Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

I want to know how Bob H could have moved so easily and fluidly with his shoes on INSIDE the costume with the big fake feet on the outside of the costume as well.

Caller Thunderhawk from Oregon — ""I watched a stabilized version of the Patterson film a couple days ago and when the creature or man in the suit steps down I saw its toes flex. Mr. Heironimus, were you barefoot or wearing shoes in the costume?""

Bob Heironimus —""I had shoes on"".

These feet on Patty traverse remarkably well across that terrain...............yet according to Bob H he was wearing shoes in the costume.

Wow. Pure genius......especially considering the lack of much practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

There are a number of reasons why we know that the plaster pour is on the second reel. Firstly, Roger made it clear in an October 26th, 1967 radio interview that he had not, according to him, shot any film footage prior to the 20th. He claims to have been there only a week and not done any filming before filming Gimlin on the afternoon right before Patty. For his film showing in Vancouver on the 26th Roger had only two reels of film developed and shown. The first reel in it's entirety is approximately three and a half minutes long. It shows only footage of Patterson and Gimlin riding around from what is supposed to be there campsite until they get to the film site and in the last ten feet of film capture Patty. The second reel is 15 feet and shows their actions on what is supposed to be that same single day after filming Patty. The second reel contains all of these shots...

Plaster pour scene = PPS

Trackway scene = TWS

Cast display scene = CDS

Roger displayed the two casts he made allegedly of Patty at that media showing. He did not have another set of casts allegedly from Patty. Both of those casts are seen above. It was after this showing that Bob Titmus went to Bluff Creek and cast all the remaining tracks. Impossibly, these tracks in wet sand were preserved and survived the torrential downpour that flooded the area that is unrecorded in local weather records and Al Hodgson himself said it did not rain on either the 20th or the 21st.

PGF scholars such as Bill Munns believe that the second reel is lost. The second reel is not lost. I have found it. Only myself and a small handful of people have knowledge about the true fate of the second reel and exactly what it shows. What is shows will be revealed in my documentary along with the most imprtant information about the PGF ever to be discovered.

If anyone is unsure about the time and placement of any of the above footage, I strongly encourage them to show them to Bob Gimlin. In all cases he will say that all of the above footage was taken at Bluff Creek.

I'll wait to see the documentary...and the entire 2nd reel footage, before I accept, as fact...that it shows the 'cast pour' footage.

Roger claimed that they had filmed a 'cast pour' demonstration, for his documentary...and, it looks to me like the clip of the 'pour footage' we see may be that 'demo pour footage'.

If that footage is on the 2nd reel film...then it should be checked to see whether it has been spliced-on...or is indeed part of the original 2nd reel film.

But...if you have found the actual '2nd reel', kit...then...congrats! That is a good find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

PGF scholars such as Bill Munns believe that the second reel is lost. The second reel is not lost. I have found it. Only myself and a small handful of people have knowledge about the true fate of the second reel and exactly what it shows. What is shows will be revealed in my documentary along with the most imprtant information about the PGF ever to be discovered.

Oh, to be in that small handful of people!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There are a number of reasons why we know that the plaster pour is on the second reel. Firstly, Roger made it clear in an October 26th, 1967 radio interview that he had not, according to him, shot any film footage prior to the 20th. He claims to have been there only a week and not done any filming before filming Gimlin on the afternoon right before Patty. For his film showing in Vancouver on the 26th Roger had only two reels of film developed and shown. The first reel in it's entirety is approximately three and a half minutes long. It shows only footage of Patterson and Gimlin riding around from what is supposed to be there campsite until they get to the film site and in the last ten feet of film capture Patty. The second reel is 15 feet and shows their actions on what is supposed to be that same single day after filming Patty. The second reel contains all of these shots...

Plaster pour scene = PPS

second-film-roger-pouring-cast.gif

Trackway scene = TWS

Casts2ndreel.gif

Cast display scene = CDS

patterson-moves-frames-added.gif

This footage was seen by journalist Jack Webster who referenced it in the same radio interview he did with Patterson and Gimlin on the evening of the 26th after the Georgia Hotel media showing which Webster attended...

