Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

William Parcher,
It's clear now the ' finger ' frame has been doctored..

 

[Metullus]

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...

Well that's as subtle as a brick to the groin on a Saturday morning.

 

[Huntster]

William Parcher,
It's clear now the ' finger ' frame has been doctored..

By whom, Sherlock?

 

[William Parcher]

You don't get it, Huntster. Patterson hoaxed the PGF and subsequent hoaxing has occured even beyond the actual filming of "the bloke in a suit" at Bluff Creek, CA in 1967.

 

[bruto]

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.

I'm not sure that's so. It depends on why you thought the aliens existed, and whether Ursula had contended that no aliens could exist, rather than that those you describe do not. If you say there are 7 foot tall gray humanoid aliens in flying saucers, and Ursula says "I don't believe in them," and then 6 inch green centipedal aliens land in little pods, then you are at least no more right than she is, and I would contend that since she made no wrong guesses and you did, you would be more wrong.

Gambling is still gambling even if you occasionally get lucky.

 

[UrsulaV]

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

And there goes the point, right past ya...

Lacking proof, you have absolutely no ability to back a statement that your guesses about Bigfoot are any "better" than anybody else's. Better compared to what? The very best you can aspire to without proof or a specimen is "plausible but ultimately unproven."

 

[LAL]

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

Reversed? We've been through this before. The print is of the right foot viewed from above. The cast shows the bottom of the right foot. The print would look like that if viewed from below. The casts shown were made at the dump by the first tracks found on November 24th The pair shown were cast by Ivan Marx, who notified Dahinden who was wary and waited four days before going to Bossburg. The second trackway was found while he was there, by Ivan Marx. Dahinden counted 1089 tracks. Marx, who had been on the Slick Expedition. was put on the payroll and faked pictures. Peter Byrne exposed the hoax.

"Joe Rhodes, a resident butcher from nearby Colville, WA, had first found the tracks on November 24. The tracks were in the soft soil near the Bossburg community garbage dump, and one foot appeared to be badly crippled. It was being speculated that the creature was handicapped badly enough to force it to scrounge off man's kitchen scraps for a living-a theory which René rejected. When René arrived, it was to find the ground, and most of the prints, badly trampled by the dozens of locals who had been drawn to the scene when the news leaked out. The site was in the area of several Sasquatch sightings reported earlier that year, during one of which a woman had rushed into the sheriff's office, alarmed and frightened by two of the creatures she had seen on the highway, the main road from southeastern British Columbia down to Spokane. Two deputies had made a casual check of the area but had spent most of the time ridiculing the woman's story before an officer of the border patrol. That is, they had scoffed, as the border patrol told it, until they noticed it was growing dark, at which stage, showing definite signs of nervousness, they had left."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm

All this is lost on Bill, unless someone reposts, but I posted it all before he put me on ignore. Evidently the truth made no impression.

 

[LAL]

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.

Do you think anyone cares about the consensus on this board?

The experiment could be easily done using casts that show the usual signs of a living foot with any dermal ridges verified by Chilcutt or any other fingerprint expert, as being authentic, There are few of those. But maybe casts that aren't well known could be presented to anatomists with no particular interest in the effort along with professionally faked casts to see if they can spot the fakes.

Meldrum was sent a cast faked for Bigfoot in the Rockies. It took him about a minute to identify it as faked and to determine how it was done. He didn't need to compare it to anything, either. He's too good.

 

[LAL]

You don't get it, Huntster. Patterson hoaxed the PGF and subsequent hoaxing has occured even beyond the actual filming of "the bloke in a suit" at Bluff Creek, CA in 1967.

It has not been demonstrated that Patterson hoaxed anything.

What subsequent hoaxing at Bluff Creek are you referring to?

 

[LAL]

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 ?

There were sightings in the area as mentioned in the story I posted the first time this was discussed. One woman saw a pair. The idea that there was no history of sightings in the area prior to the finding of the tracks is simply wrong.

 

[LAL]

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?

