Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Evidently. This material is reprinted in Murphy's book (there's more). Seems the materials are on posters he displays at his talks and lectures. Perhaps he identifies them better there. There were 40 prints in the Walla Walla trackway. He cast seven.

Matt, do you know for sure which casts those are?
 
Regional or something else, that's what I always heard it as. Of course, given the squatch's reputation for poor hygiene...oh never mind.

The smell isn't always noted, but when it is the description is like that of the Gorilla "fear smell", a mix of sweat and feces, so it may be a from a substance released by special glands. They've been reported swimming, more than once, so maybe their hygeine is as good as that of any other wild animal.

We don't smell so good either, in our natural state, come to think of it.
 
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?

I have no idea. Ask them.
 
Did he even try? I dunno, would it do any good? It didn't for Radford, and I'd have to say if anyone 'bitched' about it, it was me not Radford (on the BFF). I'd like to see as many people as possible have a look at it. It's worth noting that John Green was allowed to examine it first-hand. He doesn't seem to possess any credentials in a related field.


He's kind of the grandfather of "bigfootery"; he was one of the first to see it. Since the cast was being housed in a relative's garage after examination, I would guess they had to put some limits on viewing. A reporter got to see it along with Noll doing the roll.

Wasn't this whole argument on BFF? The non-credentialled sceptics were made to wait, that's all. Did Dr. Daegling, who had the credentials, bother to view it?

How do you know for certain his hoaxing came later? His hoaxing seemed to surface during the Bossburg incident, not afterwards, if we are to believe Dahinden.

I meant after the long trackway was found. More tracks were found later across the river, and not by Marx and Dahinden.

He was put on the payroll and evidently wanted to "keep things going". He was seen buying furs. Biscotti still has Marx photos on his website. His trailer was empty when investigators went to confront him. I think I've posted Byrne's story of the can of film, haven't I?

No one confirmed that bigfoot made the tracks. None of the investigators, except for Marx, actually witnessed a bigfoot, and he not only witnessed one he took a movie of it. Turns out the movie was faked though. Can you think of a single thing about bigfoot that was confirmed by the Bossburg fiasco? I can't.
RayG

Marx actually witnessed a bigfoot? Oh.

I certainly can't think of any confirmation that Marx faked any of the Cripplefoot tracks. He faked photos. In one clip the "bigfoot" practically waves at the camera. This whole argument is on BFF too.

I have copies of the casts; I'll try making psychic communication with them to see what they have to say. ;) (I think I was on TBFF too long. I think I'm seeing orbs. No, those are smilies. Never mind.)
 
Last edited:
My bad, I thought it was just a continuation of the point William Parcher was try to make when he said "that subsequent manipulation and modification of the PGF has happened after Patterson was at Bluff Creek."

And you replied, "Bunk."

Remember?


Yes. He said there'd been subsequent hoaxing at Bluff Creek, didn't he?

"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."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523&page=41

The pictures were being posted before he said that.

I don't think it's been established anyone drew anything on the picture in question. If someone tried to draw in fingers, why wouldn't they have added detail elsewhere? How big would the print need to be for a fine point pen to leave such a line? And what's that similar mark in front of the figure on frame 350 in Murphy's book? Was that there on the print or is Hancock House responsible? Or are they both just artifacts that happened to show up on enlargements?
 
Last edited:
I certainly can't think of any confirmation that Marx faked any of the Cripplefoot tracks. He faked photos.

Wait, wait, hold up. This guy is known to have faked photos of Bigfoot--and yet people still take his other claims seriously?

You're kidding, right?

If these were birdwatchers, once they violated the honor system, nobody'd ever consider their word reliable again--and we have definitive proof of the existence of birds! If this guy is known to have faked evidence, why is anybody taking ANY of his stuff seriously?
 
