the poop residue clinging to the butt that he also "saw".

 

[Correa Neto]

that was disgusting!

 

[William Parcher]

Standard argument... Aren't you missing something?

Bigfoot itself is missing.

 

[William Parcher]

There are three distinct features of Patty that I am arguing have undergone contemporary revisionism and modification by Bigfootery.

1) The right hand captured in frame 352.
2) The breast(s) captured in frame 352.
3) The right thigh "hernia" captured in frame 352.

 

[LTC8K6]

What's up with the left hand? It looks odd as well.

Hmmmm.....I seem to recall discussing this about 11 times already...

 

[William Parcher]

What's up with the left hand? It looks odd as well.

Hmmmm.....I seem to recall discussing this about 11 times already...

Ditto. I think the left hand (LH) was also modified on the Dahinden Cibachrome. But this is much more difficult to argue about than the right hand (RH). I think the mods to the left hand are visible but subtle (compared to the RH).

I am seeing definition added to the LH that suggests outstretched splayed fingers. But this is so vague that I cannot create a decent argument by posing comparisons. However, I think it is there.

 

[LAL]

While a good idea, the trick here is probably finding the "authentic" casts to begin with, since it seems like there's little consensus on that point...

Where are you getting that? I'd settle for any that passed Chilcutt's muster.

I think it would be more difficult to find the researchers. Titmus, Krantz and Dahinden are dead (they all examined tracksin situ. Meldrum would probably have to recuse himself because he's studied his own collection so thoroughly he would easily recognize anything from there. There's always Richard Noll......