Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

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.



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.

The clayey sand held tracks well. Titmus found many and cast a sequence. Some of the photos show big rain spatters. They obviously didn't have to be gone.

 

[LAL]

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?

Or Bill can't get it right.

From the same article.

"Rick: "That's an excellent cast for being in snow."

Dr. Krantz: "Oh... that one you saw here is not from that."

Rick: "Oh..."

Dr. Krantz: "That one was taken in late '69. The previous event, where the same individual came through, ahh and it was in soft dirt, not snow. Somebody up in Colville, butcher by trade, made the two casts. Rene Dahinden has the originals. But somebody put those in a very fine bed of dirt and made copies of them, and I was able to get a hold of those and borrow them and make the molds."

Rick: "Ahhmm did you see any difference in the bone structure between the print that you saw the year before or years before and the ones you got casts of? Like maybe further deterioration or something over the years?"


Dr. Krantz: "Oh no. Basically the same anatomy, late '69 versus early '70. But when I was up there in, near Bossburg, I talked to an old farmer, who said that he had seen tracks just like that 20 years before. And some years after, I can't remember if it was 6 years or 10 years, a very excited student came down to talk to me and he had been up in that area and he saw tracks that exactly matched that." "

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Dr. Krantz: "Oh no. Basically the same anatomy, late '69 versus early '70. But when I was up there in, near Bossburg, I talked to an old farmer, who said that he had seen tracks just like that 20 years before. And some years after, I can't remember if it was 6 years or 10 years, a very excited student came down to talk to me and he had been up in that area and he saw tracks that exactly matched that." "

You might think that over a span of 30 years, someone would have caught a glimpse of this crippled Squatch limping around in the forest ?

I wonder what Hunster thinks the odds against that happening would be ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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......

Of course it doesn't seem to be suspicious, to anyone ( on the believer side ),that there seems to be an accute shortage of any new tracks, or other sign that can withstand any amount of modern scientific scrutiny..

We are still arguing about 30 year old evidence.. Any ideas why that might be ?

 

[UrsulaV]

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

Um, yeah. I don't think "what you'd settle for," neccessarily equates "consensus on what is authentic." Sorry, LAL. If we all thought that what you'd settle for was neccessarily authentic, the thread wouldn't have gone on for umpty-million pages.

 

[bruto]

Dr. Krantz: "That one was taken in late '69. The previous event, where the same individual came through, ahh and it was in soft dirt, not snow. Somebody up in Colville, butcher by trade, made the two casts. Rene Dahinden has the originals. But somebody put those in a very fine bed of dirt and made copies of them, and I was able to get a hold of those and borrow them and make the molds."

So basically, someone whom Krantz does not know made casts somewhere under circumstances not known, and gave them to Dahinden, and someone else under circumstances not stated made copies, and Krantz then made copies of those copies. Am I alone in considering that that is not very strong provenance?

 

[LTC8K6]

So basically, someone whom Krantz does not know made casts somewhere under circumstances not known, and gave them to Dahinden, and someone else under circumstances not stated made copies, and Krantz then made copies of those copies. Am I alone in considering that that is not very strong provenance?

No.

So I gather that these cripplefoot casts:

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."

Are not the same as these cripplefoot casts:

Dr. Krantz: "That one was taken in late '69. The previous event, where the same individual came through, ahh and it was in soft dirt, not snow. Somebody up in Colville, butcher by trade, made the two casts. Rene Dahinden has the originals. But somebody put those in a very fine bed of dirt and made copies of them, and I was able to get a hold of those and borrow them and make the molds."

So I feel I must ask where I can see these two sets of prints side by side? As far as Iknow, we only ever see one set of cripplefoot casts, and I don't know which of the two sets it is that we always see.

I think this does explain and validate my earlier arguments about pictures and casts of cripplefoot's tracks not matching. Of course, if they don't match, and they don't, then we have 2 different cripplefoots. Anyone want to get into the odds of that?

 

[LTC8K6]

Bossburg cripplefoot print picture and commonly shown cast. 2 different crippled right feet, imo. Noting that in the bottom pic, the feet are reversed.

 

[Huntster]

You might think that over a span of 30 years, someone would have caught a glimpse of this crippled Squatch limping around in the forest ?

I wonder what Hunster thinks the odds against that happening would be ?

Who knows how old the creature was when the prints were found?

Who knows how long they live?

Who knows if such a crippling injury would shorten it's lifespan?

Maybe somebody did see it or more prints later, and didn't report it for fear of being ridiculed on the JREF?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Maybe somebody did see it or more prints later, and didn't report it for fear of being ridiculed on the JREF?

I think Cripplefoot is afraid of being ridiculed on the JREF. All the evidence certainly points in this direction. The odds are in favor of this also.

 

[LTC8K6]

Who knows how long they live?

I thought this was well known among bigfootologists, along with their diet, habitat, mating habits, internal foot structure, IM index, etc., etc.?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060125&cat=news&st=newsd8fbqtgo2&src=ap

World's smallest fish species found, but not the world's biggest bipedal primate.

 

[Huntster]

I thought this was well known among bigfootologists, along with their diet, habitat, mating habits, internal foot structure, IM index, etc., etc.?

You thought wrong.

Bigfootologists just have a better idea of those things than those who reject the possibility that the creatures exist.

 

[LTC8K6]

But all of that info is listed at bigfoot sites. If they don't know it, why is it listed?

 

[UrsulaV]

Bigfootologists just have a better idea of those things than those who reject the possibility that the creatures exist.

Lacking a specimen, how do you know it's a "better" idea? It's impossible to check your work. If you claim aliens are purple and live in hives of frozen methane, and I claim there's no proof of that, if aliens then show up that are solitary energy beings who live in star coronas, your claim would have been wildly inaccurate, whereas mine, that you have no good evidence for the existence of purple aliens living in frozen methane hives, would have been accurate, if not particularly descriptive.

Since ideas of Bigfoot behavior cannot be verified experimentally or so far by direct observation, how do you know that Bigfootologist's have a "better" idea of these things? Against what standard of reality can that possibly be checked, since there is no corpse and no apparent ability to find and observe one for a prolonged period in the field?

 

[Huntster]

But all of that info is listed at bigfoot sites. If they don't know it, why is it listed?

Because that is what they believe to be the case, based on the evidence that they have considered.

 

[Huntster]

Lacking a specimen, how do you know it's a "better" idea?....

Because it is based on the existing evidence, which doesn't include proof, or a specimen.

...If you claim aliens are purple and live in hives of frozen methane, and I claim there's no proof of that, if aliens then show up that are solitary energy beings who live in star coronas, your claim would have been wildly inaccurate, whereas mine, that you have no good evidence for the existence of purple aliens living in frozen methane hives, would have been accurate, if not particularly descriptive....

That is correct.

However, if you claimed that I was wrong because aliens don't exist, and the aliens showed up not as I had believed, we would both be wrong, wouldn't we?

It's just that you would be more wrong than I.

 

[LTC8K6]

It is reported as though it were factual, Huntster.

 

[William Parcher]

The hand on the Dahinden Cibachrome (in B&W)...

Animated gif using three sequential images. Two are from copies of the film, the one with the hand is the Cibachrome...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It is reported as though it were factual, Huntster.

Just like the Tabloids.