W: You scouted around for a while, did you? Well, when did you... were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following here?

R: Yes, because immediately after we went across the creek and immediately after I called Bob back we looked at the tracks and they were, the tracks were there.

W: These are the tracks we saw in the movie tonight

R: That's right.

W: The tracks for which you have the plaster casts tonight

R: Right.

http://www.bigfooten...iopatterson.htm

Roger displayed the two casts he made allegedly of Patty at that media showing. He did not have another set of casts allegedly from Patty. Both of those casts are seen above. It was after this showing that Bob Titmus went to Bluff Creek and cast all the remaining tracks. Impossibly, these tracks in wet sand were preserved and survived the torrential downpour that flooded the area that is unrecorded in local weather records and Al Hodgson himself said it did not rain on either the 20th or the 21st.

PGF scholars such as Bill Munns believe that the second reel is lost. The second reel is not lost. I have found it. Only myself and a small handful of people have knowledge about the true fate of the second reel and exactly what it shows. What is shows will be revealed in my documentary along with the most imprtant information about the PGF ever to be discovered.

If anyone is unsure about the time and placement of any of the above footage, I strongly encourage them to show them to Bob Gimlin. In all cases he will say that all of the above footage was taken at Bluff Creek.

So Kit what are you claiming here? Bob Titmus did not go there the following week and cast the other tracks? Don't some of these tracks, if memory serves me correctly, show to be weathered? as in rained upon.

I have never heard that the rain that occured on the 21st is now a matter of dispute. i thought the rain was confirmed. Does anyone have light to shed on this?

Also - do you believe that Roger ran out of film while filming Patty? Because if so would this not be poor planning on Roger's part if he hoaxed it?

Edited by Thickfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Roger displayed the two casts he made allegedly of Patty at that media showing. He did not have another set of casts allegedly from Patty. Both of those casts are seen above. It was after this showing that Bob Titmus went to Bluff Creek and cast all the remaining tracks. Impossibly, these tracks in wet sand were preserved and survived the torrential downpour that flooded the area that is unrecorded in local weather records and Al Hodgson himself said it did not rain on either the 20th or the 21st.

I have to wonder, if what you claim to have is a smoking gun then why rely on such sketchy details?

Records show nearly an inch at nearby Crescent City, and about 1/2 inch further south. Rain up and down the coastal towns and then rain recorded in eastern locations means the odds of rain at Bluff Creek that day are next to confirmed. Technically though it's unrecorded.

Al Hodgson's memory? No offense to Hodgson but I can hardly think of anyone, supporter or otherwise, that considers Al a reliable source. His memory is all over the place and has been shown to be wrong. I even proved this in my very first post on the forum.

Do you have a smoking gun? Or just an assembled collection of questionable details? I'm being sincere when I ask this by the way. Because your decision to hold back evidence without being subject to prior scrutiny will either make or break your documentary in a big way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Roguefooter wrote:

Do you have a smoking gun?

Well...kit has claimed that he has discovered 'hard proof' of a hoax...along the lines of "the suit" and "a confession by one of the principals"....and now he claims he has found 'the 2nd Reel'.

Those are all 'well and good'.....but, I'm waiting for him to come up the 'Original Film'!! :D I want to see Patty's mouth movement, in nice high-res digital scans....taken right off the Original film, itself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Yeah, but finding the 2nd reel and presenting the 2nd reel are two entirely different things. One is hearsay and the other is tangible proof. If he actually had it in his possession then there would be no need to list "a number of reasons why we know that the plaster pour is on the second reel".

I'm not saying this is all just a ruse, but the claims are starting to pile up without the proof. I would love to see at least once the result being more impressive than the hype.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Roguefooter wrote:

If he actually had it in his possession then there would be no need to list "a number of reasons why we know that the plaster pour is on the second reel".

I thought that sounded a little strange, when I read kit's post also, rogue. If he had seen that footage on the 2nd reel, himself.....then that would be THE reason why we would know it's there.