This is probably the highest quality single print ever produced from the film. The only reason that I called this a boil, is because it looks like one to me. It appears to be a raised artifact. When I say "raised" , I mean that it appears to be catching sunlight. Low sun angles cause "high relief". Astronomers like to wait until the surface of the moon is being illuminated obliquely so that the details appear to "stand up". Light on top, in shadow on the bottom, strongly suggests that this is not a film artifact. Scars? I call them scars because they appear that way to me. The white line on the inside of the wrist in the two photos , looks like a scar. I'm perfectly willing to call it something else. Perhaps you have a suggestion? M.K.

Looked like a scar when I clicked to enlarge, too. How do you determine if it's something on the arm or a flaw in the enlargement?

I haven't found the "boil" yet, but it's interesting Heuvelmans thought he saw pimples on the MI's skin through the ice, an indicator of real skin.
 
Wait, wait, hold up. This guy is known to have faked photos of Bigfoot--and yet people still take his other claims seriously?

You're kidding, right?

If these were birdwatchers, once they violated the honor system, nobody'd ever consider their word reliable again--and we have definitive proof of the existence of birds! If this guy is known to have faked evidence, why is anybody taking ANY of his stuff seriously?

Because there's no evidence he faked the tracks. The casts have held up to intense scrutiny, by Napier for one. This is some of the "baby out with the bathwater" stuff Meldrum speaks of. For some, having Ray Wallace in the same state means he faked all tracks everywhere, even if he wasn't in the area at the time. Forget BC.

I've been trying to find your post re Baird and Krantz rebuttal again but keep running into other new posts, so I'll answer it here. The method has been tested experimentally, in Meldrum's lab, e.g., and the resulting product is too fragile to be of much use. The dermal ridges blow up too and merely look like enlarged human dermal ridges. They don't have the flow and "rich texture" Chilcutt found on the casts he found compelling. This has been discussed on this forum before......somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Evidently. This material is reprinted in Murphy's book (there's more). Seems the materials are on posters he displays at his talks and lectures. Perhaps he identifies them better there. There were 40 prints in the Walla Walla trackway. He cast seven.

Matt, do you know for sure which casts those are?
You do realize those casts are nowhere near the same size? There's no way possible for them to be from the same foot.
 
How come Ryerson never gets a mention here?

""Of course the whole thing seems crazy," he (Dahinden) admits, speaking in a heavy Swiss accent and puffing methodically on a cigarillo. "An 800-pound, half-human creature walking around practically in our backyards? But you can't just turn your back on the facts. Take those tracks I was looking down at last week. . ."

The tracks in question had been discovered late this summer by Bud Ryerson, a building contractor, in California's Bluff Creek area between Reading and Eureka. Imbedded in the soft dirt of a logging road, they looked much like the prints of flat footed human beings — except that some were 15 inches long and seven inches wide.

In describing his find to Seattle, Ryerson spoke over a radio phone from his road building camp in Bluff Creek. "I'd seen similar tracks before, but never in this quantity," he said. "There were more than 1,000 of them, and the different sizes suggested they were made by at least three separate creatures. Their depth indicated they weighed more than 500 pounds. Whatever it was that made them had picked up some of my crates containing tractor parts. These crates weigh about 50 pounds, and the creatures had carried them several hundred yards into the brush before dropping them."

Alarmed because his equipment had been disturbed, Ryerson called in a sheriff's deputy who found large fingerprints on the cases, but, unfortunately, the prints proved too smudged to be conclusive. Meanwhile, Ryerson had also called John Green, the publisher of a British Columbia newspaper called the Agassiz-Harrison Advance, who is one of the continent's foremost believers in Sasquatches. Green, in turn, informed Dahinden, who talked the Vancouver Sun into chartering a small plane to take both men to Bluff Creek.

Arriving the day after the tracks were discovered, Dahinden took one look at them and telephoned the Provincial Museum in Victoria. Convinced that the tracks were no simple hoax, the museum authorities promptly dispatched Donald C. Abbott, the Provincial anthropologist, to study them scientifically.

