Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

This is the first time I've encountered this. I doubt it's standard "Bigfooter" fare. I'm not finding a discussion on BFF, so if someone would post the link to the thread from which the pictures were swiped, we might be able to see what the "Bigfooters" (as though they all agree) have to say about it.

I agree the "fingers" do not seem to be part of the hand. Anybody got the next few frames?

Here

 

[JPK]

CNN: Scientists to track 'Bigfoot'

Good morning.

I saw this on CNN this morning.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) -- A southern Malaysian state will appoint a team of scientists and experts to hunt for a "Bigfoot" beast after the reported sighting of three giant human-like creatures, officials said Thursday.

from here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/27/malaysia.bigfoot.ap/index.html

I find this quote interesting:

Tourism authorities are planning to capitalize on the sightings to attract visitors to Johor and the park.

JPK

 

[LAL]

It just looks like a loopy thing. There's another loopy thing right next to it on the left and one on the ground. It's clear here:

Not clear here:

These were easy to find here:

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

 

[LAL]

Here

Where? The discussion is on teeth, primateer notes the photo of the right hand is enhanced (is that on frame 352?) and I'm not finding the next few frames. I want to see if the loopy thing moves with her.

Davis doesn't have a whole helluva lot of credibility on BFF either. I don't care if he sees teeth, bell-shaped objects or tracks. I see what I see in the enlargements and I'm grateful to him for doing them.

Stills in a book tend to be clearer than anything on a computer screen. In Murphy's book, pg. 54, it appears in frame 352, but not in 350. Could a finger uncurl that fast or something in the background disappear that quickly? No one in their right mind would draw something in in one frame and not in the adjacent frames and expect to get away with it. It may just be an artifact. The little finger on the right hand is clear on frames 61, 72, 307 and 310, pg. 52.

I don't think it looks drawn in or like a finger. In fact, it kind of looks like a bananna. It doesn't seem to show on the lower picture at all.

BTW, thanks for the link.

 

[LAL]

Good morning.

I saw this on CNN this morning.
from here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/27/malaysia.bigfoot.ap/index.html

I find this quote interesting:

JPK

Coleman says the "tracks" weren't tracks. Good to see someone's checking it out, anyway.

 

[bruto]

There seems to be a problem with your reading comprehension. I asked for the name of the artist, IOW, the person who did the retouching. Davis?Someone else?

In no way did I say anything to indicate whether or not I think it's retouched in that post. It could have been done by anyone with some basic photo editing software; even you.

When you guys just cop pictures without giving sources you not only break rules, you do the equivalent of quote mining in pictures. I will now go back to trying to find the source. Since I don't have XP, I don't have "View source" so this takes some work.

There's nothing wrong with my logic, but sometimes I question thee.

Lu, every browser I've seen from Netscape 3.0 on has a "view source" option, irrespective of the operating system. If for some reason yours does not, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Firefox. It runs very well in Win98 too.

 

[RayG]

There seems to be a problem with your reading comprehension. I asked for the name of the artist, IOW, the person who did the retouching. Davis?Someone else?

If the finger aberration was caused by a defect in the film, there won't be a name. However, that particular image (frame 352) complete with finger defect, is widely found on the internet and in bigfoot publications. It has been cut, cropped, lightened, darkened, diffused, enhanced, and manipulated in all sorts of ways.

When you guys just cop pictures without giving sources you not only break rules, you do the equivalent of quote mining in pictures. I will now go back to trying to find the source. Since I don't have XP, I don't have "View source" so this takes some work.

In Meet the Sasquatch, Christopher L. Murphy uses the same odd fingered frame 352 on two occasions -- page 54, and again on page 96. In both cases he gives copyright/ownership credit to E. Dahinden. Obviously something has happened to the original photo that doesn't show the finger anomaly.

On page 190, the bottom of the page shows the covers of the three versions of Sasquatch, authored by Rene Dahinden and Don Hunter. In all three cases, the covers show frame 352, yet the cover on the far left shows the original frame 352, while the cover on the far right shows the funny fingered, much clearer, cleaner, lightened version of frame 352.

As an interesting side note, I am looking at the frame 352 image included in the 1973 edition of The Sasquatch File, authored by John Green, and I see no funny fingers. (page 8)

Likewise, my 1978 copy of Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us does not show a funny fingered bigfoot on page 117.

The cover of The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide by Loren Coleman however, DOES show the funny fingers and he credits Rene Dahinden as the source for the photo.