One other thing...kit says the '2nd reel Film' is 15-feet, in length....and contains all 3 of those footages. But, a complete Reel of 16MM Kodachrome Movie Film is 100-feet, in length.

So...it seems rather unlikely, to me, that a 15-foot long strip of film would contain all three sequences of footage...un-cut, and un-spliced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

One other thing...kit says the '2nd reel Film' is 15-feet, in length....and contains all 3 of those footages. But, a complete Reel of 16MM Kodachrome Movie Film is 100-feet, in length.

So...it seems rather unlikely, to me, that a 15-foot long strip of film would contain all three sequences of footage...un-cut, and un-spliced.

Did he say it was uncut, unspliced?

It's quite possible that the reel is a full 100 feet in length, with only 15 feet cut out and made available to see previously, that 15 feet including the 3 scenes. If that's the case, that other 85 feet of film might be what is so remarkable. In that 85 feet that has previously been missing, there might reside the "screen test" image of Patty that was reported but never seen publicly. That missing 85 feet might be footage that shows Patty doing a test walk, stopping, cupping a hand to ear, nodding then jogging back to repeat the walk a little differently.

I wonder, if it does contain something like that, and is shown, what the reaction would be. Would it be, "no, that does not prove Patty a fake, Patty is real and was probably responding to some wood knocking, listening to what the knock message was, and responded accordingly. Purely a natural looking behavior..." Or maybe it shows a blooper, where Patty stumbles and falls down, while walking too much like a man, standing too upright to see the ground through the mask holes, walking with stiff knees, not lifting the feet up enough and tripping, falling face down in the dirt. BWAH, Bwah, bwah... puh-Ching!

If there has been missing film located, then very cool. Can't wait to see it. It would be cool to see some possible stills as teasers, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

Regardin' quotin' you, I do have some troubles, I try not to use everythin' mentioned, ta keep it shorter, but sometimes a little blue box pops up sayin' the number of quotes or somethin' is incorrect. Not sure what's up with that, so sometimes it works for me, other times it doesn't, as you are aware, the bells an whistles when it comes to computers are lost when it comes to me, my apologies if it confuses folks.

So only the toe of his boot appears wet to you, in your opinion. That's fine with me, as it is your opinion, not fact, would you agree.

An it is also a guess at roughly an hour or so later for the pourin' plaster scene, in you opinion. An it is your opinion because of his pants an boots not appearin' to be wet(only the toes of boot), there's no way they were filmed in that timeframe. What if your opinion of his pants an boots bein' to dry is incorrect ? What if they are still wet ? In another thread you were sayin' you don't deal with belief when it comes to evidence, yet even your opinion here is based on a unknown wouldn't you say ? The moisture content of his boots an pants is not fact.

You said that Roger displayin' the casts was filmed at Bluff Creek, as told to you in a thirdhand(?) conversation. I don't believe the display images were filmed at Bluff Creek. My opinion, that is not fact either, just my opinion.

What I'm sayin' is I trust Bob's account of the encounter, from firsthand conversations with him.

With regard to you findin' the second reel, interestin'. I can't recall how many frames you said were used in a foot of film, but was wonderin' if 15 feet would be enough. I recall John Green sayin' the second roll contained images of them walkin' along the tracks, thier footprints sinkin' nowhere similar to the depths of the sasquatchs. I figured there'd be more than 15 feet to second reel.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Roguefooter wrote:

I thought that sounded a little strange, when I read kit's post also, rogue. If he had seen that footage on the 2nd reel, himself.....then that would be THE reason why we would know it's there.

One other thing...kit says the '2nd reel Film' is 15-feet, in length....and contains all 3 of those footages. But, a complete Reel of 16MM Kodachrome Movie Film is 100-feet, in length.

So...it seems rather unlikely, to me, that a 15-foot long strip of film would contain all three sequences of footage...un-cut, and un-spliced.

The second reel contains no further footage than what is supposed to have been the footage shot after encountering Patty and before leaving to mail it.