"Those prints were not made by any known animals. That leaves only two possibilities. Either someone is pulling one of the most complicated stunts ever, or the prints were made by a large bipedal primate that has never been described before."Abbott frankly concedes that what he saw when he got there shook him. "I was laughing at the whole idea all the way down," he remarks. "Now I don't think it's a subject for mirth anymore. You realize that a scientist could ruin his reputation by going out on a limb and saying the creatures exist. So I won't say I believe in them, but I am genuinely puzzled."

One of the most perplexing aspects of the prints was their clear indication that whatever made them had a five-foot stride. Taking all possibilities into account, the Sasquatch hunters briefly wondered whether a practical joker on stilts might have been responsible, but a stilt walker, they concluded, would have had to carry about a quarter-ton of weight to have made such impressions.

Furthermore, the tracks went up high grounds that a stilt walker could never have negotiated. "Those prints," says Abbott, "were not made by any known animals. That leaves only two possibilities. Either someone is pulling one of the most complicated stunts ever, or the prints were made by a large bipedal primate that has never been described before. Both alternatives are close to being impossible." Abbott's report to his superiors led to a change of heart that Dahinden has been trying to achieve for a decade. At last the Provincial Government officials admitted to he possibility that the Sasquatches really exist. Shortly after the Bluff Creek finding, he recreation minister of British Columbia, Kenneth Kiernan, went further, and announced that the Provincial Museum was seeking all tangible Sasquatch evidence."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/halpin.html
 
Last edited:
You do realize those casts are nowhere near the same size? There's no way possible for them to be from the same foot.

Hm. Scale's different. Looks to me the toes in the photo on the far right are a bit more bunched up. The tracks were in mud, so there could have been some sliding, or one could be more deeply impressed than the other. The substrate is important.

The main thing is, none of them are from Bluff Creek, in answer to Parcher's question about them.
 
Hm. Scale's different. Looks to me the toes in the photo on the far right are a bit more bunched up. The tracks were in mud, so there could have been some sliding, or one could be more deeply impressed than the other. The substrate is important.

The main thing is, none of them are from Bluff Creek, in answer to Parcher's question about them.
No. The main thing is, Meldrum presents them as being from the same foot and shows them to illustrate the variability of the toes. Which he claims is something that couldn't be faked. But, in fact they are two completely different casts of two completely different "feet." Again, the size is not even close. We're looking at approximately 1.75" or 12% difference in the length. Meldrum's not fooling anyone but gullible bigfooters with this stuff.
 
No. The main thing is, Meldrum presents them as being from the same foot and shows them to illustrate the variability of the toes. Which he claims is something that couldn't be faked. But, in fact they are two completely different casts of two completely different "feet." Again, the size is not even close. We're looking at approximately 1.75" or 12% difference in the length. Meldrum's not fooling anyone but gullible bigfooters with this stuff.

Actually, they aren't captioned, but they look like the same foot from the same trackway. A footprint isn't an exact image of the foot. Even Michael Dennett notes this (that's where I got it). A couple of inches variance isn't unusual. There's about that much on a couple of casts that are from the Bluff Creek trackway. The toes appear much smaller in one than on the other simply because one was less deep.

If those casts are indeed both taken by Meldrum from the trackway he examined he should know which ones they are, shouldn't he? Or if they're not, but are both from his collection, he should know that too, shouldn't he?

Why don't you e-mail him for clarification? I think that's more sensible than jumping to a lot of baseless conclusions about his credibility and others' gullibility.
 
Seems the Skookum Cast copies (made by John Green) have been on public display, anyway:

"The Conference for Bigfoot material will be on Sunday. I am surprised that no one has started a thread on this one yet.

Both a male and female duplicate of the Skookum cast will be on display.

John Green is going to talk about recent developments with the Puyallup Screams. Bob Gimlin and I are supposed to talk a little during his presentation.

Matt and Owen will once again present.

Chris Murphy and John Bindernagel will present as well.

