Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

That reminds me, Correa.......how's the paper coming? Are you working on it? Can we see a draft? Or do you not have time again?

LAL, exactly what are you trying to insinuate here?

 

[LAL]

Whew, does this thread bring back memories. That hand on frame 352 could have been drawn in, could be an artifact, could be a hand, I don't know. I really would like to know, but probably will never. There are other small clips that do appear to show the hand. I'll post this very small clip for the edification of all. Please don't shoot to kill. The still frame photography for the construction of this gif clip was by Rick Noll. The source material is superb. M.K.

Marlon! Hi! This is as good as when tube's casting artifact experiments were being discussed and he showed up "in person".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43206&highlight=Bigfoot

It doesn't look drawn to me; the lines aren't very sharp. Do you have later stills? If it's something in the background it should still be there when the figure moves on.

I think you've been denegrated on this forum already (boogers?), but so have the rest of us "woos". You're in good company.

Carry on.

 

[LAL]

LAL, exactly what are you trying to insinuate here?

Didn't you say you wanted to write a paper to blow away Meldrum's midtarsal analysis and I suggested you submit it to a journal where he'd be almost certain to review it? Or were you just blowing smoke?

 

[LAL]

I'm sorry. I trusted you when you posted:


I'll know better than to go by what you post in the future.

I was afraid that was ambiguous when I posted it, but I thought it was clear I was posting two quotes from Apeman, one to GF and one to Davis. Of course, if you'd clicked the link, you would have seen the originals and known exactly what I meant.

I expect you to check me out.

 

[bruto]

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.

Internet Explorer also has a "view source" function. Go to the top menu, pull down the "view" menu, and you should find a "page source" option. This will give you the whole page in unparsed HTML. A lot of muck to wade through, but you'll find it all there if you have patience. Or try right-clicking the image, which will give you its properties, including the URL, or you can open the image on its own page, which will give you the source in the URL window.

 

[Correa Neto]

Didn't you say you wanted to write a paper to blow away Meldrum's midtarsal analysis and I suggested you submit it to a journal where he'd be almost certain to review it? Or were you just blowing smoke?

No evasion. Exactly what are you trying to insinuate?

 

[LAL]

Internet Explorer also has a "view source" function. Go to the top menu, pull down the "view" menu, and you should find a "page source" option. This will give you the whole page in unparsed HTML. A lot of muck to wade through, but you'll find it all there if you have patience.

Thanks. I'll try that.

Or try right-clicking the image, which will give you its properties, including the URL, or you can open the image on its own page, which will give you the source in the URL window.

I do the former, but I'm not sure I know what you mean by "open the image on its own page". Could you clarify?

 

[LAL]

No evasion. Exactly what are you trying to insinuate?

I'm asking if you're writing the paper.

 

[LAL]

What about the Skookum roll? I've yet to see definitive proof that a squatch left its butt prints in a mud hole. Meldrum and a host of others can speculate to their hearts content, but it won't provide evidence.

Not sure I see the correlation.

RayG

I made an inquiry regarding the manner in which the animal could semi-sit and roll up without leaving footprints and got a reply. You seemed to have trouble grasping how that could be done.

colobus wrote:

"I'm not sure if Matt has seen site photographs of the site of the cast, or read about the impression's proximity to hard dry ground. Basically the area in which the impression was left was quite small in dimension, and it was immediately adjacent to hard packed murram road surface.

From the place where the putative heel strikes occurred, the foot, already bent at the knee, would only have to move a foot to the right before being placed on hard ground.

The place where the putative right arm made a double impression was about 15 inches from dry hard ground to the right again.

If you site on the floor on your butt, with both knees bent at about a 30 degree angle, imagine where the dry ground is located to your right. With your right leg and foot, move your heel over say fifteen inched to the right - put it on dry ground. The with your right arm and hand reach over 15 to 18 inches to dry ground.

Now rolling right, shift your weight onto both right foot and knee, and right hand/arm. You can get up with some exertion - without leaving tracks in the impression beyond the putative heel strikes already present. If you happened to be considerably larger it would be even easier.

As far as the elk is concerned - elk always leave prints in the center of bedding areas when they get up. We've got lots of video and still imagery to back that up, as well as photos of eld beds in mud and snow. All of them have tracks in the center grouped closely pointed the same direction.

Extensive analysis of the lengths of the anatomical features impressed into the mud, comparisons with ungulates - including elk, and other large mammals such as goat, bear, and so on find no match with whatever made the impression.

Hairflow pattern analysis of the impression show continuous hairflow along anatomical structures that is 100% in agreement with apes. The same hairflow analysis demonstrated that the hairflow patterns found could not have been produced by an elk in a series of multiple impressions that might "appear" to be one big impression. It just is not an elk."