You may be alone in your erroneous assumptions. Krantz knew the circumstances. He just didn't mention the names in the interview. He specifically mentions meeting Marx and Dahinden (pg. 43, Bigfoot/Sasquatch Evidence), which you might have known if you'd read Krantz.

"It was Cripplefoot that convinced him. In the late fall of 1969, Rene Dahinden, John Green, and other Bigfoot hunters descended on Bossburg, Washington, an old mining town on the Columbia River about 15 miles south of the Canadian border. Locals had reported a Sasquatch leaving unusual prints just outside the city limits. Krantz drove out to Bossburg a skeptic. "I gave Sasquatch only a 10 percent chance of being real," he told me. After retracing the tracks at the site, the professor brought a cast pair back to his lab. The 17-inch left foot appeared normal, but the right foot curved like a C and displayed enormous bunions and splayed toes.

Applying what he knew about primate feet, the dynamics of weight distribution, leverage, and load arms, Krantz calculated the necessary position of an 800-pound ape's ankle, heel, and toe base, and compared that to the measurements of the track. "They were right on," he said. "Nobody could have faked that." "

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_6.adp

More tracks in snow:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/classics/snow.html

 

[UrsulaV]

Do you think anyone cares about the consensus on this board?

What, you mean other than Huntster's Cripplefoot witnesses who won't testify for fear of ridicule on JREF boards?

 

[LAL]

"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"

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

Shouldn't the telltale marks of hoaxing be seen here? All we see is a bootprint as Patterson pursued the animal.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

By whom, Sherlock?

Why does it matter ' who ' ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Shouldn't the telltale marks of hoaxing be seen here? All we see is a bootprint as Patterson pursued the animal.

What telltale marks are those ?


This clip does not prove anything, other than the fact that some tracks ( if that is what they are ) were recorded on film. Nothing to indicate when or how they were made or when they were filmed .

Patterson can be seen pursuing the subject while filming.

Huh ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There were sightings in the area as mentioned in the story I posted the first time this was discussed. One woman saw a pair. The idea that there was no history of sightings in the area prior to the finding of the tracks is simply wrong.

We have a pair now ? I haven't heard about two sets of tracks ..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Meldrum was sent a cast faked for Bigfoot in the Rockies. It took him about a minute to identify it as faked and to determine how it was done. He didn't need to compare it to anything, either. He's too good.

Yet he posts pictures of Wallace tracks and bear tracks on his web pages ? Yeah, he's good allright.

In case you haven't noticed, Meldrum doesn't have any credibility here as relates to Bigfoot.


Any new evidence Lu ? Something that's not 30 years old ?

 

[Hitch]

I'm confused again. (Or still - I seem to stay confused when bigfoot woos present their "evidence.")

In the seldom seen clip from the P/G film, there's a frame pf a single footprint?

The bare foot track does not appear to be involved in the track way of the creature being pursued by Patterson.

It was not left by Patty at the time of the filming. (If I'm seeing things right, it's on the opposite side of the creek.) And it's a single track?

Was it part of an older trackway? Were there more prints? Did Patterson film them? It seems a good, clear, not running after Patty pan along that trackway would have been great footage for a documentary. If he filmed that, why don't we ever see or hear about it? If he didn't, why not?

Is there something about bigfoot that only allows itself to be seen by the (deliberately?) incompetent?

 

[William Parcher]

"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"

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

Shouldn't the telltale marks of hoaxing be seen here? All we see is a bootprint as Patterson pursued the animal.

Lu, this is the testimony of MK Davis. He is the guy who has "seen" teeth, eye boogers, scars, poop stains and Patty going to all fours, etc. Now he is saying that the National Geographic clip shows a Bigfoot footprint with a mid-tarsal break along with Patterson's bootprints.

This is what Davis is deriving his testimony from...

Even if Davis can somehow discern a "barefoot track with a mid-tarsal break"... Matt Crowley has already demonstrated that this can be a result of a print not made by a Bigfoot.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

By whom, Sherlock?

Why does it matter ' who ' ?

Because if it was doctored by Patterson, it would prove that the film was faked.

If it was doctored by a skeptic, it would would not.