Creature Suit Analysis - Part 9 - A Study of Probability

[Drew]

We know there were, at least, two horses and riders and one critter of some kind. If I understand the scene correctly, Roger and Bob supposedly are startled by the critter on the opposite side of a creek. they film the critter without crossing the creek themselves and the critter stays on the opposite side of the creek.

According to one of the stories from Bob Gimlin, They both crossed the Creek after they had seen Patty. Roger splashing across while filming, and Bob on his horse when Roger yelled 'Cover Me'

In the hoax theory, I see two 'minimum' scenarios, leaving out any "supporting" cast;

1. Roger, Bob and mime arrive at the creek, Roger and Bob help the mime into the costume, then somehow get the mime across the creek, without making any telltale tracks. In this scenario there should be three sets of horse tracks (unless the mime arrived via some other conveyance) and three sets of people tracks and one set of BF tracks...all in the same place in the staging area. Then the mime needs to walk across the creek, without making or, somehow, hiding any tracks before filming starts.

Titmus makes no mention of human tracks in his analysis. Only Horse prints and Patty prints.

Possible reasons? The substrate was not condusive to showing normal human prints, the only prints which showed up were Fabricated Patty tracks, and Horse prints. Of course the Film of the Stomp Test was removed and mysteriously disappeared, even though Green and Gimlin said it was on the original showing of the film. Was it removed because Gimlin didn't sink far enough? or because he sank too far? We'll probably never know.

2. Roger, Bob and mime arrive at the creek, dismount and carry all the gear to the opposite side of the creek, where they help the mime into the costume. Then Roger and Bob again cross back over the creek to the horses and begin the filming sequence.....again without making or, somehow, hiding any telltale tracks.

I don't know what 'evidence' was collected or witnessed at the scene. I've not heard of any 'stray' footprints that were unaccounted for, but it seems to me that, in order to hoax this scene, there would have been far too many tracks to make it believable and it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hide those extra tracks without without disturbing the scene and making it obvious.

Why do you insist that Roger and Bob made any tracks while they were setting up the hoax?

As far as I know, there were two casts made by Patterson, and 10 by Titmus, certainly doesn't seem like too many tracks, also, Gimlin is quoted as saying that there were no real prints other than that initial area, due to gravel or something like that. Titmus tracked it, but there were no deep prints like you see around the sandbar area

The only thing that makes any sense and seems supported by the facts as I understand them, is the story told by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin.

Which story? Which facts? I think you'll find the 'facts' are not all they are stacked up to be.

[Guest Jack]

According to one of the stories from Bob Gimlin, They both crossed the Creek after they had seen Patty. Roger splashing across while filming, and Bob on his horse when Roger yelled 'Cover Me'

Titmus makes no mention of human tracks in his analysis. Only Horse prints and Patty prints.

Possible reasons? The substrate was not condusive to showing normal human prints, the only prints which showed up were Fabricated Patty tracks, and Horse prints. Of course the Film of the Stomp Test was removed and mysteriously disappeared, even though Green and Gimlin said it was on the original showing of the film. Was it removed because Gimlin didn't sink far enough? or because he sank too far? We'll probably never know.

Why do you insist that Roger and Bob made any tracks while they were setting up the hoax?

As far as I know, there were two casts made by Patterson, and 10 by Titmus, certainly doesn't seem like too many tracks, also, Gimlin is quoted as saying that there were no real prints other than that initial area, due to gravel or something like that. Titmus tracked it, but there were no deep prints like you see around the sandbar area

Which story? Which facts? I think you'll find the 'facts' are not all they are stacked up to be.

They both crossed the Creek after they had seen Patty. Roger splashing across while filming, and Bob on his horse when Roger yelled 'Cover Me'

Quite right, according to the attachment. How did the mime cross without making tracks? Perhaps on the log shown on the drawing.

Only Horse prints and Patty prints.

How many horses? The Mime had to get there somehow. Horses are usually shod and leave distinctive tracks. Even if it was difficult to count the number of horses where they were milliing around, backtracking would have made it easier to single out each horse. there is a road showing on the map following the creek. Had it been used recently by vehicles? Was it useable by vehicles? I see the creek bed crosses over the road, meaning it floods.....perhaps washed out and unuseable??? How did Titmus and Krantz get to the site?

Why do you insist that Roger and Bob made any tracks .......

Bob Titmus and Krantz supposedly followed "tracks of the participants" to map the area (see attachment).

I'm somewhat familiar with the Yreka area, I lived there for a time as a boy and have driven through there a thousand times on I5. It is lightly timbered and high desert like. I'm also familiar with the Ureka, Crescent City area. Bluff Creek is somewhere between. It it heavily timbered? Or more like Yreka area? Does a horse have to keep to trails or can one ride most anywhere? Had it been logged or was it virgin timber? How thorough was Titmus and Krantz in their investigation of the site?

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but if Titmus and Krantz were thorough, they probably looked for signs of a hoax and if it was a hoax there should have been plenty of evidence to find.

More questions:

After the filming, where did Roger and Bob meet the mime to remove the costume? The mime was followed to a hillside where it supposedly watched for some time. Did Roger and Bob ride their horses up that hill to help the mime out of the costume? There should have been more tracks to tell the rest of the story. It doesn't end with the last frame of the film. Where did Roger and Bob cross back over the creek? Assuming three horses, Bob riding one, Roger and mime on foot, where are the riderless horses? Did they follow? It doesn't sound like they took time to tie them. If they were spooked, did they run off? Horses do leave tracks and just following their tracks could have told the story.

Does anyone have answers to these questions?

Edited March 1, 2008 by Jack

[Guest Jack]

Another question:

Bill has said that it is hot in those tight fitting suits. Bob H. said it was hot and smelly in that suit and he couldn't wait to get out of it........Why then would BH or any mime in a hot suit, continue on, after filming had stopped, cross the creek and climb a hillside, sit and watch for a time, then (and here my memory is vague, but I seem to remember reading that Titmus had said the tracks continued, but he didn't follow), continue on. Continue on to where? If they came back down the hill, wouldn't Titmus follow them down? If they continued up the hill away from the area, then maybe he would not. A mime continuing on after filming has stopped is a stretch. If they continued up the hill, then a mime in a suit becomes even less believeable.

[Guest Jack]

Another question:

Bill has said that it is hot in those tight fitting suits. Bob H. said it was hot and smelly in that suit and he couldn't wait to get out of it........Why then would BH or any mime in a hot suit, continue on, after filming had stopped, cross the creek and climb a hillside, sit and watch for a time, then (and here my memory is vague, but I seem to remember reading that Titmus had said the tracks continued, but he didn't follow), continue on. Continue on to where? If they came back down the hill, wouldn't Titmus follow them down? If they continued up the hill away from the area, then maybe he would not. A mime continuing on after filming has stopped is a stretch. If they continued up the hill, then a mime in a suit becomes even less believeable.

I felt these questions might best be asked in a separate thread. I've posted them here What is the rest of the story

[Guest]

The substrate was not condusive to showing normal human prints, the only prints which showed up were Fabricated Patty tracks, and Horse prints.

So not only was Patterson able to make a suit nobody has duplicated he was also able to build feet that could make prints where normal human feet couldn't, WOW!! what a genius.

[Guest Touchmymonkey]

As far as gender goes, to get away with a small bigfoot/human in a suit, you better make a female one since you are more likely to get away with it when the height estimates roll in. Considering this, it isn't far fetched that Patterson might have used a female suit. A 6ft 1 man in a suit isn't a very impressive male bigfoot, but could pull off being a female one.

[Guest Sasquatcher]

Not in 1967.

[Guest]

There are three other caveats I can see that have not been addressed in terms of probabilities vis a vis the construction of the suit:

1) A person or persons would have to be found to finance the construction of the suit. Such a suit would have been expensive to produce, esp given the already established sophistication of the construction. Patterson and Gimlin were both demonstrably men of relatively modest means. What is the likely hood they could have come up with the funding on their own?

IF they had a "money man", what was his motive? There has never to my knowledge been any extensive attempt to market the PGF. How would said money man be repaid?

2) It has been established that the type of people possessed of the technical skills in the 60s to produce such a suit majorily worked for the big studios. They would have either a) constructed the suit behind the studios' back or been constructed as a work for hire with the studios' blessing. What are the liklihood of either happening?

3) Secrecy...all involved would have to have not talked about it...BobH's claims notwithstanding, NO ONE has come forward to claim credit for the suit nor to demonstrate how it was constructed.

Three very important factors that IMO increase the 1/20000 odds significantly higher AGAINST it being a suit...

[Guest duke of earl]

I may be misunderstanding you, but I think I have to respectfully disagree with you here - and I'll be the first to admit I once felt somewhat the same for a while whilst investigating this subject.

There is conclusive, verifiable evidence of the existence of humans disguised as fake animals in costumes going way back before this footage was shot. Some (not being date specific here) have fooled people into thinking they were real animals. Others have suspended disbelief, in clear footage, long enough to carry a story for a couple of hours or so. Others are laughable. Horses for courses though.

The materials & techniques to achieve this were available at the time of this footage - your valuable opinion (which I've enjoyed) as to their suitability & logistical application aside.

There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that the figure in that footage is an unidentified species.

The default ergo should be that it's a guy in a suit until proven to be real. The desire, wish or urge to 'believe' does not or should not enter the equation.

That is one of the worst logic i have ever heard. Until the suit from the gods or the creature of god like intelligence shows up, its: INCONCLUSIVE.

Until better evidence suffices, the best explanation is currently non-existent

Posted without emotion or confrontational intent .

Edited to alter a line that sounded unintentionally condecending :iagree: .

[Bill]

Duke of Earl:

First, welcome to the forum.

Now, if I may ask, is there a particular reason you posted the comments in this thread?

And it appears the entirety of it is quotes, and I could not determine exactly what you personally were aspiring to say or communicate to us.

Bill

[Guest duke of earl]

Duke of Earl:

First, welcome to the forum.

Now, if I may ask, is there a particular reason you posted the comments in this thread?

And it appears the entirety of it is quotes, and I could not determine exactly what you personally were aspiring to say or communicate to us.

Bill

Sorry, im not sure how to use these board thingys

My response was to john-ws:

That is one of the worst logic i have ever heard. Until the suit from the gods or the creature of god like intelligence shows up, its: INCONCLUSIVE.

Until better evidence suffices, the best explanation is currently non-existent

Thats what i said

[Bill]

Duke:

'Sorry, im not sure how to use these board thingys"

There's a learning curve on the board, and its functions. Took me months to sort out some of the processes, so I understand. (I still don't do the quote thing the normal way)

Bill

[Guest JohnWS]

My response was to john-ws:

That is one of the worst logic i have ever heard. Until the suit from the gods or the creature of god like intelligence shows up, its: INCONCLUSIVE.

Until better evidence suffices, the best explanation is currently non-existent

Thats what i said

Lower case 'i', poor use of quotation function, picture of hair in avatar, snappy brusque postings? Something seems strangely familiar....

[Guest duke of earl]

Lower case 'i', poor use of quotation function, picture of hair in avatar, snappy brusque postings? Something seems strangely familiar....

John, i responded to one of your illogical posts, now can you please answer my statement?

[Guest JohnWS]

John, i responded to one of your illogical posts, now can you please answer my statement?

To be honest I almost missed your original 'statement' as I am now an infrequent reader/poster here. Only a certain feeling of 'deja vu' made me post a response at all. As a result, I'm not interested enough in your opinions of my posts to 'answer' you.