Sticking with Meet the Sasquatch, but moving on to a different frame from the film, on pages 81 and 166, the frame 323 images show a thumb, curled fingers, individual toes, and retouched fur. The images are credited to E. Dahinden and Y. Leclerc. The original frame 323 shown on page 53 has some obvious discrepancies from the ones shown on pages 81 and 166. In this image, there are no curled fingers, obvious thumb, or individual toes, and the fur appears much darker in color and not nearly as well defined. This image is credited to E. Dahinden. Mr. Leclerc obviously expressed artistic freedom in his enhancement of frame 323, and pages 81 and 166 do not warn the reader that the images have been manipulated or enhanced.

On that same page 81, right above the frame 323 enhancement, is another enhanced head shot.

Another manipulated frame 323 appears in Meet the Sasquatch, on the cover of America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Ficton on page 216. If you compare the right hand of that image with the original on page 53, you will notice an obvious difference.

Finding the who, why, and when behind the original frame manipulations seems secondary compared to the vast number of manipulated images that are readily available both online and in book format.

RayG

 

[LAL]

If the film was doctored by anybody besides Patterson, than it cannot be established that Patterson hoaxed the film.

The person who doctored the film is the attempted hoaxer.

I don't think it was doctored.

 

[Hitch]

William Parcher posted a link to this thread on www.bigfootforums.com.

In it a member named Gigantofootecus posted the following GIF image (in post #259 of that thread):

Someone (possibly Gigantofootecus) has drawn in an organge line representing the forearm and a grey line representing the hand (as they see it). Thereby creating the impression that "Patty's" arm is much longer (shoulder to fingertip) than I believe the film shows.

I don't know anything about Gigantofootecus and whether or not he's typical of Bigfooters, but he is clearly an example of someone posting what I feel are very hard to accept claims.

 

[LAL]

Lu, every browser I've seen from Netscape 3.0 on has a "view source" option, irrespective of the operating system. If for some reason yours does not, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Firefox. It runs very well in Win98 too.

I have Millenium; it came with the system. Since I have an HP all the programs are on the resoration disc and that wouldn't work if I were to upgrade. It's easier (and cheaper) just to use another computer; in fact, my favorite hangout has Firefox. I can check all Bill and William's photos next time I'm killing time between work and an evening meeting of Freethinkers and other social pahriahs. I'd use one at work, but I don't want to take the chance my supervisor will find out what sites I've been browsing.

I can usually run the source down at home by checking Properties and editing the image URL, but not always. Bill posted a Patterson photo I couldn't find on the site. It's just customary to post the links so that anyone can check them out.

 

[LAL]

William Parcher posted a link to this thread on www.bigfootforums.com.

In it a member named Gigantofootecus posted the following GIF image (in post #259 of that thread):

Someone (possibly Gigantofootecus) has drawn in an organge line representing the forearm and a grey line representing the hand (as they see it). Thereby creating the impression that "Patty's" arm is much longer (shoulder to fingertip) than I believe the film shows.

I don't know anything about Gigantofootecus and whether or not he's typical of Bigfooters, but he is clearly an example of someone posting what I feel are very hard to accept claims.

No one's "typical of Bigfooters". He's confusing a shadow in the background for part of the finger, then filling in a blank to hook it to the artifact or whatever that is.

This is how long it really is:

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

Check out the article, too.

 

[Hitch]

No one's "typical of Bigfooters". He's confusing a shadow in the background for part of the finger, then filling in a blank to hook it to the artifact or whatever that is.

This is how long it really is:

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

Check out the article, too.

I've read that article before.

All the words don't change what the picture you posted shows. "Patty's" right hand is between just below the level of her buttock to mid-thigh. Her upper body is leaning slightly forward and she's somewhat stoop shouldered. In that pose, that hand placement is not at all out of normal for a human being. It does not show an inhuman IM index.

 

[LAL]

William Parcher posted a link to this thread on www.bigfootforums.com.

In it a member named Gigantofootecus posted the following GIF image (in post #259 of that thread):

Someone (possibly Gigantofootecus) has drawn in an organge line representing the forearm and a grey line representing the hand (as they see it). Thereby creating the impression that "Patty's" arm is much longer (shoulder to fingertip) than I believe the film shows.

I don't know anything about Gigantofootecus and whether or not he's typical of Bigfooters, but he is clearly an example of someone posting what I feel are very hard to accept claims.

Got it. And this is what he says, among other things:

"The following GIF illustrates an estimate of where the hand is during the 3 frames. I may not have outlined the hand properly, but this is the length of the hand w.r.t. the arm. Frame 2 is the culprit for the apparent "popping" up of the hand and it's too distorted to place the hand reliably. I believe it blends in with a background feature. This GIF doesn't prove anything, but it shows that the hand anomaly is in the right place to be a hand."


