Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xspider1

Is There A Better Way To Explain What We See In The Patterson-Gimlin Film?

Recommended Posts

Guest River

Here are some excellent questions proponents of the films authenticity should be asking. Lets take the gloves off and look at the hard points. Clearly this film is either a man in a fur suit, or one of the greatest finds of the century. (for these questions, lets take the stance it's the greatest find of the century.)

1) Where are the original out of camera films?

2) Why do Patterson and DeAtley refuse to tell where the film is developed?

3) Why does Gimlin wear the "indian guide" wig after they get the footage and present it?

4) Why does Patterson go on tour with a fake Gimlin, claiming to have been there etc, claims to be Gimlin.

5) Where is the "second footage" of Patterson casting the tracks?

on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

6) Why is the film not accepted as authentic when it's originally presented to scientists?

7) How can the subject of the films feet leave impressions "deeper than the horses" when the foot is so large, and the horses foot is very small (Gimin claims his horse weighed about 1400 lbs with a trimmed down size 1 shoe, yet the subject of the films foot is 14.5 x 5)

8) Where is any bigfoot matching the subjects description in the film?

9) Why does Patterson never return to Bluff Creek? (when he obviously was still "looking" for bigfoot after the film is shot)

10) Why does Patterson "air ship" the film to DeAtley (might I add, from a closed airport) when he himself leaves back for Yakima in less than 24 hours after?

Just a few for now.

Edited by River
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Yes kerchak, I have my own eyes. Speaking of polite, why should I engage you at all when you speak this way? ;-) You act like people are some how required to reply to your rants/ravings. No thanks.

Er because I was kind and gracious enough to reply to YOUR questions and YOUR ponderings. I took the time and effort to do so.

Conversely you didn't bother to do likewise when I asked the questions and when I did the pondering. In fact not only did you refuse but you then threw your toys out of the pram and wanted a change to the debating context.:rolleyes:

You have an extremely poor 'debating' style.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Er because I was kind and gracious enough to reply to YOUR questions and YOUR ponderings. I took the time and effort to do so.

Conversely you didn't bother to do likewise when I asked the questions and when I did the pondering. In fact not only did you refuse but you then threw your toys out of the pram and wanted a change to the debating context.:rolleyes:

You have an extremely poor 'debating' style.

You cherry pick your questions to answer, and then try to "dictate" the way a debate will go or accuse me of it because I asked you to stick to facts instead of debating anecdotal crap over and over again. No thanks. As I said, I'm not interested. You want to deal with the questions I asked above lets do this.

I also asked some important questions before that you avoided. (about subject scale and so forth)

Edited by ChrisBFRPKY
Removed sentence with problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Geez River, you sure like to ask a lot of anecdotal questions (over and over). ;)

Here are some excellent questions proponents of the films authenticity should be asking. Lets take the gloves off and look at the hard points. Clearly this film is either a man in a fur suit, or one of the greatest finds of the century. (for these questions, lets take the stance it's the greatest find of the century.)

1) Where are the original out of camera films?

Rhetorical? Probably in Patterson's attic with the suit, who knows?

2) Why do Patterson and DeAtley refuse to tell where the film is developed?

Who has come right out and asked DeAtley? Did he refuse to answer? And I doubt Roger Patterson is talking.

3) Why does Gimlin wear the "indian guide" wig after they get the footage and present it?

Patterson's movie was supposed to be a pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig) and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. Then Patty walked into their lives.

4) Why does Patterson go on tour with a fake Gimlin, claiming to have been there etc, claims to be Gimlin.

Roger was still in documentary mode and trying to market the PGF. Was there any doubt he was trying to make a buck? And was there anything wrong with that? Roger assumed the film would speak for itself and he was free to set it up any way he saw fit. Little did he realize the intense scrutiny that he would be subjected to. But was this really a sign of a savvy hoaxer?

5) Where is the "second footage" of Patterson casting the tracks?