He gave me permission to repost the pertinent eight paragraphs and wants to know what happens. Should I tell him, "Nothing"?

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm asking if you're writing the paper.

Nope. You are -again- insinuating something.

As you did when you wrote at BFF about me:

He claims to have a degree in geology and works in the industry.

The highlight was mine.
That was from post #1205 from this thread, a cut-and-paste by WP from yours at BFF.

As when you insinuated that I was using a sockpuppet.

No evasion- What exactly are you trying to insinuate?

 

[RayG]

I made an inquiry regarding the manner in which the animal could semi-sit and roll up without leaving footprints and got a reply. You seemed to have trouble grasping how that could be done.

I don't recall saying it would be impossible, but this particular squatch seems a lot more timid than most. I'm still not sure how he was able to leave his dingle-berry impressions behind.

He gave me permission to repost the pertinent eight paragraphs and wants to know what happens. Should I tell him, "Nothing"?

Nah, by all means tell him I'm still unconvinced the impression in the mud was created by a squatch. Now, if he (or anyone) happens to bag a squatch while it's crawling about in a mudhole reaching for fruit, I'll gladly change my opinion.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

Is that René's ex-wife?

I imagine so.

It is my understanding that upon Rene Dahinden's death, the copyrights on the Cibachomes were transferred to his son(s). E. Dahinden may be the son of R. Dahinden, not his wife. That needs clarification. I think I read that Rene bought the Cibachromes from Patty Patterson (wife of Roger) and then declared copyright on them. That needs clarification too.

It seems that the first time that the Dahinden Cibachrome of frame 352 appeared in print was in a book titled Manlike Monsters on Trial (copyright 1980). It has the "hand".

This is a scan of that image in that book. You can see the Dahinden copyright script at the bottom. I cannot make out the date after his name. What is it? Is it 1968?...

 

[William Parcher]

A hyper-contrasted B&W enlargement of the "hand" on the Cibachrome by MK Davis...

 

[Hitch]

Gad, Parcher, click the link. I've posted this article so many times you all should have every picture on it memorized, not just the famous Meldrum "bear track".

"Relative Toe Length and Mobility

Variations in toe position are evident between footprints within a single trackway, as well as between individual subjects. In some instances the toes are sharply curled, leaving an undisturbed ridge of soil behind toe tips resembling "peas-in-a-pod." In other instances the toes are fully extended. In either case, the toes appear relatively longer than in humans. Among the casts made by the author in 1996 is one in which the toes were splayed, pressing the first and fifth digits into the sidewalls of the deep imprint, leaving an impression of the profile of these marginal toes. This is the first such case that I am aware of. Expressed as a percent of the combined hindfoot/midfoot, the Sasquatch toes are intermediate in length between those of humans and the reconstructed length of australopithecine toes. Furthermore, the digits frequently display a considerable range of abduction."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Three photos are below the description above, two evidently by Meldrum, taken in Washington State near Walla Walla. The one on the left was taken by Dahinden in 1967 on Blue Creek Mountain. It's 13" long and was found in deep dust dampened by a light rain. It shows the peas-in-a-pod look.

Meldrum cast and photograhed ones that were of interest to an anatomist, not the "most perfect" as Patterson did. None of the three are from the Bluff Creek trackway.

The photos could have been labled. Maybe Meldrum thought people were smart enough to figure it out.

Are these two casting posted side-by-side on that page supposed to have been made by the same foot?

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/035.jpg
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/036.jpg

It seems to be implied, but then again, he shifts from third to first person in the paragraph, which makes it all a bit less than clear.

 

[William Parcher]

This is how long it really is:

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

Check out the article, too.

It is my understanding that this image is derived from a Cibachrome print.

Once a Cibachrome print (typically 8x10 or 11x14) is made from a frame of 16mm film... one can begin to paint, draw, etc. upon this Cibachrome print. Unless one is holding the print in your hand, it may be difficult to directly see that modification occured. Anyone other than the holder of the actual modified print is only going to see reproduced copies of it.

One might guess that the "master Cibachrome" that originally spawned virtually every available image of frame 352 (in print or on the Internet) is still in the physical possession of Rene Dahinden's copyright heir(s).

Will they share an eyewitness viewing of this original physical artifact?

 

[LAL]

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.

IOW, there's nothing to indicate there even was an artist touching up frame 352.

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.

The color is different too, of course.

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.

Small as it is, I can see that. It does not seem to be there in the equally small still on pg. 55. Has anyone identified the ink blot looking thing on pg. 53 on frame 350 that doesn't seem to be there on the adjacent pic of frame 352? Couldn't be another artifact, could it?

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.

Those should be worth some money.

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.

I don't have that one.

Maybe Dahinden coughed on 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.

Well, yeah. Leclerc's been at work.

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

It says the illustration is by Leclerc just to the left, pg. 81.

and 166

It says in the caption the illustration is by Yvon.

do not warn the reader that the images have been manipulated or enhanced.

Well, I think the reader might be able to see that.

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.

Weren't we talking about frame 352?

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

And nothing to indicate that anyone tampered with the original or that there's anything going on here other than artistic license and possible artifacts occuring for reasons unknown (to me, anyway) between the Cibachrome and the enlargement. All the non-green images I've found, including in Murphy, do not sem to show the loopy thing near the right hand that doesn't seem to be a finger. He shows the full frames on pg. 55 and notes that he's missing three. Frame 352 has a different color texture because it came from a different print. He presents reduced retakes from the Cibachrome prints on pg. 51. I don't really see it there, but there's a greyish blob in the right place. Next are the enlargements (about 80 times) and the lines are clear there.

Thanks for doing all that work.

Murphy used his own pastel sketchover on the cover of Bigfoot in Ohio, BTW.

Now, should we start looking for images of the Virgin Mary on burnt toast (there's money in that) or should we analyse the "ink blot" with the little line descending from it on the blow-up of frame 350 on page 54? You don't suppose it could really be an ink blot, do you? The edges don't look sharp enough.

 

[bruto]

Thanks. I'll try that.



I do the former, but I'm not sure I know what you mean by "open the image on its own page". Could you clarify?

In Firefox, when you right click, you get "view image" as one option. When you click that, the image opens in a new browser window using its source URL. That can be very handy for posting links, since you can then use that URL to hot link to the image itself, and it also can be handy if you want to print the image without bothering to copy and paste it.

I tried the same thing in Explorer, but the option was grayed out, so I guess if you're using that, you may be out of luck until you get Firefox. I do recommend FF, which should run fine in Millennium (It's happy enough in my Win98 box), and will not disturb any of your existing settings. You can set either as your default, but the can easily be run simultaneously if you like.

 

[William Parcher]

In this BFF thread, MK Davis (primateer) moves the audience beyond the question of whether the hand is real and sets upon the question of if Patty it clutching a stone in this hand.

I don't know if it's funny, sad or both to watch the reactions. Bigfooters might say that these "intriguing" questions flesh out the modern understanding of Bigfoot and of the PGF.

I do think that nobody has yet provided functional evidence that Bigfoot is not a mythological creature in the very first place.

 

[LAL]

Nope. You are -again- insinuating something.

I'm asking if you're writing the paper.

As you did when you wrote at BFF about me:
The highlight was mine.
That was from post #1205 from this thread, a cut-and-paste by WP from yours at BFF.

It was TBFF, the Temporary Bigfoot Forums Board. I have a link if you want it. Officially, the board's been taken down but a poster on the new improved BFF saved it somehow and I grabbed it.

Anyone can claim to be anything they want on a forum. I have no proof you do have a degree in geology, but you claim you do and I accept that. If I said you do and it turns out you don't, I'd have egg on my face, but by making a cautious statement I'm left with some wiggle room. Don't scientists do that all the time?

As when you insinuated that I was using a sockpuppet.

No evasion- What exactly are you trying to insinuate?

I noted the posting style seemed similar to Pat Kelly's. (Or was that "Pat Kelley"? I'll have to look it up.) I'd actually never heard the term "sock puppet" before, but it's not unusual for people to post under different SNs sometimes, as recently happened on TBFF. E.g., Voldemort, voldemort2, Erik Beckjord, all the same highly disturbed individual. Even I posted anonymously a couple of times. That was fun. You could just check the circle and become Anonymous. We had a whole lot of posters named Anonymous.

As, I've mentioned, I used to tangle with a geologist on an AOL board who used to be a host who often claimed someone was posting under a different SN. He claimed he could tell by some similar code number they had, but he was often wrong. It was more of a joke than anything, but if you want to take it as an insinuation and get all upset about it, that's up to you. I also noted PK seemed to be the only poster agreeing with you. He was going to do some consulting and get back to us, wasn't he? Whatever happened to him?

I am beginning to wonder if you're writing the paper. If you're not, just say so.

 

[tube]

In this BFF thread, MK Davis (primateer) moves the audience beyond the question of whether the hand is real and sets upon the question of if Patty it clutching a stone in this hand.

I don't know if it's funny, sad or both to watch the reactions. Bigfooters might say that these "intriguing" questions flesh out the modern understanding of Bigfoot and of the PGF.

I do think that nobody has yet provided functional evidence that Bigfoot is not a mythological creature in the very first place.

Furthermore, he claims the rock weighs "3/4 pound"...

Since Mr. Davis is now posting on this board he can speak for himself. Many on this board may not be familiar with Mr. Davis' work, perhaps Marlon will be willing to advise us on other details he finds in this film. I believe this includes, but is not limited to, scars, boils, buckshot wounds, and eye infections.