What is very unique with this conference will be that it is held at the Pacific Science Center where Jane Goodall, Sylvia Earle and Jacque Cousteau have all presented in the past. It is a very prestigious venue. Hope to see a lot of you there."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11396&b=1&st=0&p=232252&#entry232252

Did you see Michael Dennett there, Matt? Benjamin Radford? RayG? Weren't the copies shown in Bellingham, as well?
 
Last edited:
Also, from peregrine:

"As we all know, a few qualified scientists have had the opportunity to study the body cast and express their opinions. The results have supported the probable validity of the cast. In addition, many others have now had the chance to view it. The Willow Creek Symposium organizers advertised the fact that the cast would be on display; it was available for days for anyone to look at.

The facts regarding the BFRO’s openness and willingness to provide photographs of the Skookum cast and information regarding the circumstances of its collection, and the fact that the evidence has been made available for prolonged public scrutiny, contradict all these conspiracy stories and nullify demands such as “provide a list of skeptical investigators who have been allowed to see the cast.”

I say, “You snooze, you lose.” Bfootery had plenty of opportunity to see the Skookum cast and talk to people who could tell him about it. At this point in time he has no grounds for complaining about prejudicial treatment.

Finally, the assertion was made that the scientific process demands “opening your evidence up to others.” The underlying assumption here is that the Skookum cast was withheld from scientific scrutiny, which is simply not true. However, nothing in the scientific process demands that evidence be shared with skeptics or potential detractors. In fact, quite the opposite is often the case."

As we all know, a few qualified scientists have had the opportunity to study the body cast and express their opinions. The results have supported the probable validity of the cast. In addition, many others have now had the chance to view it. The Willow Creek Symposium organizers advertised the fact that the cast would be on display; it was available for days for anyone to look at.

The facts regarding the BFRO’s openness and willingness to provide photographs of the Skookum cast and information regarding the circumstances of its collection, and the fact that the evidence has been made available for prolonged public scrutiny, contradict all these conspiracy stories and nullify demands such as “provide a list of skeptical investigators who have been allowed to see the cast.”

I say, “You snooze, you lose.” Bfootery had plenty of opportunity to see the Skookum cast and talk to people who could tell him about it. At this point in time he has no grounds for complaining about prejudicial treatment.

Finally, the assertion was made that the scientific process demands “opening your evidence up to others.” The underlying assumption here is that the Skookum cast was withheld from scientific scrutiny, which is simply not true. However, nothing in the scientific process demands that evidence be shared with skeptics or potential detractors. In fact, quite the opposite is often the case.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40&p=58158&#entry58158

Sorry, no conspiracy to hide evidence. The original cast was on display at the Willow Creek Symposium, but I suppose no sceptic would be caught dead at such an event.
 
I doubt there was "retouching" done on the right hand of the film subject in frame 352 for several reasons.

First, it looks something like an index finger almost touching a thumb, right? Unfortunately for this to occur it would have to be a LEFT hand...

Second, there is a significantly greater detail in the feature than in the rest of the image, if it is a "retouch" it is very poorly done.

Third, we are talking about a feature that is essentially microscopic. With the number of copies of this film floating around, and a significant lack of provenance of any of them, I'm more inclined to suspect an errant bit of emulsion or debris as a result of handling or copying the film. I used to make "direct stock" films when I was in high school, somewhat in the manner of Stan Brackage. If you physically distress developed film stock you can get anomalies like this.

Well okay Matt, but I will still argue against your points. Keep in mind that I am pretty much convinced that this hand was drawn onto a Cibachrome print.

1) The anatomy of the hand is correct. If you cup your hand (as if you are holding an imaginary ball), then swing it behind you with palm facing upwards... you end up with what we see in the Dahinden Cibachrome (DC). When this hand is greatly enlarged and analyzed, it looks as if the thumb is wrong (as you say). This is because the artist didn't create such a "perfect hand" that this ambiguity wouldn't occur if someone took a very close inspection.