See what happens when you post the link?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=240

Apeman chastises him severely a few posts later.

"GF-

Thanks for the reminder on MK's explanation, but otherwise I'm sorry, you have just lost an enormous amount of credibility in my eyes, both with your post and moreso with your illustration. This isn't meant to be a personal attack. For starters, please go back to your lines on the photo and fill in the upper arm and then tell us what is wrong with your attempt to place the joints. Our thread on limb proportions (think brachial index) will give you a clue if it's not obvious simply by drawing in the humerus."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=260

Davis too:

"With all due respect and appreciation for your hard work, dedication, and MANY fruitful efforts, you have been proven wrong twice in just the last few weeks (the hand and the quadrupedalism) and as these cases build up in appears that you are stretching the observations and you are undermining all the hard work you have done SO well for SO long. I'm not going to try to lecture or stand on a soapbox, you are clearly an expert well beyond my capabilities in enhancing images and I have been and continue to be proven wrong about many things. I just worry about the interpretations you continue to put forward and fear that these things will contribute to ever present credibility issues for both you and the BF community in general. I'm sure you don't want to be lumped with 'he whose name will not be spoken' here? Right? Your work is appreciated and mostly respected. Please don't get sucked into feeling like you need to make some huge new discovery every so often."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=260

 

[LAL]

Here's Wolftrax' drawing:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=240

It's obvious he doesn't agree.

MK retracts and there's this from ToeToe:

"I noticed something in the above gif, which I would like some help with. I made a quick panel of the 3 frames used to make the gif. (If they are out of sequence, I apologize.) The item I'm puzzling over is in the first part of the panel, marked with a red line. To my (untrained) eye, it looks a lot like the artifact in the "well known" view, albeit in a very different orientation. It could, of course, be background noise.
However, both aberrations seem fairly similar in shape & appearance, except for the orientation. They both seem near the outlined hand, with different amounts of detail apparent. In the running gif, the effect is a little unusual. Any thoughts?"

Now, what was that claim about what "Bigfooters" do again?

 

[Hitch]

Got it. And this is what he says, among other things:

"The following GIF illustrates an estimate of where the hand is during the 3 frames. I may not have outlined the hand properly, but this is the length of the hand w.r.t. the arm. Frame 2 is the culprit for the apparent "popping" up of the hand and it's too distorted to place the hand reliably. I believe it blends in with a background feature. This GIF doesn't prove anything, but it shows that the hand anomaly is in the right place to be a hand."


See what happens when you post the link?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=240

Apeman chastises him severely a few posts later.

"GF-

Thanks for the reminder on MK's explanation, but otherwise I'm sorry, you have just lost an enormous amount of credibility in my eyes, both with your post and moreso with your illustration. This isn't meant to be a personal attack. For starters, please go back to your lines on the photo and fill in the upper arm and then tell us what is wrong with your attempt to place the joints. Our thread on limb proportions (think brachial index) will give you a clue if it's not obvious simply by drawing in the humerus."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=260

Davis too:

"With all due respect and appreciation for your hard work, dedication, and MANY fruitful efforts, you have been proven wrong twice in just the last few weeks (the hand and the quadrupedalism) and as these cases build up in appears that you are stretching the observations and you are undermining all the hard work you have done SO well for SO long. I'm not going to try to lecture or stand on a soapbox, you are clearly an expert well beyond my capabilities in enhancing images and I have been and continue to be proven wrong about many things. I just worry about the interpretations you continue to put forward and fear that these things will contribute to ever present credibility issues for both you and the BF community in general. I'm sure you don't want to be lumped with 'he whose name will not be spoken' here? Right? Your work is appreciated and mostly respected. Please don't get sucked into feeling like you need to make some huge new discovery every so often."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=260

Are you agreeing with me?

He also says:

My first question to you is what are the stumps you've drawn supposed to represent? Are they wrists, hands, boundaries? And how did you come up with their placements? I'll wager you didn't even measure to see where the hand should be. Did you know that Patty's hand is approx. 32% of her arm length? That's quite a bit of hand to hide from view.

(I can quote mine too.) He clearly believes his estimate of arm and hand length.

and a telling quote from Davis:

I just worry about the interpretations you continue to put forward and fear that these things will contribute to ever present credibility issues for both you and the BF community in general.

It's really hard to decide which bigfoot evidence you want us to accept. Every time the flaws are pointed out, we get variations on, "that guy doesn't speak for us" or, "when he said something completely different another time is what you should go by." (Yes, I know niether of those are exact quotes of anyone, but I daresay they will sound familiar to many readers of these the bigffot threads here.)

 

[RayG]

I meant by the reporter.

Can you clarify with a link or a quote, I'm not sure I follow.

I don't...November 24th... December 13th... The original casts were evidently made in November. He may be wrong on the date.

Thanks for the clarification. If that's true, it seems Krantz obtained casts that were made even earlier than I thought. I've seen no indication, from any source, that Krantz made casts on site. In his book he states (page 54),

"The pair of track casts I had to work with were copies of a pair made from some excellent tracks that appeared near Bossburg, Washington, in December 1969. This was some weeks before the famous long line of tracks of the same individual were found in snow, leading out of and back into a reservoir and crossing substantial fence along the way. The original casts had been copied by pressing them into a prepared bed of fine dirt, the casts resulting from this action being the ones I borrowed."

On page 43 he states he had photographs and good verbal descriptions to follow.

But he says nothing about casting tracks.

Read also pages 55 through 65, where you will find his reasoning. It's interesting to see how he reached his conclusions.

All without benefit of an actual specimen.

On pg. 65 you'll find almost the exact quote without Da Vinci being mentioned.

Page 63 maybe. Yeah, Krantz seemed an arrogant individual that thought himself a genius.

I know, but they were made in November. They were from the dump, were they not? Those were discovered November 24th, unless this is wrong:

Not according to Krantz, but then he may be mistaken, about a great many things. Ok, so if the original casts were created in November not December, it doesn't change the fact that Krantz was working with copies of these casts, and not casts he created onsite.

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

Thanks for the link. I see no mention of Krantz whosoever. You've also prompted me to reread the Bossburg portions written about by Dahinden in Sasquatch. From what I've skimmed so far, Dahinden only confirms my suspicion of the whole incident. (Freeman too)

It's interesting that in Meet the Sasquatch (page 117) it's stated that Krantz is in Bossburg examining a print in the snow in December 1969, but Krantz himself says he only went there in early 1970.

I don't think that was all he used. The weight would require the ankle to be set farther forward than on a human.

How was he able to tell the weight based on a single track and a pair of casts?

...[Krantz] was referring to the intellect of da Vinci, apparently the only one to surpass his own.

Exactly how do you know that?

Krantz made that boast all by himself. In case you missed it...

"If someone faked [these footprints] with all the subtle hints of anatomy design, he had to be a real genius, an expert at anatomy, very inventive, an original thinker. He had to outclass me in those areas, and I don't think anyone outclasses me in those areas, at least not since Leonardo da Vinci. So I say such a person is impossible, therefore the tracks are real."

Bascially, a smarter man than Krantz hasn't come along since da Vinci. I guess technically Krantz wasn't saying NOBODY other than da Vinci, he was only saying nobody SINCE da Vinci.

Already noted he could be arrogant. That doesn't make him wrong.

No, but being arrogant likely made it impossible for him to admit he was wrong even if he was wrong.

Maybe Krantz was trying to inject some levity too.

I'm not the only one that thought him arrogant, and he mentions his miraculous ability to not be fooled on more than once occasion. In my opinion he truly believed he could not be fooled.

Dennett, of course. He's imaginative; I'll give him that.

Dennett seems to have his ducks in a row too.

RayG

 

[LAL]

I've read that article before.

All the words don't change what the picture you posted shows. "Patty's" right hand is between just below the level of her buttock to mid-thigh. Her upper body is leaning slightly forward and she's somewhat stoop shouldered. In that pose, that hand placement is not at all out of normal for a human being. It does not show an inhuman IM index.

It's an approximation, but it falls between human and apes.


"Identifying the positions of the joints on the film subject can only be approximate and the limbs are frequently oriented obliquely to the plane of the film, rendering them foreshortened to varying degrees. However, in some frames the limbs are nearly vertical, hence parallel to the filmplane, and indicate an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes." - Jeff Meldrum

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

 

[Hitch]

Here's Wolftrax' drawing:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=240

It's obvious he doesn't agree.

MK retracts and there's this from ToeToe:

"I noticed something in the above gif, which I would like some help with. I made a quick panel of the 3 frames used to make the gif. (If they are out of sequence, I apologize.) The item I'm puzzling over is in the first part of the panel, marked with a red line. To my (untrained) eye, it looks a lot like the artifact in the "well known" view, albeit in a very different orientation. It could, of course, be background noise.
However, both aberrations seem fairly similar in shape & appearance, except for the orientation. They both seem near the outlined hand, with different amounts of detail apparent. In the running gif, the effect is a little unusual. Any thoughts?"

Now, what was that claim about what "Bigfooters" do again?

And a few posts later wolftrax and ToeToe (who started out debating) agree that the object circled in red below is probably some background object and not part of "Patty."

Which gives me hope. Some bigfooters do seem capable of analyzing data and changing their view in the face of evidence.

Edit:
And just to be clear - MK is not Gigantofootecus. Some people reading the exchange here, may get that impression.

 

[RayG]

Okay, found the source:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-04-12.html

It's with a review of Long's book, and evidently is not one of Davis' enhancements. So, the editors of eSkeptic published a retouched photo? Or what are you trying to say?

That same anomaly shows up all over the web and is featured in Meet the Sasquatch, and credited to E. Dahinden too. So, the author of Meet the Sasquatch published a retouched photo? Did E. Dahinden or maybe R. Dahinden retouch the photo? It's also the same image featured on the BFRO, did the BFRO retouch the photo? What are you trying to say?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Smalfut.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/b9/180px-Smalfut.jpg
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/images/binder6.jpg
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/thumb/b/b9/180px-Smalfut.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/photo/pgfilm.html (make sure you click on frame 352)
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/images/f352.jpg
http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/images/sasquatch01.jpg

RayG

 

[LAL]

Can you clarify with a link or a quote, I'm not sure I follow.

Didn't I post the article already?

Thanks for the clarification. If that's true, it seems Krantz obtained casts that were made even earlier than I thought. I've seen no indication, from any source, that Krantz made casts on site. In his book he states (page 54),

"The pair of track casts I had to work with were copies of a pair made from some excellent tracks that appeared near Bossburg, Washington, in December 1969. This was some weeks before the famous long line of tracks of the same individual were found in snow, leading out of and back into a reservoir and crossing substantial fence along the way. The original casts had been copied by pressing them into a prepared bed of fine dirt, the casts resulting from this action being the ones I borrowed."

But he says nothing about casting tracks.

Except in the interview with Noll. He says he cast the one remaining track.

All without benefit of an actual specimen.

Yeah. Dahinden didn't get the hairy sonuvabitch.

Page 63 maybe. Yeah, Krantz seemed an arrogant individual that thought himself a genius.

Not according to Krantz, but then he may be mistaken, about a great many things. Ok, so if the original casts were created in November not December, it doesn't change the fact that Krantz was working with copies of these casts, and not casts he created onsite.

Thanks for the link. I see no mention of Krantz whosoever.

Nope.

You've also prompted me to reread the Bossburg portions written about by Dahinden in Sasquatch. From what I've skimmed so far, Dahinden only confirms my suspicion of the whole incident. (Freeman too)

Remember, Dahinden loathed Krantz. He didn't like academics in general. The tracks Dahinden declared fakes aren't the ones Joel Hardin declared fakes, are they? The ones Freeman found first are the ones from which the compelling cast was made, I believe.Dahinden found dermals under debris and thought that ment they were faked, but they might have been Sasquatch dermal ridges for all I know. Does anyone have photos of those later tracks?

Note the photo of my old "friend", Wild Bill Closner in Dahinden's book.

It's interesting that in Meet the Sasquatch (page 117) it's stated that Krantz is in Bossburg examining a print in the snow in December 1969, but Krantz himself says he only went there in early 1970.

Murphy messed up on Titmus' sighting, too. Hopefully there'll be corrections in the new edition.

How was he able to tell the weight based on a single track and a pair of casts?

Did he estimate the weight on that one? He did on Patty. Heavy is kind of a given on an animal leaving 17" tracks.

Krantz made that boast all by himself. In case you missed it...

Bascially, a smarter man than Krantz hasn't come along since da Vinci. I guess technically Krantz wasn't saying NOBODY other than da Vinci, he was only saying nobody SINCE da Vinci.

On specific issues. Now I have to research Da Vinci. Damn.

No, but being arrogant likely made it impossible for him to admit he was wrong even if he was wrong.

He should have retracted on africanus .

I'm not the only one that thought him arrogant, and he mentions his miraculous ability to not be fooled on more than once occasion. In my opinion he truly believed he could not be fooled.

Dennett seems to have his ducks in a row too.

RayG

I find him arrogant.

Of course, the only way to dismiss Krantz' evidence is to dismiss him as arrogant. It's pretty convincing if he wasn't wrong.

Did I miss your comments on the Skookum roll instructions? I haven't seen them yet.