I'll wait to see the documentary...and the entire 2nd reel footage, before I accept, as fact...that it shows the 'cast pour' footage.

I expect nothing less from anyone. Would you expect anyone to accept Patty's mouth moves without shoing the best evidence for it?

But...if you have found the actual '2nd reel', kit...then...congrats! That is a good find!

I've done far more than just find it. There is a reason Parn's avatar looks the way it does. When what I have done comes out, yourself, Bill, and any other hardcore believer of the film is going to be completely flabberghasted with a fair bit of group-dynamic intransigent believer appallment thrown in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Do you have a smoking gun? Or just an assembled collection of questionable details? I'm being sincere when I ask this by the way. Because your decision to hold back evidence without being subject to prior scrutiny will either make or break your documentary in a big way.

Yes, I do. It has nothing to do with hearsay or contradictions of any kind. It's not a subjective interpetation of which print I think is which, or if a boot is wet, it's just done. What that is will be shown in a documentary. I won't show even a single glimpse of it because it is not the only thing I am bringing forward as proof. There are other massive things and above anything else, I have to deal with legal issues and the extreme behaviour of fanatical believers. There is just no way that I will show anything publicly until everything I need for myself and for my project is complete. There are a small handful of people assisting my efforts. Until the time has come where the obstacles to showing the PGF a hoax are removed, they will be the only people who have any idea what I have been doing with this project. An Internet forum is the last place on Earth I would show any of it. I would in fact have to be soaringly stupid to do such a thing for the sake of sating the curiosity of intransigent believers. I will enjoy the fruits of a long labour. The following is as much detailas I am ever going to give on the subject.

Proof of the PGF hoax is not a hypothetical. My finding it has involved equal parts luck, effort, and willingness to stick to the source and be Axel Foley about it. The proof of that hoax is not one thing, it is three. They are...

1) The suit. It exists. It was not destroyed. The reason it still exists is more vanity and pride than anything else.

2) The confessions. These exist as well. The confession comes actually in three to four parts. Four if I can make cooperation happen, three if I don't. All of them the sources of the PGF.

3) Proof of the hoax on the film itself, specifically the second reel. The first and second reel both exist fully intact and the person who had it hated the subject of Bigfoot, hated bigfooters, and wanted nothing to do with them. This in the end was to my greatest advantage.

What exactly I have found and what I have done and what I am doing now remain the subject of a documentary. This journey I've been through deserves at least that much. I will do no less and shoot neither of my feet with Internet forums. Internet forums are the very essence of disposable information, here today, gone tomorrow. You are completely welcome to instead of just wait for me to finish my work, go to Yakima and show Gimlin all three of the second reel scenes I have posted. He will tell you they are all Bluff Creek. When he elaborates you will be forced to call him on it. He will do some very fine dancing right before your eyes.

Actually, Rogue, I hope you more than any believer here will do this. You seem to me by far the most competent and the one who would not hide the result. If you are interested in actually doing this for real and at a fixed date, I can assist you in doing so. I can even meet you in Yakima while I am doing my own work and filming there. Just PM me if you're interested. When it comes to proof of the PGF hoax, I am always interested in believer confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

The second reel is 15 feet and shows their actions on what is supposed to be that same single day after filming Patty.

And...kitakaze wrote:

The first and second reel both exist fully intact...

Interesting....did they sell Rolls of Kodachrome Film only 15 feet, in length?? What was that....the 'Fun Size' Reel?? :)

F352F364MMAG3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

A 15ft reel?

Sounds like a "gotcha" moment to me Sweaty.

One wonders why, with this 'proof' hanging around, this "documentary" doesn't get finished and is put aside so post after post every day and every night can be written and presented......................on a message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It could be, Kerchak... :) ....we'll see how kit can 'square' those conflicting claims.

It also seems odd, to me, that with all these 'killer finds'....why is kit only working with "a few people", on this documentary??

Wouldn't having confessions...and THE SUIT....be enough to have taken it to a major production company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...