If you look at the DC, it looks just like a hand. I would boldly speculate that if you showed the DC to a thousand random people (who are not privvy to our present scrutiny of the hand), virtually all of them would say that that is a hand. It wouldn't even matter if they already thought that the PGF was authentic or a hoax. Believers would say that that is the hand of a genuine Bigfoot... while skeptics would say that that is the hand on a costume. Who on earth would initially think that that was a film or print anomoly instead of a hand, unless they already knew there were questions about its reality as one or the other?

If you instead show this same thousand people frame 352 from the film itself, they are going to see a "stumpish" non-detailed termination of the forearm. This still would not prevent believers and skeptics from thinking what they do. Believers would just say that that is how the Bigfoot hand looked at that moment that Patterson filmed it. Skeptics would say that that is how the costume hand looked at that moment that Patterson filmed it.

But if instead of the above two different presentations, you showed the DC next to the "film frame grab"... all hell might break loose. A whole boatload of observers (believers and skeptics) are going to wonder why and how a "detailed hand" appears out of nowhere!

What does this mean in the "big picture"? The entire original spirit of the creation of the PGF hoax was to cause a belief that a bloke in a suit was a genuine living Bigfoot. The drawn hand on the Cibachrome was a further attempt to secure this belief. Why show the world a non-descript "stump", when you can instead show them a nice detailed hand? Too bad the film itself only shows the stump. :D

2) Yes, there is significant detail and resolution in the "hand", as opposed to the rest of the image (DC). That is the smoking gun of the drawn-in hand by some artist. I'm not saying that this drawn hand is of exceptional artistic quality. It didn't need to be. It still doesn't... because the hand is convincing to random viewers of the DC frame 352 as being a hand.

When we look at greatly enlarged images of this hand, we can imagine how the artist could have done an even better job. But we are examining this with 21st century technology. Back when the artist created this hand, nobody had digital enhancement capacities at their fingertips (cool pun, huh?). Additionally, nobody could even have easy physical access to examine the DC in hand, nor could they even do this with the PGF itself. This was before people had VCRs or videotapes... that even puts aside the fact that the PGF was unavailable on videotape for public viewing for a long time. All that anyone could deal with was seeing the DC in print (first presented in 1980) and being damn lucky to watch the PGF being projected from film. Anyone who watched the PGF projected in a theater (or possibly on TV) could not create a comprehensive skeptical analysis by instantly realizing that the "film hand" was nothing like the "Cibachrome hand". A PGF skeptic in the early days was at a technological disadvantage (compared to now). One didn't have the ability to leisurely examine the PGF with pause, slow-motion, fast-forward/fast-reverse, etc. Even if you were lucky enough to see it on TV, you didn't have a VCR to subsequently record and examine it. Most everyone witnessed it projected in real-time with no ability to watch it over-and-over again. Most everyone was forced to make a "gut decision" about authenticity or hoaxery after seeing the PGF as projected or shown on TV. National Geograhic completely dismissed the evidence (film & still frame prints) in November 1967, after viewing it. No explanation is given for why this was. But it is safe to say that they were presented with the primary evidence itself (original developed film from Patterson's camera or the earliest-possible copy of this).

3) Matt, why are you using the term microscopic in reference to the hand feature? It is surely something that we might all agree is "microscopic" on the 16mm film frame. But it is not microscopic at all when it is enlarged upon an 8x10 or 11x16 Cibachome print. The hand artist did their work on the print, not on the film frame itself. That's why we see the hand on the DC, but not on the film itself. You think this is an errant bit of emulsion or debris? Then why does it look just like a hand, exactly where a hand ought to be? Was it serendipitous lucky luck?
 
Because there's no evidence he faked the tracks.

Um. I think you're missing my point, here.

Guy's a known fraud, right? He was KNOWN to have faked something related to Bigfoot evidence.

Is Bigfoot evidence really so incredibly thin on the ground that Footers'll believe the evidence presented by a known fraud? I mean, we're talking a field absolutely riddled with accusations of fraud already--it seems to me that if the guy's actually proved to have faked something, he has ended his ability to be taken seriously.