You mean the original? You already asked that in question 1. Otherwise, we DO have some footage of the 2nd reel. That footage of Roger casting the track IS from the 2nd reel. So unless you can establish that Roger purposefully hid the original reels what have you got? The only facts here are that the originals are unavailable. But that ain't evidence of a hoax and you can't assume they must contain incriminating evidence to be missing.

Does this track cast look "dug out" to you?

Laverty_Track_Cast_Views.jpg

6) Why is the film not accepted as authentic when it's originally presented to scientists?

Come on. No scientist was going to accept the PGF showed a sasquatch without witnessing Patty doing something an actor in a suit couldn't do. How many of them actually studied the film? How many were qualified to analyze the film?

7) How can the subject of the films feet leave impressions "deeper than the horses" when the foot is so large, and the horses foot is very small (Gimin claims his horse weighed about 1400 lbs with a trimmed down size 1 shoe, yet the subject of the films foot is 14.5 x 5)

Again with the prints "deeper than the horses" nonsense. Is this intended to catch Gimlin in a lie? Because Gimlin has so many outs you are wasting your time. First of all, you and Dennet have oversimplified this problem. To prove your point, go out on a sand bar with a horse and conduct some experiments. And bring a couple of football front lineman with you. Have 1 piggyback the other then duplicate Patty's walk beside the horse. Make sure to walk on substrate with varying compliance. Then come back with your results and resume your argument.

8) Where is any bigfoot matching the subjects description in the film?

Do you mean descriptions from other people who have seen a bigfoot, or a bigfoot in general? Surely you are not asking "where's the monkey" again are you?

9) Why does Patterson never return to Bluff Creek? (when he obviously was still "looking" for bigfoot after the film is shot)

You'll have to ask Roger if you want to ascertain motive. Otherwise, what does it prove?

10) Why does Patterson "air ship" the film to DeAtley (might I add, from a closed airport) when he himself leaves back for Yakima in less than 24 hours after?

Truth is, we don't know what Roger did with the film or who was involved or how or why. Not enough info to nail him. Thems the facts.

So now you can start answering the anecdotal crap counterpoints since they're just as factless and speculative as your questions, IMO. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot
Why does Patterson "air ship" the film to DeAtley (might I add, from a closed airport) when he himself leaves back for Yakima in less than 24 hours after?

I've done some private air shipping back in the seventies. You took whatever relatively small items it was you wanted shipped directly to the shippers office at the airport (they were there until the last flight went through). Your package was delivered in a matter of hours to the the office of your choice on their route. You then had your own people there to retrieve the item (as soon as immediately after it lands if it's a small shipper).

At the time there was a whole network of bonded air-courier shippers that had a late night service to carry checks to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. Most business people knew of this direct method of overnight shipping, it is what later turned into "Next Day" service. It was expensive but very reliable to use.

As far as developing, has anyone checked into the possibility that it was a backdoor job at the local TV station. That was at the time the way they gathered news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

7) How can the subject of the films feet leave impressions "deeper than the horses" when the foot is so large, and the horses foot is very small (Gimin claims his horse weighed about 1400 lbs with a trimmed down size 1 shoe, yet the subject of the films foot is 14.5 x 5)

This needs to be addressed, and as GF said, some experiments need to be done.

The thing that everyone seems to 'not be thinking about' is this:

A bipedal animal will have all of it's weight on one foot at some point in a walk or run.

A horse will almost never have all of its weight on one hoof. There will always be at least two in contact with the ground, and in most cases three. When moving slowly, there will also be times when all 4 are on the ground.

This needs to be considered, and the math needs to be redone to reflect this. I don't know what the hypothetical results would be, but until this is resolved the arguments about weight and depth of tracks will likely be erroneous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

GF,

I know you asked River about the Laverty cast, but I think there is room to argue that this looks like there MAY be evidence of the track being dug out. It looks like little drops of dirt in all directions from the track.

post-547-001376300 1290460082_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

This needs to be addressed, and as GF said, some experiments need to be done.

The thing that everyone seems to 'not be thinking about' is this:

A bipedal animal will have all of it's weight on one foot at some point in a walk or run.

A horse will almost never have all of its weight on one hoof. There will always be at least two in contact with the ground, and in most cases three. When moving slowly, there will also be times when all 4 are on the ground.

This needs to be considered, and the math needs to be redone to reflect this. I don't know what the hypothetical results would be, but until this is resolved the arguments about weight and depth of tracks will likely be erroneous.

Spazmo here is a great article addressing some of these points. I happen to agree with the authors conclusions. (Article written by the late Michael Dennet)

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_footprints/

One of the things to keep in mind (imho) is the actual part of a horses foot/shoe that contacts the ground is very small. (in comparison to the width of the foot) You have a huge foot 3 times the size of the horses foot, not to mention the actual part that contacts the ground leaving impressions deeper than a 1400 lbs horse with size 1 shoes. (very small horse shoe) The gait of most horses in a "walk" leaves two feet on the ground at some points during the walk. You are correct that other times there may be 3 or even 4 feet on the ground. During the "stride" horses distribute their weight in such a manor:

Green:* Remember how deep the horse tracks were compared to that of the Sasquatch tracks?

*Gimlin: *The horse tracks were not as deep as the Sasquatch tracks of course. I just walked the horse through. I walked him as slow as I could but you figure he is distributing his weight on four feet. The tracks were better than half as deep but they weren?t as deep as the tracks of the creature.

*Green:* But the area of the four hoof prints wouldn?t be any greater than two of those footprints, would it?

Gimlin:* No, no?the hoof print area if you?re familiar with sizes of horses? hoof prints, well the horse wore a size one shoe, which is not quite 6 inches in diameter, probably more like 5 inches in diameter with a number one shoe on the front feet. The shoes were a little bit smaller on the back fee. They were size ones trimmed down is what they were. Of course I rode the horse too, so there was my extra weight plus the horse?s weight plus the saddle and tack and everything I had on him. There was probably a total weight of about 1400 pounds.

*Green:* How about when you jumped off the stump?

*Gimlin:* Now when I jumped off the stump with a high heel boot in the dirt, the footprint went almost as deep as the creature?s footprint. We didn?t actually measure, we didn?t have a ruler, we just took pictures of it. Viewing it [the film] you could actually tell better for depth. By looking at it and making a judgment on the sight of it, it wasn?t as deep as the creature?s footprint. They weren?t exactly side by side either, they were probably two or three feet between my track and the creature?s track but there was some distance between them. The soil was practically the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

GF,

I know you asked River about the Laverty cast, but I think there is room to argue that this looks like there MAY be evidence of the track being dug out. It looks like little drops of dirt in all directions from the track.

post-547-001376300 1290460082_thumb.jpg

comncents,

Those are imprints left from Roger as he made the cast. If you look at the film of the tracks, it is rather interestin' to me that there appears to be no such sign of imprints bein' left along the tracks as they were dug out, as some suggest. Also the difference in depth is interestin'.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

I've done some private air shipping back in the seventies. You took whatever relatively small items it was you wanted shipped directly to the shippers office at the airport (they were there until the last flight went through). Your package was delivered in a matter of hours to the the office of your choice on their route. You then had your own people there to retrieve the item (as soon as immediately after it lands if it's a small shipper).

At the time there was a whole network of bonded air-courier shippers that had a late night service to carry checks to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. Most business people knew of this direct method of overnight shipping, it is what later turned into "Next Day" service. It was expensive but very reliable to use.

As far as developing, has anyone checked into the possibility that it was a backdoor job at the local TV station. That was at the time the way they gathered news.

I think it's highly unusual that Patterson would choose to ship (as to your quote, expensive) the film in such a manor considering he left Bluff Creek around 12 hours later. Seems like there were conflicts about this story also. Gimlin says:

*Green: *So you cast the tracks the same day?

*Gimlin:* Yes we did. In fact right that afternoon. By the time we got the tracks cast and the different deals that we did to cast the tracks done, it was getting late. It was almost dark by the time we got back down to the truck and got the horses fed and tied up. By the time we got into town at Al Hodgson?s store, it was good and dark. I imagine it was about 8:30 or 9 o?clock. Then we went on over to...[reflecting]? oh whatever town that was to mail the film up to Al de Atley, Roger?s brother-in-law, so he could take it and get it developed to see if there was really anything on the film. Okay, I?ll go back a little bit to the casting of the tracks. I rode the big horse. The horse that I was riding was around 1200-1300 pounds. I rode him along side the tracks with this new film in the camera, Roger took pictures of how deep the horse?s prints were in the soil compared to the creature?s tracks. Then I got up on a stump which was approximately 3 to 4 feet, you know? We didn?t measure it, probably should have. Anyway I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my foot print went into the same dirt

This "comparison" footage was only allegedly shown once in BC at a university. (although there is no confirmation of this) Amazingly, the film has since disappeared never to be seen again. The only footage (allegedly from the "2nd reel") that has been distributed to people was a very short clip that did not include these portions. Wonder why ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

A disappearing reel of film means nothing, really. One turned up recently that was not even known about, and it had simply been in a collection until the owner died.

While it may be entertaining to speculate on conspiracies concerning missing footage, it doesn't move the discussion forward for either side. It's just missing film with nothing to back up why it's missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

GF,

I know you asked River about the Laverty cast, but I think there is room to argue that this looks like there MAY be evidence of the track being dug out. It looks like little drops of dirt in all directions from the track.

post-547-001376300 1290460082_thumb.jpg

This isn't the Laverty track, but it does look like sand is mounded up around the track Roger is casting (which is the same cast as your posted frame). However, it could easily be from Roger building the sand up around the track to contain the casting material and prevent it from spreading out too far. Otherwise, why would he fake a track that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Rhetorical? Probably in Patterson's attic with the suit, who knows?

So you have no problem with the original film being "missing"? That doesnt raise any red flags for you? To me it "may" indiciate that they did not want anyone inspecting the originals. We can speculate as to the reasons, but given this was the "find of the century" I find it to be very fishy, and unlikely that it was "missing" without reason. No one seems to know the whereabouts.

Who has come right out and asked DeAtley? Did he refuse to answer? And I doubt Roger Patterson is talking.

DeAtley says he cannot remember where he took the film. (Bigfoot Film Journal

By Christopher L. Murphy page 45)

Patterson's movie was supposed to be a pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig) and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. Then Patty walked into their lives.

So why wear the wig when being interviewed? This is the find of the century remember. Is Gimlin still playing "his part" in Pattersons movie during the interview?

Roger was still in documentary mode and trying to market the PGF. Was there any doubt he was trying to make a buck? And was there anything wrong with that? Roger assumed the film would speak for itself and he was free to set it up any way he saw fit. Little did he realize the intense scrutiny that he would be subjected to. But was this really a sign of a savvy hoaxer?

I think its very dishonest. Yes there is something wrong with telling people you are Bob Gimlin and traveling around the country telling people of your bigfoot encunter, and telling people were there. It's very dishonest.

You mean the original? You already asked that in question 1. Otherwise, we DO have some footage of the 2nd reel. That footage of Roger casting the track IS from the 2nd reel. So unless you can establish that Roger purposefully hid the original reels what have you got? The only facts here are that the originals are unavailable. But that ain't evidence of a hoax and you can't assume they must contain incriminating evidence to be missing.
No, I mean why does Patterson admit to Krantz that only days before he films himself casting fake bigfoot tracks, then only days later films the "real bigfoot"? (and that makes the timing where they HAD to be in Bluff Creek) Are we to believe that the footage we see represented as the "2nd reel" was shot before the actual walk sequence? You don't see a problem with this?

Does this track cast look "dug out" to you?

I don't see any "real" looking tracks when I view them. I believe you may have stated on other websites that you believe the "actor in the suit" left the impressions and that perhaps they were wearing a cowboy boot inside of the costume foot. (if that was not you, i apologize, but I believe it may have been) I disagree. I think Patterson fakes the tracks and that they were just as Gimlin said. "Deeper than the horses". They were expecting guests to the site were they not? Why would Gimlin make that claim, and make the film depicting this if it were not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River
Come on. No scientist was going to accept the PGF showed a sasquatch without witnessing Patty doing something an actor in a suit couldn't do. How many of them actually studied the film? How many were qualified to analyze the film?

So only proponents of bigfoot would believe the film to represent a real animal? Why is that? Today, the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree that it is a hoax. I only know of 3 that do not. (all of them bigfoot proponents)

Again with the prints "deeper than the horses" nonsense. Is this intended to catch Gimlin in a lie? Because Gimlin has so many outs you are wasting your time. First of all, you and Dennet have oversimplified this problem. To prove your point, go out on a sand bar with a horse and conduct some experiments. And bring a couple of football front lineman with you. Have 1 piggyback the other then duplicate Patty's walk beside the horse. Make sure to walk on substrate with varying compliance. Then come back with your results and resume your argument.

So you're willing to discount Gimlins testimony, and what was alleged to have been filmed on the "second reel" int he comparison tests?

Do you mean descriptions from other people who have seen a bigfoot, or a bigfoot in general? Surely you are not asking "where's the monkey" again are you?

There has to be a monkey in order for a monkey to be filmed. Correct?

You'll have to ask Roger if you want to ascertain motive. Otherwise, what does it prove?

To me (and yes this is subjective) it means that Patterson had little confidence in "finding bigfoot" at Bluff Creek after the incident. Considering he still was on the quest to find or capture bigfoot after the filming, why would he not go where he "knew" one to be? But of course, you'll disagree.

Truth is, we don't know what Roger did with the film or who was involved or how or why. Not enough info to nail him. Thems the facts.

We know there are conflicting stories about the "timeline" and this is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So only proponents of bigfoot would believe the film to represent a real animal? Why is that? Today, the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree that it is a hoax. I only know of 3 that do not. (all of them bigfoot proponents)

How many "qualified" scientists are we talking about here anyway? How many have chimed in and how many care?

So you're willing to discount Gimlins testimony, and what was alleged to have been filmed on the "second reel" int he comparison tests?

I'm not discounting anything. Gimlin could have been lying, or mistaken (Patty walked in softer sand than his horse) or a 600lb sasquatch could actually make deeper tracks than a horse. You don't think it's as simple as calculating the total surface area of the foot/hoof divided by the weight, do you? Dennet seems to think so.

There has to be a monkey in order for a monkey to be filmed. Correct?

But you'd have to prove there is no monkey to make your point and surely no one has to prove that bigfoot exists before the PGF can be evaluated. Correct?

To me (and yes this is subjective) it means that Patterson had little confidence in "finding bigfoot" at Bluff Creek after the incident. Considering he still was on the quest to find or capture bigfoot after the filming, why would he not go where he "knew" one to be? But of course, you'll disagree.

I agree. :D It didn't help Patterson's case not to return to Bluff Creek where he knew there was a bigfoot. Maybe Patterson thought there were plenty of bigfeet closer to his home town. If he knew Patty was real then the odds of finding one in Washington State should be just as good. But this is all dead end speculation.

We know there are conflicting stories about the "timeline" and this is one of them.

Sure there are apparently timeline issues, but we still don't know what happened or when or whether it was impossible for P&G to meet the timeline. Too much ambiguity without any facts. But maybe that will change with more investigation. Then let's revisit the timeline.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...