How can you trust anything he says? How can we trust the tracks were taken where he said they were, or from what he says? The man has been caught in a lie. His data is now worthless. He's a con artist. Period.
 
I do think that nobody has yet provided functional evidence that Bigfoot is not a mythological creature in the very first place.

I don't think anyone's provided functional evidence that Bigfoot is a mythological creature in the very first place

Foul!

Ten yard penalty for attempting the reverse the burden of proof.
 
He's [John Green] kind of the grandfather of "bigfootery"; he was one of the first to see it... The non-credentialled sceptics were made to wait, that's all.

But a non-credentialled believer was one of the first to see (and examine) it. :boggled:

RayG said:
His hoaxing seemed to surface during the Bossburg incident, not afterwards, if we are to believe Dahinden.

I meant after the long trackway was found. More tracks were found later across the river, and not by Marx and Dahinden.

Marx didn't find them so he couldn't have placed them there? Not sure I follow that line of reasoning. Remember, Marx lived in Bossburg, he wasn't just visiting.

He was put on the payroll and evidently wanted to "keep things going". He was seen buying furs. Biscotti still has Marx photos on his website. His trailer was empty when investigators went to confront him. I think I've posted Byrne's story of the can of film, haven't I?

In Dahinden's Sasquatch, (page 159), it says:

And it seemed that every time he [Dahinden] called, Marx had found something; a handprint here, a footprint there, signs of an unusually heavy creature bedding down in the bush; always something to keep the trail warm.

One website calls him "The greatest huckster, Ivan Marx. He was a central figure in the fiasco that would produce the Bossburg Cripple. He was a prime source for Grover Krantz.

Capitalizing on the Bossburg hype, Marx presented this bowlegged Bigfoot as the “Cripple.” This was later the central footage in his 1975 documentary: The Legend of Bigfoot. Sadly, Marx was considered a reliable source by Dr. Grover Krantz."


Marx actually witnessed a bigfoot? Oh.

Not only witnessed, he filmed them. Marx produced (figuratively and literally) not one but TWO fake bigfoot films. Read Dahinden. :D

And from here:

"Ivan Marx, a longtime Bigfoot hunter, was living in Bossburg at the time the tracks began to appear and eventually shot a film of the crippled Sasquatch. It is universally regarded as a hoax even among the staunchest Bigfoot advocates, though no one has specifically settled on who should receive proper credit for the fraud. *

The allegation of Hunter and Dahinden (1973, 170) that Marx was seen purchasing a number of furs in Spokane before the film was made was also not encouraging to the core of potential believers."

* Marx is a prolific photographer of Bigfoot, having filmed the beast on at least five occasions. Some of his more inspired work can be found on his video production The Legend of Bigfoot (1982, Palladium Pictures). John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us (1978) and Don Hunter's and René Dahinden's Sasquatch/Bigfoot (1973) offer independent accounts of what is known as the "Bossburg Incident." Peter Byrne is credited with uncovering several inconsistencies between the film itself and the narrative surrounding it.


I certainly can't think of any confirmation that Marx faked any of the Cripplefoot tracks. He faked photos. In one clip the "bigfoot" practically waves at the camera. This whole argument is on BFF too.

What proof do you have that he didn't hoax the footprints?

RayG
 
Yes. He said there'd been subsequent hoaxing at Bluff Creek, didn't he?

"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."

I took him to mean the PGF was filmed at Bluff Creek in 1967, not that there was further hoaxing at Bluff Creek.

I don't think it's been established anyone drew anything on the picture in question. If someone tried to draw in fingers, why wouldn't they have added detail elsewhere? How big would the print need to be for a fine point pen to leave such a line? And what's that similar mark in front of the figure on frame 350 in Murphy's book? Was that there on the print or is Hancock House responsible? Or are they both just artifacts that happened to show up on enlargements?

Well, this 'artifact' doesn't appear on the original frame 352, so though it's possible it's nothing more than an unintentional speck on the film frame, it's also possible it was deliberately drawn in. Just because no one can identify the artist doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.

RayG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom