Patterson film: Credit where credit is due [Archive]

View Full Version : Patterson film: Credit where credit is due

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

briandunning

16th November 2006, 10:47 AM

I hear a lot people say that "it's the worst fake they've ever seen" and "you can easily see the seams in the suit". I've gone through it frame by frame and concluded the opposite: that if it's a fake, and let's assume it is, it's brilliant, and decades ahead of Hollywood. I'm amazed at the realism, close up, frame by frame, everything from the moving leg muscles to the silverback fur coloration.

Keep in mind that Hollywood's state of the art, at the time, was Planet of the Apes and the Galileo Seven episode of Star Trek.

Do you guys REALLY believe that it's badly done?

Diogenes

16th November 2006, 11:03 AM

You have got to be kidding !

A clear case of the ' Emperor's New Clothes ' ...

It looks like it is about to fall apart..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

Monkey suits in movies ( pre computer ) were not made with
convincing the audience they were real . They were place holders
in the script, not an attempt to fool the audience.. Why waste
time and money to that end ?

I have allowed many times in my discussions at BFF, that a real
Bigfoot may very well look like a crappy costume .. I have seen
other animals that look like bad suits to me...

This suit's butt, while very similar, looks better made to me..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/buttcomp.gif

Huntster

16th November 2006, 11:52 AM

I hear a lot people say that "it's the worst fake they've ever seen" and "you can easily see the seams in the suit". I've gone through it frame by frame and concluded the opposite: that if it's a fake, and let's assume it is, it's brilliant, and decades ahead of Hollywood. I'm amazed at the realism, close up, frame by frame, everything from the moving leg muscles to the silverback fur coloration.......

Do you guys REALLY believe that it's badly done?

I'm in complete agreement with you.

Mad Hom

16th November 2006, 12:24 PM

I'm in complete agreement with you.

Of course you are Fudd.......and what of EVERY single suit...errr......Bigfeetsus filmed since........do they also look as real? Why hasn't one that looked as real (allegedly) been filmed since? Hmmm? I mean it's been 40 years or so.

It's funny....Bigfeet Fan has decided that the PGF is the gold standard...which has locked them into a descriptive corner. Every Hair Biped filmed since hasn't looked a thing like the PGF so they have been dubbed....not as good.

My opinion.....If you work hard enough to convince yourself that something is real....you come to believe it...even in the face of common sense.

LTC8K6

16th November 2006, 12:55 PM

Huntster

16th November 2006, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm in complete agreement with you.
Of course you are Fudd.......and what of EVERY single suit...errr......Bigfeetsus filmed since........do they also look as real?

Nope. Not even close.

Why hasn't one that looked as real (allegedly) been filmed since? Hmmm? I mean it's been 40 years or so.

That's a good question, and one I've asked skeptics many times.

I suspect it's because it's the only authentic moving picture of a real, live sasquatch that I've seen, but of course, that answer isn't accepted by folks like yourself.

As far as why there aren't more authentic films? I've opined more times than I can possibly remember that it may be because these creatures are exceedingly rare, but again, skeptics don't like that answer, either.

In fact, they don't like any possible answers I offer.

My opinion.....If you work hard enough to convince yourself that something is real....you come to believe it...even in the face of common sense.

If that opinion is accurate, it's converse will also be true.

bjb

16th November 2006, 01:58 PM

Close up?

Where?

There are no close up shots in the PGF, just wildly blown up and enhanced stills.

The PGF you have seen is almost certainly not the original, but the enlarged copy.

Few people have ever seen the original PGF.

No one has apparently seen the original uncut roll of film in it's entirety.

It was edited before it was ever shown.

Maybe the original film wasn't blurry enough? Maybe it shows the creature a little too clearly? Without a thorough examination of the original film, it is not a good idea to put too much faith it it. After all, the film does exist and such an examination is possible. What are the film's owners afraid of?

Gravy

16th November 2006, 02:11 PM

Brilliant?
Decades ahead of Hollywood?
Are you basing your opinion on the same blurry, grainy copies of film that we've all seen? If so, can you describe specifically what about the suit is brilliant and why you don't think Hollywood costume designers and SFX people could have made something as good in a few days?

Huntster

16th November 2006, 04:22 PM

...can you describe specifically what about the suit is brilliant and why you don't think Hollywood costume designers and SFX people could have made something as good in a few days?

Because they didn't?

This was, timewise, simultaneous to the original "Planet of the Apes" movie. In terms of muscular definition, and movement there really isn't any comparison.

And Patterson/Gimlin weren't Hollywood costume designers or SFX personnel.

case sensitive

16th November 2006, 04:30 PM

"The planet of the apes" wasn't shot by a really bad camera from a long distance. The apes wore clothes. If P/G Bigfoot was starring in the movie it would look horrible by comparison.

Yeah_Right

16th November 2006, 06:19 PM

Just my opinion, but the PG film looks faker each time I see it. I really cannot believe anyone would take it seriously.

Brainache

17th November 2006, 01:23 AM

Correa Neto

17th November 2006, 05:03 AM

Some comments, made before by other posters but worthy of being repeated:

The comparsion between "Planet of the Apes" and PGF, so commonly made by footers is flawed because:

1. PoA "apes" were not intended to represent "real" apes. PoA apes were a metaphor, "humanized" apes, with human bodies. Other than making the actors walk a bit curved, there was no effort to recreate an "ape body". They used clothes!!!! Is Patty wearing any clothes? PoA focused on facial prosthetics that allowed the actors to express emotions. Pretty common issue nowdays, but a major breakthrough by then. So, let's repeat one more time to keep it clear for some- PoA "apes" were Hollywood state-of-the-art only when it comes to facial prosthetics.

2. Want to make a comparsion between Hollywood apes and Patty, check the "Africa Screams" gorilla (very similar to Patty and its from the 40s!), the 2001 hominids (despite the shaggy hair), and Star Trek's Mugato (yes, Star Trek the original series was a low-budget TV show, despite what some footers claim). Wanna see "compiant gaits" and some Patty-like footage? Check those films, and check also the "classic" Japanese B-movies (Kaiju movies, if you preffer) "Godzilla X King Kong" and "King King Escapes". Plenty of Patties there, specially when the camera is slightly out-of focus.

3. At last but not least, PoA and "Africa Screams", as well the other movies had long sequences with steady camera movments, razor sharp focus and close-ups. All of these allow the viewers to nitpick flaws in the costumes. And PGF... How long it is? The camera is steady? The focus is perfect? The subject was filmed from up close?

Sorry, but if you want to present evidence for bigfoot, you'll have to do better than this.

Diogenes

17th November 2006, 07:31 AM

Tricky

17th November 2006, 08:54 AM

Okay, I'll concede that it is better than The Blair Witch Project. Not better than Harry and the Hendersons though.

Huntster

17th November 2006, 09:19 AM

luchog

17th November 2006, 11:27 AM

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!

The consensus from those who actually work in the film industry doing those sorts of special effects is that it is definitely a hoax, and highly likely that Patterson bought or rented a second-hand suit from one of the pre-eminent "monster makeup" men, John Chambers. There's a strong indication that it was put together with bits from a lot of his previous work. If it was Chambers, it wouldn't be the first bigfoot hoax he was involved in. His involvement in one other is well documented, and there is a strong likelihood that he was also involved in a third, the "Minnesota Iceman".

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It's pretty clear from even the crappy out-of-focus grainy clip that it's a suit. It simply doesn't move like any animal or hominid, half the musculature, in particular the gluteals, does not move at all. Watch a bunch of large humans walk around, then go to the zoo and watch a bunch of apes walk around. It's clear that this cannot possibly be anything but a fake, and not even a good one at that.

Edited to add:
According to director John Landis and Chambers biographer Scott Essman, Chambers did definitely create the "Patty" suit.

http://www.strangemag.com/landischambers.html

Huntster

17th November 2006, 03:24 PM

The consensus from those who actually work in the film industry doing those sorts of special effects is that it is definitely a hoax, and highly likely that Patterson bought or rented a second-hand suit from one of the pre-eminent "monster makeup" men, John Chambers.

Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.

So, in effect, a collared liar attempted to get us to believe he knew Patterson was a liar.

We were all so impressed.....................

Wowbagger

17th November 2006, 03:56 PM

The problem with examining the footage by individual frames, is that you miss out on all the fakery that can be detected in the movement.

A single frame of animation might looks quite nice, but if it was from a bad or lazy team of animators, the motion won't be very fluid, and you'll constantly know you are watching a cartoon.

I reiterate that you should watch the un-shaky version Diogenes provided the link for: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
(Of course, even at the frame-by-frame the fakery can still be detected, somewhat, as Diogenes also pointed out.)

Huntster

17th November 2006, 03:58 PM

The problem with examining the footage by individual frames, is that you miss out on all the fakery that can be detected in the movement....

And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.

Wowbagger

17th November 2006, 04:14 PM

And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.
What muscle movements are you referring to? The suit looks rather flabby to me. There is no muscle definition, at all, in those arms or legs, or anything.

And, just because there are features "no other bigfoot footage shows", does not mean it is not fake. It could just as easily imply it was a costume design unique to what other people put together.

Steven Howard

17th November 2006, 04:18 PM

What muscle movements are you referring to? The suit looks rather flabby to me. There is no muscle definition, at all, in those arms or legs, or anything.

Yeah, no kidding. As far as I can tell, the butt doesn't move at all.

Here's a video that shows muscle movement in a large primate:

http://www.fotosearch.com/FIL143/bw0115/

Look how his arms and shoulders move, and compare that to the thighs and hips in the Patterson clip.

Huntster

17th November 2006, 05:29 PM

....I reiterate that you should watch the un-shaky version Diogenes provided the link for: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
(Of course, even at the frame-by-frame the fakery can still be detected, somewhat, as Diogenes also pointed out.)

I've seen it many times. A fellow who particpates at BFF stabilized the film.

Instead of detecting fakery, I saw features that made the film more impressive.

Huntster

17th November 2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.
What muscle movements are you referring to?

In particular, when she turns to look at the men while still walking and steps down into a depression, her muscles in her thigh and buttock. There are also a couple of times when her tricep tightens.

....There is no muscle definition, at all, in those arms or legs, or anything.

When I get to another computer, I'll forward a link to the particular part that I'm mentioning.

And, just because there are features "no other bigfoot footage shows", does not mean it is not fake. It could just as easily imply it was a costume design unique to what other people put together.

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

Steven Howard

17th November 2006, 05:38 PM

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

Really?

4117

switchtech

17th November 2006, 06:30 PM

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

You answer your own question, nobody mentions 2001 because they apparently thing the critters at the beginning of the movie are real apes!

I've seen it many times. A fellow who particpates at BFF stabilized the film.

Instead of detecting fakery, I saw features that made the film more impressive.

Apparently I've never seen the same version of the film. Every time I watch the video available, it is obvious the musculature in the creature is not moving - like a real creature or otherwise. The muscles in the rump don't flex, I don't see any of the things that cry out "authentic" to me.

In particular, when she turns to look at the men while still walking and steps down into a depression, her muscles in her thigh and buttock. There are also a couple of times when her tricep tightens.

When I get to another computer, I'll forward a link to the particular part that I'm mentioning.

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

In all the video I've seen there is no flexing of the triceps - also, the gait looks entirely human to me, especially a human wearing a heavy suit.

Of course, I don't claim expertise at any of these observations other than decades of seeing humans walking about, but I see nothing convincing me that isn't a person wearing a bulky suit.

jbs

Mad Hom

17th November 2006, 08:04 PM

In particular, when she turns to look at the men while still walking and steps down into a depression, her muscles in her thigh and buttock. There are also a couple of times when her tricep tightens.

When I get to another computer, I'll forward a link to the particular part that I'm mentioning.

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

I echo the sentiments of many in this thread...."Patty" looks to be walking in about as human a way as possible....scream "Compliant Gait" from the rooftops if you wish....nothing changes my opinion that that thing walks just like a person...wearing a furry suit.

This link you speak of is probably something from Bigfeetsus:The Legend meets Editing right?

Anything that has been tampered with after the fact is worthless. You say these people just cleaned it up...but we have no way of knowing that that's all they did.

The only worthwhile version of the PGF is the original...which if memory serves....conveniently is no longer in existence....all we have is piss poor 10th generation copies and doctored up director's cut versions you and the rest of Bigfoot Nation would have us believe haven't been tampered with...so spare me the stabilized footage take.

I'm curious Fudster,has it ever entered that mangled pipe cleaner you call a brain stem that you see all this muscle movement basically because you really WANT to see it....not necessarily because it's .....actually there??

Starthinker

17th November 2006, 10:23 PM

Brainache

17th November 2006, 10:35 PM

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!

No, if Kubrick had've built Pattie she wouldn't look so fake.

Just because some Disney exec in the sixties thought it was beyond current special effects technology doesn't make it so.

2001 was cutting edge sixties special effects and those ape suits are far more convincing than the Patterson Gimlin film.

It's kind of a shame because I wanted to think BF was out there and my childhood memory of the PGF was so much more convincing than the adult reality of seeing it again after so many years.

I suppose there is still room for some tiny speck of doubt, but not much.

Oroborus

18th November 2006, 01:26 AM

Mad Hom

18th November 2006, 10:50 AM

Will this thread make it to 114 pages?

Remember the guy, I can't recall who, who cropped Patty out and put her in a street scene with some photo program and asked for a critique of "his" suit on a bigfoot forum and everyone said it was so fake then someone pointed out it was Patty and everyone ranted and ranted about how they weren't really fooled and knew it was Patty all along and made excuses about why they were/weren't fooled?

I think for now the whole Patty debate had deteriorated into the old playground argument of "yes it is" "no it isn't" over and over until someone runs out of breath.

Yes I recall it was Dfoot who perpetrated said act...and as I recall...Fudster damn near had a litter of puppies over the whole thing. I mean he absolutely lost it if memory serves. I of course thought it was a hoot...but than again I find great pleasure in Bigfoot Fan making an ass of him or herself so what can I say.

Whatever happened to Dfoot anyway?

Mad Hom

18th November 2006, 11:29 AM

Okay I agree that it really just looks like someone in a suite walking. The gait doesn't really scream confident predator to me. I also agree that any footage is pretty much rendered void by the fact the original doesn't exist.

On another note that none of you have touched on. Nevermind how it looks or moves, look at how it acts. Have you ever seen an animal be it a stronger predator or something you'd consider prey just look at you and not even react? Especially in a situation where you've apparently suprised it?

It doesn't quicken it's pace, it doesn't look suprised, it doesn't stop or react at all. Think about it, even for a human if you saw a deer or anything else in the woods you would get a reaction other than turning your head for half a second in a calm manner.

It reacts like a man who is told to look at the camera at a certain time. That and everything else make it call it a fake.

Couldn't agree with you more Oroborus my friend Patty schleps across the creek bed EXACTLY like a man in a suit. Of course Bigfoot Apologist would have you believe it uses something they like to call a "Compliant Gait" or sort of a Groucho Marx walk....which I don't buy for a second. If Patty does in fact use this "Compliant Gait" it's incredibly subtle but than again Bigfoot Fan just loves "subtle" when it comes to evidence.

Look real close at this hole in the mud and you'll see a sasquatch arse.Look real hard at the PGF and you'll see a thigh hernia.Pay really close attention and you'll see the compliant gait...blah blah blah ad nauseum.

At first,second and 117th glance this alleged "Bigfoot" looks exactly like a gibroney in a silly suit to me. Couple this with all the timeline problems,differences in story between Patterson and Gimlin, the loss of an alleged second roll of film showing the trackway,and the fact that Roger Patterson was a less than scrupulous human being among many other things and you have what easily amounts to a hoax in my mind.

Bigfoot Fan has never satisfactorily explained away all of these problems as a whole....they almost exclusively tackle each one individually as if each problem with their Holy Grail exists in a vacuum. I for one would enjoy hearing them explain away the fact that...

This film that looks for all intents and purposes like a guy in a suit was filmed by an underhanded guy who stole a camera,who straight up said he was going to film a Bigfeetsus on that trip,whose story does not match up well with his cohort,who somehow lost a second roll of film that had important corroborating feetprints on it,who apparently told people he was making fake feetprints and rented a silly suit for a "documentary" among many other problems.

When Bigfoot Nation can explain away ALL of this combined than and only than will I begin to take them and their pet obsession seriously.

senorpogo

18th November 2006, 11:47 AM

It doesn't quicken it's pace, it doesn't look suprised, it doesn't stop or react at all. Think about it, even for a human if you saw a deer or anything else in the woods you would get a reaction other than turning your head for half a second in a calm manner.

Yeah, the perfect look into the camera always makes me wonder. Obviously, that doesn't disprove anything, but I does make one question. Also, if memory serves me, I think Patterson made Gimlin agree before hand that if they did see anything they wouldn't shoot it. Which makes my BS-sense tingle a bit.

To me, the PGF is worthless. Debunking it is futile because believers consider it true and beyond criticism, yet it will never be enough to convince the skeptic. I don't think any video footage ever will be enough.

Mad Hom

18th November 2006, 05:52 PM

Yeah, the perfect look into the camera always makes me wonder. Obviously, that doesn't disprove anything, but I does make one question. Also, if memory serves me, I think Patterson made Gimlin agree before hand that if they did see anything they wouldn't shoot it. Which makes my BS-sense tingle a bit.

To me, the PGF is worthless. Debunking it is futile because believers consider it true and beyond criticism, yet it will never be enough to convince the skeptic. I don't think any video footage ever will be enough.

I'd accept some decent film of one if it depicted something that looked,moved and acted like an actual animal...not a schlep in a suit.

Oroborus

18th November 2006, 05:54 PM

I'd accept some decent film of one if it depicted something that looked,moved and acted like an actual animal...not a schlep in a suit.

Ditto.

William Parcher

18th November 2006, 11:18 PM

Mad Hom

19th November 2006, 02:32 AM

The things about "Patty's" behavior that strike skeptics as being unrealistic are frequently pointed out by believers as being supporting evidence of authenticity.

Bigfoot doesn't act fearful, because Bigfoot knows it can kick your ass at any given moment. Don't you skeptics get it? When you film the reigning King-of-the-Forest, it is supposed to act like a sauntering swaggering King. Duh!

Lions,Tigers and even Bears would all react to a person running after them with a camera...with either fight or flight....they wouldn't just calmly stroll away.

If Patty would have started to book across the creek bed at a breakneck...I might be a little less skeptical of it...or if she picked up a log and beat Roge to death with it or whatever...but the stroll appears....staged.

I can't for the life of me understand what Bigfoot Fan see's that we the silly skeptics don't. I mean I've even stared at their Bigfeetsus:When the Bullshyt meets Editing Directors Cut version..........and I still think it's a gibroney in a suit.

What's wrong with me?

Wowbagger

19th November 2006, 10:44 AM

I would like to add here, that if you are going to try to find muscle definition in the Patterson film, you must look really hard for it. (And, what you often find can also equally be explained as just a fold in the ape suit.) Whereas, in real footage of real apes, the muscle definition is readily apparent.

William Parcher

19th November 2006, 11:03 AM

Armi Shanks

19th November 2006, 11:18 AM

Um....sorry to interject....has any comment been made about the sheen on Patty's 'fur'? Considering this 'creature' supposedly lives rummaging around in the undergrowth, I'd love to know what shampoo it uses.....it's got a lovely gloss on it. Either that or......shock, horror.....it's nothing more than cheap, shiny, synthetic fibre.

Mad Hom

19th November 2006, 01:38 PM

There's nothing really wrong with you MH (though you are aggressive and insulting towards the believers).

The problem is that the debate about Bigfoot is an open forum where anything goes. The believers will explain away any weirdness that might suggest that some bit of evidence is false or hoaxed. Ultimately, the belief in Bigfoot forces them to have to do that sort of thing all the time.

You can even find a species of believer that thinks the PGF is 100% fake, but also thinks that Bigfoot is 100% real.

They will give you a variety of explanations about why Patty didn't bolt. Notice that she also doesn't choose the most direct escape route by entering the forest at her first opportunity. She walks across the scene and remains in view far longer than was necessary to get out of sight. She chose her own path, and so it does beg these questions. All of the explanations are designed to appeal to reason when you assume it's a real Bigfoot. Patty is a Bigfoot and she does what she does. The believers generally translate her behavior as being a confident and brisk retreat. She didn't run because she didn't feel the need to run.

Aggressive and insulting?? Hey....listen buddy.... I resemble that remark.

...and I make absolutely no apologies for my style either. Fight fire with fire I always say.Bigfoot Nation(Fudster,LAL..etc etc) comes across as snide and holier than thou to me,they act as if theyre in on some super secret discovery that only they are smart enough to understand and we the lowly skeptics of earth are somehow too ignorant to see what they see.

To me all is fair.....I chose my handle "Mad Hom" as sort of a subtle hint at what one could expect from me. I find very little wrong with a few Ad Hominem attacks once and awhile...you know for entertainment sakes..although I don't believe I've ever said..

You're stupid because you believe in Bigfeetsus....or...If you weren't so dumb you'd understand it's a hoax.

Sometimes I am to aggressive...but what can I say....the logic these people use sometimes astounds me...and I can't help but let fly with some insults...my apologies....also most of my messageboard experience is from Sports forums and stuff where insults and digs are the rule of the day...I'll work on it.

The problem is that the debate about Bigfoot is an open forum where anything goes. The believers will explain away any weirdness that might suggest that some bit of evidence is false or hoaxed.Ultimately, the belief in Bigfoot forces them to have to do that sort of thing all the time.

Truer words have never been spoken William.

Yeah those people who buy into Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size yet don't buy into the PGF...what a strange breed they are. To me without the PGF Bigfoot Fan has absolutely bupkis....that's why it's defended so vehemently.

I mean these anti-PGF Tru-Bleevers what are they basing their Bleef on? The arse cast? Spooky stories? The fact that they think they saw a H.B.U.S? What?

luchog

19th November 2006, 02:25 PM

And, just because there are features "no other bigfoot footage shows", does not mean it is not fake. It could just as easily imply it was a costume design unique to what other people put together.
If you read the link in my post, which Huntster clearly avoided doing, it's most likely that the suit was put together from parts of two or three other suits created for various television shows and movies.

And I agree entirely that the musculature and movement looks entirely wrong. That's also the consensus of pretty much every biologist that works closely with primates. If you watch closely, there's no gluteal movement at all.

luchog

19th November 2006, 02:33 PM

Just because some Disney exec in the sixties thought it was beyond current special effects technology doesn't make it so.
The only reason that the Disney quote is still used is that it's the only example of someone from the industry supporting the Patterson film, albeit indirectly, rather than debunking it outright.

What is important to realize is that Disney at the time was not involved much in "creature" effects. They were fairly exclusively animation; and what few creature effects they did have tended to be rather crude by the standards of the day.

luchog

19th November 2006, 02:39 PM

Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.

Interesting reaction, since the articles I linked to had nothing whatsoever with Dfoot or the BFF. But I didn't really expect you to read them, since woos in general will do anything to avoid confronting contrary evidence.

Mad Hom

19th November 2006, 03:05 PM

Interesting reaction, since the articles I linked to had nothing whatsoever with Dfoot or the BFF. But I didn't really expect you to read them, since woos in general will do anything to avoid confronting contrary evidence.

In Fudsters quote he references a "Dfoot attempted hoax" that's an interesting take on what in my mind was Dfoot merely testing Bigfoot Fan to see if he/she could tell the difference between a hoax and the real deal (allegedly)...so he used Patty herself...big deal...I don't see why Fudds water broke over the whole thing.

William Parcher

19th November 2006, 03:33 PM

If you read the link in my post, which Huntster clearly avoided doing, it's most likely that the suit was put together from parts of two or three other suits created for various television shows and movies.

The only reason that the Disney quote is still used is that it's the only example of someone from the industry supporting the Patterson film, albeit indirectly, rather than debunking it outright.

Never mind... "putting together a suit made from various TV costumes". Patterson was fully capable of customizing anything he got his hands on. He may have only needed one standard costume to create his own unique Bigfoot. The saggital crest and breasts had already been described as a Bigfoot feature before Patterson made his Bigfoot costume. He applied both.

It's hardly ever mentioned that National Geographic was given a premier viewing of the actual film (which could have been already edited). After a single viewing, National Geographic rejected the film. No reason is given for their refusal, but it is probably safe to say that they immediately recognized it as a guy in a costume. As it is, the best digital reproductions of the film are also the ones that scream out to hoaxery. The costume flaws reveal themselves best when the film is shown closest to the original.

It's no accident that the PGF Conspiracy Cartel will not share the original source evidence with a potentially skeptical audience. We haven't been given the opportunity to examine the film as it came out of Roger Patterson's camera. We aren't even granted the chance to look at the best copies that exist. These are given to "Bigfoot researchers" who parse them out in confirmatory carnival acts like the "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" pseudodocumentary. The audience is given a treatment of the subject that is fully marinated in confirmation bias. Do you think that Bigfoot exists? Well... these things are designed to shove you in that direction.

William Parcher

19th November 2006, 03:41 PM

Dfoot came awfully close to replicating Patty. Scared the poop out of the believers. When they start hurling shrill screams you know that somebody is getting too close to their fantasy. He also made a 180 degree turn on his belief in the PGF while he was posting on BFF, which pissed a bunch of the PGF sycophants off. Dfoot forgot that Gimlin is a saint who has not and does not tell lies :)

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

RayG

19th November 2006, 04:31 PM

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics.

Of course you have evidence of this? I'm pretty skeptical, and I've never been banned from there, nor have other resident skeptics over there. Which ones do you mean?

The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.I was actually a member of JREF long before I was a member of the BFF, but I've been following the bigfoot mystery for 30 years or more, and, for what it's worth, the BFF is still an excellent, though sometimes frustrating place, to talk about bigfoot. This kinda sums up my 30 year bigfoot journey:

In the beginning I accepted anything and everything about bigfoot. I voraciously read anything pertaining to bigfoot I could get my hands on. I even dropped in on my bigfoot hero John Green one weekend in 1981, while I was on a military course. He was very gracious, and a helluva interesting guy to talk to. I ended up creating a webpage based on his book, and he gave me full authorization to go ahead with it. As the years went by however, I began to truly question the lack of conclusive evidence for this elusive creature, and in turn, began to question the very reports I had earlier accepted as fact. Where the bigfoot door used to be wide open, for me, it has now almost completely closed. There has been no credible evidence come forward in the past 30-40 years, and my faith that bigfoot exists has all but evaporated. Yes, I still cling to the possibility, so the door will never be closed completely, but I'm not expecting it to burst open again during my lifetime either.

If that makes me 'goofy', so be it.

RayG

Mad Hom

19th November 2006, 04:33 PM

Mad Hom

19th November 2006, 04:45 PM

Of course you have evidence of this? I'm pretty skeptical, and I've never been banned from there, nor have other resident skeptics over there. Which ones do you mean?

I was actually a member of JREF long before I was a member of the BFF, but I've been following the bigfoot mystery for 30 years or more, and, for what it's worth, the BFF is still an excellent, though sometimes frustrating place, to talk about bigfoot. This kinda sums up my 30 year bigfoot journey:

In the beginning I accepted anything and everything about bigfoot. I voraciously read anything pertaining to bigfoot I could get my hands on. I even dropped in on my bigfoot hero John Green one weekend in 1981, while I was on a military course. He was very gracious, and a helluva interesting guy to talk to. I ended up creating a webpage based on his book, and he gave me full authorization to go ahead with it. As the years went by however, I began to truly question the lack of conclusive evidence for this elusive creature, and in turn, began to question the very reports I had earlier accepted as fact. Where the bigfoot door used to be wide open, for me, it has now almost completely closed. There has been no credible evidence come forward in the past 30-40 years, and my faith that bigfoot exists has all but evaporated. Yes, I still cling to the possibility, so the door will never be closed completely, but I'm not expecting it to burst open again during my lifetime either.

If that makes me 'goofy', so be it.

RayG

I too was once a Hook In Mouth Tru Bleever as well...than...and LAL might find the irony here amusing...I read Krantz.

So much of Big Footprints seems like conjecture and rampant speculation to me that it caused me to look into it deeper....and that research is pretty much what caused me to totally turn to the dark side (skepticism)..and here we are.

William Parcher

19th November 2006, 05:12 PM

Of course you have evidence of this? I'm pretty skeptical, and I've never been banned from there, nor have other resident skeptics over there. Which ones do you mean?

Look closely at the BFF "rise and fall" of Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head & Dfoot. You could add DesertYeti and Tube to that, I suppose. Banned? Well, probably not all... but BFF has a special way of moderator filtering of the posts of special people that is really the equivalent of a ban.

If that makes me 'goofy', so be it.

Ray, you are a goofy Bigfoot skeptic that loves playing around with the goofy believers.

RayG

19th November 2006, 05:45 PM

Look closely at the BFF "rise and fall" of Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head & Dfoot. You could add DesertYeti and Tube to that, I suppose. Banned? Well, probably not all... but BFF has a special way of moderator filtering of the posts of special people that is really the equivalent of a ban.

Just listed all the 'banned' members over at the BFF and none of the names you mention are on the list. While Dfoot has been shunned for his attempted 'hoax', I see no evidence he's been banned. DYI and Tube seem to have grown tired of the lack of evidence, and decided to migrate elsewhere, but again, I see no evidence that either was banned. Coltrane and BEH don't seem to be active anymore, but they aren't on the banned list, so I'm assuming it's their choice not to participate anymore.

There are quite a few people over there that are very skeptical of the evidence presented. I don't think any of them need fear they'll be banned.

Could it be your claim is in error? :D

Ray, you are a goofy Bigfoot skeptic that loves playing around with the goofy believers.Nah, that door is still open a crack, I just prefer claims be supported by facts. I think my tag line over there sums up my attitude quite nicely:

'Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.'

RayG

William Parcher

19th November 2006, 05:49 PM

Yeah I did a search over at the Bigfoot Think Tank many moons ago and recall quite a few posts by Dfoot where he's pretty much sounding like an apologist for the cause...than suddenly and abruptly he came to his senses.

Dfoot started out thinking that Bob Gimlin was telling the truth; then he switched to Gimlin being an active liar to this day.

Bob Heironimus is claiming to be the guy in the costume. He was used by P&G in their Bigfoot documentary and so was fully familiar with P&G as personal aquaintances.

Mad Hom, did you know that Bob Heironimus lives very close on the same street that Bob Gimlin lives on in Yakima, Washington?

Yes. Bob Heironimus said that he was the guy in the costume and that both Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the costume prior to filming him on that sandbar at Bluff Creek. BH was so bold in his declaration of being the PGF costume guy, that he did so even while Gimlin is still alive and able to counter the claim.

Skeptics beg for the original film to try to understand things. I agree. But I would also really truly love to see a live debate between Gimlin and Heironimus. Why? Because I think the PGF is a fake and that Heironumus really was the guy in the Bigfoot costume... and that Gimlin really did help him get into the suit before Patterson filmed him striding alongside Bluff Creek.

Mad Hom

20th November 2006, 08:36 AM

Dfoot started out thinking that Bob Gimlin was telling the truth; then he switched to Gimlin being an active liar to this day.

Bob Heironimus is claiming to be the guy in the costume. He was used by P&G in their Bigfoot documentary and so was fully familiar with P&G as personal aquaintances.

Mad Hom, did you know that Bob Heironimus lives very close on the same street that Bob Gimlin lives on in Yakima, Washington?

Yes. Bob Heironimus said that he was the guy in the costume and that both Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the costume prior to filming him on that sandbar at Bluff Creek. BH was so bold in his declaration of being the PGF costume guy, that he did so even while Gimlin is still alive and able to counter the claim.

Skeptics beg for the original film to try to understand things. I agree. But I would also really truly love to see a live debate between Gimlin and Heironimus. Why? Because I think the PGF is a fake and that Heironumus really was the guy in the Bigfoot costume... and that Gimlin really did help him get into the suit before Patterson filmed him striding alongside Bluff Creek.

Yes Bob H lives on the same street as Bob G...that's in Long's book correct? I've read it...and I to believe Bob H was in the suit....imagine what it must be like when they bump into each other at the grocery store huh? Probably pretty dicey I'd guess.

Yes I think a face to face debate between the Bobs would be Must See TV...or Must Hear Radio...or whichever. Gimlin doesn't stand to gain much from it though.......so I'd guess he'll probably take the hoax to his deathbed.

I also firmly believe that if Gimlin did admit to the fakery....Bigfoot Fan would keep on believing.. this thing is in their blood now....they still have the butt cast...and Bossburg...and dermal ridges...oh and spooky stories...and feetprintsus casts and...well...lot's of other stuff to...you know.

luchog

20th November 2006, 12:27 PM

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

I think the only reason that I never got banned is that I never posted, strictly a lurker.

luchog

20th November 2006, 12:46 PM

I too was once a Hook In Mouth Tru Bleever as well...than...and LAL might find the irony here amusing...I read Krantz.

So much of Big Footprints seems like conjecture and rampant speculation to me that it caused me to look into it deeper....and that research is pretty much what caused me to totally turn to the dark side (skepticism)..and here we are.

I was never a True Believer, but leaned heavily in favour of believing in the existence of Sasquatch and other cryptozoological phenomenon (I was a huge believer in Nessie and the "surviving plesiosaur" theory").

However, I do fully support the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/).

senorpogo

20th November 2006, 01:36 PM

I'd accept some decent film of one if it depicted something that looked,moved and acted like an actual animal...not a schlep in a suit.

With so many hoaxers and so much to gain, I'd be suspicious of just about any video. We're in the age of computers and photoshop.

Also, I don't think it's too much to ask for some solid, indisputable physical proof - like a decaying bigfoot carcass.

William Parcher

20th November 2006, 02:32 PM

With so many hoaxers and so much to gain, I'd be suspicious of just about any video. We're in the age of computers and photoshop.

Also, I don't think it's too much to ask for some solid, indisputable physical proof - like a decaying bigfoot carcass.

A good video of a Bigfoot doing Bigfoot things could not be faked. Even state-of-the-art CGI mastery cannot duplicate fluid natural animal movement. The closest I've seen is Jackson's Gollum & King Kong. But both fall apart when critically examined because they really aren't filmed living animals interacting with other animals.

How about an in-focus 15 minute home video of a Bigfoot killing a deer, pulling out and eating it's steaming liver, then charging directly at the cameraman who presents the whole thing from a hospital bed with broken limbs and strange large primate (like a gorilla) bite marks on his body?

That would kick things up a notch, eh?

senorpogo

20th November 2006, 02:49 PM

A good video of a Bigfoot doing Bigfoot things could not be faked. Even state-of-the-art CGI mastery cannot duplicate fluid natural animal movement.

Agreed. There's only so much you can do with CGI and computers. So I guess I could imagine a video that could be hoax proof. Still, I think someone with the money, the proper "real world" supplies, the computer skills, and the know how could produce a very convincing hoax video.

So unless it's that perfect, hoax proof video, I'm personally going to be very skeptical of a stand alone video product.

bjb

20th November 2006, 03:04 PM

Those Messin' With Sasquatch commercials look pretty good to me. I'm sure the producers could edit something together that would look very, very convincing. Even Penn & Teller's crappy Bigfoot video fooled a few believers.

William Parcher

20th November 2006, 03:54 PM

Agreed. There's only so much you can do with CGI and computers. So I guess I could imagine a video that could be hoax proof. Still, I think someone with the money, the proper "real world" supplies, the computer skills, and the know how could produce a very convincing hoax video.

So unless it's that perfect, hoax proof video, I'm personally going to be very skeptical of a stand alone video product.

Yeah, it would be a very expensive and complicated hoax. It would almost certainly be a conspiracy as well. There would likely need to be numerous subcontractors to create the whole thing. Each of them cannot slip-up or squeal or all is lost. You can't have Peter Jackson present the video (even if he did orchestrate it), but instead you need to find a "common folk" dude to represent the filmer. He has to play the role perfectly and with no apparent connections to CGI tomfoolery. The evidence itself must withstand all forensic scrutiny (the footage and before/after footage on the camera must always appear to be legitimate and unedited, etc.)

The PGF has never really had a balls-out professional forensic examination. Nearly everyone doesn't care about doing anything with it because it's so obviously a fake. Hardly anyone even cares when a guy in Yakima (Heironimus) claims to be the one in the costume, because they already knew that somebody was in that costume. Besides, nobody even wants to try spelling his last name.

Mad Hom

20th November 2006, 04:16 PM

Yeah, it would be a very expensive and complicated hoax. It would almost certainly be a conspiracy as well. There would likely need to be numerous subcontractors to create the whole thing. Each of them cannot slip-up or squeal or all is lost. You can't have Peter Jackson present the video (even if he did orchestrate it), but instead you need to find a "common folk" dude to represent the filmer. He has to play the role perfectly and with no apparent connections to CGI tomfoolery. The evidence itself must withstand all forensic scrutiny (the footage and before/after footage on the camera must always appear to be legitimate and unedited, etc.)

The PGF has never really had a balls-out professional forensic examination. Nearly everyone doesn't care about doing anything with it because it's so obviously a fake. Hardly anyone even cares when a guy in Yakima (Heironimus) claims to be the one in the costume, because they already knew that somebody was in that costume. Besides, nobody even wants to try spelling his last name.

I've always said that the fact that Bigfeetsus is Bipedal will always doom video of one. There are people...and there are silly suits, why than should the logical conclusion of a person in a silly suit NOT be drawn? It's not as if we're talking about a Sabre Tooth Tiger or a giant Armadillo here. If Patty were a convincing looking quadraped....than maybe we'd have something here...

this just in though...

She's not...and we don't!!

Patty does not in any way,shape or form move like an animal. If it didn't appear to be a guy in a silly suit...schlepping across the Creek bed but more like an animal doing animal things...than maybe we'd have somehting here.

This just in though..

She's not....and we definitely don't.

Huntster

20th November 2006, 06:25 PM

.....I'm curious Fudster,has it ever entered that mangled pipe cleaner you call a brain stem that you see all this muscle movement basically because you really WANT to see it....not necessarily because it's .....actually there??

Nope. I see the same type of movement, muscle tone, hide jiggle, etc that I see in the many, many bears I've watched in person; close up, and far away through binocs and spotting scopes; running, playing, swimming, wading, grazing, etc.

Watching a brown bear in the fall running across the tundra might offer you such knowledge and experience.....................if you could do it.

Huntster

20th November 2006, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker
Will this thread make it to 114 pages?

Remember the guy, I can't recall who, who cropped Patty out and put her in a street scene with some photo program and asked for a critique of "his" suit on a bigfoot forum and everyone said it was so fake then someone pointed out it was Patty and everyone ranted and ranted about how they weren't really fooled and knew it was Patty all along and made excuses about why they were/weren't fooled?

I think for now the whole Patty debate had deteriorated into the old playground argument of "yes it is" "no it isn't" over and over until someone runs out of breath.
Yes I recall it was Dfoot who perpetrated said act...and as I recall...Fudster damn near had a litter of puppies over the whole thing. I mean he absolutely lost it if memory serves.

Not really. I was getting pissed off at the level of apology coming from people like yourself who attempted to justify his games.

I of course thought it was a hoot...but than again I find great pleasure in Bigfoot Fan making an ass of him or herself so what can I say.

Of course, you can't make any hay over Dfoot's utter failure, so you focus on my arguments with the apologists.

Whatever happened to Dfoot anyway?

Guess, Einstein.........

Huntster

20th November 2006, 06:35 PM

Dfoot came awfully close to replicating Patty.

He did no such thing. He played a game of countless montages and photoshopped scams, and he got busted.

Scared the poop out of the believers. When they start hurling shrill screams you know that somebody is getting too close to their fantasy.

Again, not even close. He is a liar, he got caught, and people like yourself offered all manner of justifications for his utter failure to reproduce a suit.

He also made a 180 degree turn on his belief in the PGF while he was posting on BFF, which pissed a bunch of the PGF sycophants off.

Again, not even close. The only people who seem to give a damn what Dfoot thinks is Dfoot and y'all.

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics.

I don't believe he did. In fact, he has been asked to come back by the owner of the forum to answer some questions, which he hasn't done.

The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

And I have a vivid imagination?

Huntster

20th November 2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher
Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.
I think the only reason that I never got banned is that I never posted, strictly a lurker.

Your a real brave person, huh?

Huntster

20th November 2006, 06:39 PM

....Even Penn & Teller's crappy Bigfoot video fooled a few believers.

And who might those "few believers" be?

LAL

20th November 2006, 06:55 PM

Dfoot is not banned. He last posted on BFF in August. This is the post:

"Paul -- The questions you ask are very odd ones. You demand that I get you a copy of Bob Heironimus' lie detector test or show you records from Gimlin's arrest or the payments made to him, etc... These are things YOU should do for yourself. I've done plenty already. I've found the mask mold used and demonstrated how the feet and muscles work as seen in the film. Greg Long has provided you with interviews from many witnesses. You need to check out those records yourself. They exist. Unlike Patty (which you will never find even forty years from this date).

Everyone has to be lying (for some unknown reasons) from Harvey Anderson, to Patterson's neighbors, to me. Even to entertain the idea that Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson are honest and everyone from Vilma Radford (and her contract that you can see Roger signed) to Bob Heironimus' mother has to be making up stories is just wishful thinking. Everything points to one answer and one answer only. Roger Patterson pulled several hoaxes in an effort to make money from the interest in Bigfoot and set himself up as the great Bigfoot expert. End of story.

While discussing the JFK assassination on another forum I noted that a certain man had been for many, many years discussed as having some involvement. To me he seemed to be simply a red herring that some bright wise guy had planted out there in the research community. No one believed me. After all, many articles had been written and he'd been discussed for years on the Internet and mentioned in several books.

So I did something really unusual. I tracked him down. He was alive and well and on a fishing trip in another state. He had no idea he was the center of any controversy. I also spoke to his high school and former classmates. I obtained childhood photos of him that demonstrated he had been in high school during JFK's term and had not yet had a chance to join the military or any other organization.

I was amazed that all of these researchers had spent their time fighting over which agency the man worked for in 1963 and other things. Years of this. Yet he was just a kid at that time and had nothing to do with anything. Somehow someone stuck his name into the mix and it took off. It was a simple red herring or bad joke that could have been cleared up with a day's research - yet no one bothered to do that. They spent their time discussing theories about him instead. And you know what I was told? I was told that even though I'd spoken to his friends, tracked him down at his place of business, and obtained all of his high school photos... I was STILL wrong. Somehow all that was an elaborate deception. All of those people were liars. The high school records were lies. His business was just a front. Only their theory was correct. Why? Because they'd invested years in believing in it. They merely adapted new theories and conclusions to explain away my evidence.

How do we explain away the fact that Roger faked his Ape Canyon expedition photo across the road from his home? We even have the woman who took the picture as well as the location. Yet it will be done. It has to be. Just as the high school yearbooks I showed the JFK researchers with the man, his face, and the witnesses who went to school with him all together HAS TO BE FALSE ... somehow. So it goes....

The above story is what prepared me for what I'm seeing now. None of this reaction to finding Patty's original head is surprising at all.

bipto -- When you mention hypocrisy, I don't know what you mean. Seems to me that you are simply attacking the messenger here. You asked me to look into the PG film and I did. As I went along I shared everything I was learning. I wish I'd discovered that people researching Bigfoot are more scientific and less pseudo-scientific, but that's not the case at all. I wish Patty had been a real Bigfoot and we had some filmed evidence, but we don't.

I'm hoping that everyone will save the images I've posted of the mask from Wah Chang and the body suit I made and over time begin to think more openly about it. Hopefully it won't simply be used in some false way as John Vulich's red ape suit was used over at BFRO in that distorted "arm length" demonstration. That type of bad science only tends to make it harder for anyone to take the subject seriously.

I'm asked over and over where the proof is. There's plenty of evidence and witnesses and there is much to see today that John Green and others couldn't understand back then. Except for the word of those who claim to have seen Bigfoot in person we have no evidence of a nine foot tall upright walking gorilla clan roaming the forests. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm only stating the fact that there is much, much more evidence that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin participated in a hoax at Bluff Creek. One of many that went on there.

Gimlin's word that he saw a Bigfoot and no one wore a suit is all there is. Everything else points to the opposite being true - including a stack of witnesses and what can be seen on the film itself. Making up theories in an attempt to make it real doesn't erase all we can see if we only open our eyes. Sometimes a hoax is a hoax and that's all there is to it.

Dan C.--- What you said about the suit is just what happened. You can do it today if you like. You can rent a decent apeman from a top creature suit-maker and have him sign a contract preventing him from speaking about it to anyone. You could do it even easier in 1967 with Janos, Chambers, and Wah's group. That is what happened.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything nefarious... but... it is true that since I've come across some of this recent info I've had backdoor trojan problems and the like. They only show up after I visit this forum. All I'm saying is that some people need to relax about nine foot tall gorillas in movies and ease up a bit. Someone seems to take this PG film biz very, very seriously.

I have not been around because I've been extremely busy. This is how it goes in my business. So it will be for a few months at least. I doubt I'll have much time to stop by and read anything here for a while. If I have a chance to ask more questions of those who worked with Buck Maffei at Corriganville I surely will. Some of the stunt guys who worked with him there and also worked with Chambers, Wah Chang and Janos are still around. I'll question them if I can. Not that they'll know much about it, but I'll do it anyway. You never know.

Please save the info I've given you and do some digging of your own. Not with the idea that you must prove Patty is real, but simply keeping an open mind and realizing that there has been and always will be people who want to fake something for fun or profit --- at your expense.

Good Luck to you all,

Dfoot"

This is where Peiltch "busted" him.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&st=550&p=300326&#entry300326

The responses are all there.

Who calls whom "liars" on this board?

LAL

20th November 2006, 07:17 PM

Maybe the original film wasn't blurry enough? Maybe it shows the creature a little too clearly? Without a thorough examination of the original film, it is not a good idea to put too much faith it it. After all, the film does exist and such an examination is possible. What are the film's owners afraid of?

It's still tied up in legal hassles. Roger oversold the rights and Dahinden spent a lot of money untangling the mess. His sons inherited his rights, Roger's widow has the rest.

There are several first generation copies still. The original was thoroughly examined back in the sixties. It was not tampered with.

The original is reportedly quite clear. Patricia Patterson handed out VHS copies after being burned repeatedly, and many people have formed their opinions of it being to blurry on those as seen on TV in various old documentaries.

The Cibachromes are pretty good too. Here's one:

LAL

20th November 2006, 07:30 PM

Yes I think a face to face debate between the Bobs would be Must See TV...or Must Hear Radio...or whichever. Gimlin doesn't stand to gain much from it though.......so I'd guess he'll probably take the hoax to his deathbed.

He was nearly on it; he recently had open heart surgery. No hoax revealed. Patterson died claiming it was the truth as well.

Of course, my cousin lied on her deathbed..............deathbed confessions don't mean much either.

Gimlin's had to put up with Heironimus for over thirty years. A debate would be interesting, but I don't think we'll see it. Bob Gimlin can be seen telling the story on the Willow Creek Symposium 2003 DVD. He certainly seems as honest and sincere as he's been portrayed.

I'm sorry if some of you think we're "holier than thou". I wouldn't say that. I'd say, "Better informed than thou." The media has done a great job of perpetrating misinformation, and if some are getting their ideas from there, I understand, but it's a good idea to check things out before puting ones foot permanently in ones mouth.

Huntster

20th November 2006, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.
Interesting reaction, since the articles I linked to had nothing whatsoever with Dfoot or the BFF. But I didn't really expect you to read them, since woos in general will do anything to avoid confronting contrary evidence.

Okay, let's see if I can dumb this down for you...............

The John Chambers story has been hashed out ad nauseum on BFF, and I read it thoroughly, along with all the links and pro/cons there. Your link provides nothing more and actually offers much less than what was offered, analyzed, debated, theorized, and otherwise considered there to the point of exhaustion.

LAL

21st November 2006, 01:36 AM

The only reason that the Disney quote is still used is that it's the only example of someone from the industry supporting the Patterson film, albeit indirectly, rather than debunking it outright.

What is important to realize is that Disney at the time was not involved much in "creature" effects. They were fairly exclusively animation; and what few creature effects they did have tended to be rather crude by the standards of the day.

Au contraire. I was taking my kids to Disneyland in 1967. The Jungle Ride was being built when my dad took us to meet Walt. Those hippos were state of the art and there was nothing like them. I saw them up close, and they were very realistic.

Their animatronics weren't capable of independent movement.

We saw what Disney Studios could do in Harry and the Hendersons.

LTC8K6

21st November 2006, 06:21 AM

None of the legal hassles should prevent anyone from seeing the film.

If the film is the real thing, letting a few scientists see the 2 rolls would not cut into anyone's profits or diminish the value of the film in any way.

If the films are not real, then showing them would be very risky.

Unless you show them to a believer like Meldrum, of course.

If you go back and look at the initial responses from scientists, you see that Patty was rather underwhelming and walked just like a human.

It was only later when the marketing started, that Patty suddenly looked different from a man in a suit.

Diogenes

21st November 2006, 07:11 AM

It's still tied up in legal hassles. Roger oversold the rights...........
Oversold the rights ?:jaw-dropp

Wasn't there something about selling subscriptions to a newsletter, and
not bothering to publish and mail them out ?

Borrowing money and not paying it back ?...
Using other people's phones to make long distance calls ? ( pretty expensive back then )

Just an out of work cowboy who stumbled upon a Bigfoot ..

... and had a minute of film left in his camera.. ( which he owed money for )

LAL

21st November 2006, 07:53 AM

None of the legal hassles should prevent anyone from seeing the film.

<conspiracy theory snipped>

If you go back and look at the initial responses from scientists, you see that Patty was rather underwhelming and walked just like a human.

It was only later when the marketing started, that Patty suddenly looked different from a man in a suit.

She's never walked just like a human.

The biomechanical analyses were done out of the country. How would reports from obscure British and Russian Scientists help business, especially after the tour was over?

Note the dates on the reports below.

Krantz couldn't find anyone to do an analysis. He did his own. It's quite thorough. He even found an error in Grieve.

I don't know what all the problems are, but the original is not available at this time. I doubt much more could be learned from it now. There's been information obtained from it since it was digitalized in an age where biomechanics is no longer in its infancy.

Her gait is like that of Australopithecines, according to a new analysis. How would Roger have known to put that in before Lucy's knee was discovered?

"THE FIRST RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DMITRI BAYANOV AND IGOR BOURTSEV OF THE DARWIN MUSEUM, MOSCOW

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FILM - Roger Patterson's filmstrip shows a hairy man-like creature, walking erect, having well-developed breasts and buttocks. The last three points, if we accept for a time the authenticity of the creature, indicate its belonging in the Hominid, not the Pongid (anthropoid), line of evolution of higher primates.

Proof?

Morphology of the head shows a very outstanding brow ridge, a low bridge of the nose, very pronounced prognatism, a cone-shaped back of the head.

Judging by the well-developed breasts the creature is female. However, the muscles of the back, arms and legs are so much in relief that they call for comparison with those of a heavy weightlifter.

The creature "has no neck," or at least the neck is not to be detected at first sight. Looking back the creature turns its upper torso along with the head to a much greater extent than would normally a human being. This might indicate a somewhat different attachment of the skull to the spine than in man, and a strong development of the neck muscles which conceal a short, sort of simian, neck.

LOCOMOTION AS SEEN IN THE FILM - It seems smooth and resilient like that of a big quadrupedal animal. One gets the impression that the creature steps on slightly bent legs. If that is the case the impact on the heels should be less manifest than in man's walk, and the hominoid tracks, usually rather even in depth, seem to corroborate this conclusion. While walking the creature swings its arms intensely using them as walking beams as it were.

COMPARISON TO SUPPOSED GAIT OF NEANDERTHALER - Prof. Boris Porshnev, who put forward the Neanderthal hypothesis ot the relict hominoid origin, in his monograph (1963), page 288, refers to the opinions of Russian anthropologists V.P. Yakimov, G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky and V.V. Bounak concerning the walk of Neanderthalers as construed by analysts of fossil material. We find it very significant that the two characteristics mentioned above-i.e. less impact on the heels and arms swinging-are listed by anthropologists as supposed traits of Neanderthal locomotion, while slightly bent legs are ascribed to Neanderthalers even in a standing position.

THE HOMINOID FOOT - The main features standing out in both the American and Soviet (Russian) material: 1. Tracks show flat feet (without an arch). 2. The width of the foot in proportion to the length is much greater than in man's foot. 3. The hominoid foot is generally much bigger than man's.

Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov

Besides, as has been often noted by late Pyotr Smolin, chairman of the Hominoid Problem Seminar at the Darwin Museum in Moscow, the hominoid foot is distinguished by a great mobility of its toes which can bend very much or fully extend or spread very widely.

One more peculiarity: the so-called double ball at the back of the big toe as evidenced in many North American tracks (Green, 1968; Krantz, 1972). We find Grover Krantz's explanation of this feature very interesting, and we especially value at this stage the conclusion drawn by him concerning the size of the creature's calcaneus (heel bone). In some frames the creature's foot seems to have an unnaturally protruding heel. To a casual observer this may look like a sticking out edge of an artificial sole, but to those who know better this is an omen of the creature's reality.

As for the double ball itself we would like to make here the following remark. The double ball is made up not only of two bulges of tissue but also of a furrow between them, which is like a kind of fold on the sole. Hence the question can also be put this way. Why is a fold formed at this spot on the hominoid sole?

The answer, probably, can be like this: because the hominoid foot is not so rigid as man's foot, it still retains a certain measure of mobility inherited from the hand-like foot of the ape, and therefore has a furrow somewhat analogous to lines on man's palm.

Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov

Grover Krantz finds the correlation between the great weight of the creatures in question (as evidence, among other things, by the depth of footprints) and the anatomy of the foot, as it is revealed in the very same footprints, so natural and binding that he makes the following conclusion: "Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest."

It's the first time such an unambiguous statement is made by a professional anthropologist regarding the problem of relict hominoids, a statement made even more welcome by the fact that it came about as a result of study of material evidence which is the plastercasts and photographs of footprints.

COMPARISON TO THE NEANDERTHAL FOOT - As far as we know, none of the American researchers has compared the hominoid foot, as revealed in footprints, to the Neanderthal foot, reconstructed on the basis of fossil material.

In the Soviet Union this job has been done by Prof. B.F. Porshnev who noted a similarity in such features as lack of an arch, the width to length ratio, great mobility of toes (Porshnev, 1963).

Statue

It seems that a new and very important development in this direction of research is a comparison made by us between the calcaneus (heel bone) of the Neanderthal foot and that of North American Hominoids as shown in the materials of American hominologists. Grover Krantz, on his part, concludes that the Bigfoot has "enlarged heels", "the heel section must be correspondingly longer." He also writes that the creature's "ankle joint must be set relatively farther forward along the length of the foot", its length is expected to be "set relatively farther forward on the foot than in man."

Thus, this is also true of the Neanderthal foot, dramatically illustrating the above point.

To make things even more fascinating, the very same features show on the foot of the creature in Roger Patterson's filmstrip. To our knowledge, this fact has not been mentioned before by analysts of the film.

It follows that analysing a possible anatomy of the hominoid foot we find agreement in three, apparently, independent sources: 1. Roger Patterson's film; 2. Photographs and plaster casts of footprints obtained by Rene Dahinden and others, and analyzed by Grover Krantz; 3. Morphology of the Neanderthal foot.

As for the giant size of North American Hominoids, we think this cannot be a sufficient argument against Porshnev's standpoint since big variations in size are also true of the species Homo sapiens.

In our analysis we did not refer to Gigantopithecus because virtually nothing is known about that form of primates except their giant size. As for what is known of the foot of Australopithecus and "Homo habilis", it does not seem to fit the pattern of the hominoid foot we are dealing with.

NOT MAN-MADE - So our conclusion at this stage is the following: though it is not yet clear in what relation North American hominoids stand to the making of man, it is pretty clear now they themselves are not man-made.

Moscow , October, 1972. Dmitri Bayanov , Igor Bourtsev

References:
Porshnev, Boris,1963. Sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa ? relictovykh gominoidakh (Present state of the problem of relict hominoids), Moscow, V.I.N.I.T.I.
Porshnev, Boris,1969. Troglodytidy i gominidy v sistematike i evolutsii vysshikh primatov (The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and evolution of higher primates) in Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, volume 188, issue 1.
Krantz, Grover, 1972. Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 6, No. 1.
Urisson, Mikhail, 1966. Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the related hominid forms, in the Collection of articles Iskopaemye Gominidy i Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka (Fossil Hominids and Man's Origin), Moscow, Nauka publishing house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SECOND RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DR. DMITRI D. DONSKOY, CHIEF OF THE CHAIR OF BIOMECHANICS AT
THE USSR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CULTURE IN MOSCOW, USSR

Dr. Dmitri Donskoy

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of a two-footed creature in the 1967 "Bigfoot" footage and detailed examination of the successive stills from the footage one is given the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion shown therein, with all of the particular movements combined in an integral whole, suggesting a smoothly operating and coherent system.

In all of the strides the movements of the arms, or upper limbs, and of the legs, or lower limbs, are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by a movement of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is essential for man as well as being quite natural for many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds, such as in walking or trotting movements.

The strides are energetic and strong, with the leg swinging far forward. When a man extends his leg in this manner he walks at a rapid pace and overcomes by momentum the breaking effect of the angled hurdle provided by the outstretched leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed so the more massive the biped the less speed is needed to overcome the breaking effect of an outthrust striding leg.

The arms have swinging motion, which suggests that the muscles are exerted at the commencement of each cycle, after which they relax, allowing the movements to continue by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong. After each heel strike the leg of the creature bends, absorbing the full weight of the body and smoothing over the harmony is the result of synergy, i.e., the combined operation of a whole group of muscles.

Since the creature is manlike in appearance as well as bipedal, its gait resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all of its movements indicate a much greater weight than is normally found in modern man. Its muscles appear to be much stronger and the walk swifter than that of the normal walk of a man.

There are certain characteristics of the creature's walk, which are difficult to explain in words. They might be called "expressiveness of movement." In modern man this is sometimes seen in a sporting or labour activity where economy and accuracy of movement is vital and essential to the activity. In study this particular characteristic can be seen by an experienced observer. In "expressiveness of movement" the motor systems upon which the particular quality is dependent are perfectly adapted to the tasks which they are called upon to perform. In other words, in the case of this creature, the movements have a neat perfection which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

On the whole the most important thing in the study is the consistency of all of the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only complement each other but also interact in many ways.

All of these factors together allow us to evaluate the gait of the creature of the footage as a natural movement without any sign of the artfulness that one would see in an imitation. At the same time, with all of the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.

Dmitri Donskoy, 1973."

http://www.cryptozoology.com/articles/dmitri.php

"Report on the Film of a Supposed Sasquatch

D.W. Grieve
The following report is based on a copy of a 16mm. film taken by Roger Patterson on October 20th, 1967, at Bluff Creek, Northern California, which was made available to me by René Dahinden in December 1971. In addition to Patterson's footage, the film includes a sequence showing a human being (height 6 ft. 5½ in.) walking over the same terrain.

The main purpose in analysing the Patterson film was to establish the extent to which the creature's gait resembled or differed from human gait. The bases for comparison were measurements of stride length, time of leg swing, speed of walking and the angular movements of the lower limb, parameters that are known for man at particular speeds of walking. Published data refer to humans, with light footwear or none, walking on hard level ground. In part of the film the creature is seen walking at a steady speed through a clearing of level ground, and is it data from this sequence that has been used for purposes of comparison with the human, pattern. Later parts of the film show an almost full posterior view, which permits some comparisons to be made between its body breadth and that of humans.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists.The film has several drawbacks for purposes of quantitative analysis. The unstable hand-held camera gave rise to intermittent frame blurring. Lighting conditions and the foliage in the background make it difficult to establish accurate outlines of the trunk and limbs even in un-blurred frames. The subject is walking obliquely across the field of view in that part of the film in which it is most clearly visible. The feet are not sufficiently visible to make useful statements about the ankle movements. Most importantly of all, no information is available as to framing speed used.

Body shape and size
Careful matching and superposition of images of the so-called Sasquatch and human film sequences yield an estimated standing height for the subject of not more than 6 ft. 5 in. (196 cm.). This specimen lies therefore within the human range, although at its upper limits. Accurate measurements are impossible regarding features that fall within the body outline. Examination of several frames leads to the conclusion that the height of the hip joint, the gluteal fold and the finger tips are in similar proportions to the standing height as those found in humans. The shoulder height at the acromion appears slightly greater relative to the standing height (0.87:1) than in humans (0.82:1). Both the shoulder width and the hip width appear proportionately greater in the subject creature than in man (0.34:1 instead of 0.26:1; and 0.23:1 instead of 0.19:1, respectively).

If we argue that the subject has similar vertical proportions to man (ignoring the higher shoulders) and has breadths and circumferences about 25 per cent greater proportionally, then the weight is likely to be 50-60 per cent greater in the subject than in a man of the same height. The additional shoulder height and the unknown correction that should be allowed for the presence of hair will have opposite effects upon an estimate of weight. Earlier comments that this specimen was "just under 7 ft. in height and extremely heavy" seem rather extravagant. The present analysis suggests that Sasquatch was 6 ft. 5 in. in height, with a weight of about 280 lb (127 kg.) and a foot length (mean of 4 observations) of about 13.3 in. (34 cm.).

Timing of the gait
Because the framing speed is unknown, the timing of the various phases of the gait was done in terms of the numbers of frames. Five independent estimates of the complete cycle time were made, from 'R. toe-off', 'L. toe-off, 'R. foot passing L.', 'L. foot passing R.' and 'L. heel strike' respectively giving:

Complete cycle time = 22.5 frames (range 21.5 - 23.5). Four independent estimates of the swing phase, or single support phase for the contra-lateral limb, from toe-off to heel strike, gave:

Saving phase, or single support = 8.5 frames (same in each case). The above therefore indicates a total period of support of 14 frames and periods of double support (both feet on the ground) of 2.75 fames. A minimum uncertainty of ± 0.5 frames may be assumed.

Stride length
The film provides an oblique view and no clues exist that can lead to an accurate measurement of the obliquity of the direction of walk which was judged to be not less than 20 degrees and not more than 35 degrees to the image plane of the camera. The obliquity gives rise to an apparent grouping of left and right foot placements which could in reality have been symmetrical with respect to distance in the line of progression. The distance on the film between successive placements of the left toot was 1.20 X the standing height. It an obliquity of 27 degrees is assumed, a stride length of 1.34 X the standing height is obtained. The corresponding values in modern man for 20 degrees and 35 degrees obliquity are 1.27 and 1.46 respectively.

A complete set of tracings of the subject were made, and in every case when the limb outlines were sufficiently clear a construction of the axes of the thigh and shank were made. The angles of the segments to the vertical were measured as they appeared on the film. Because of the obliquity of the walk to the image plane of the camera (assumed to be 27 degrees), the actual angles of the limb segments to the vertical in the sagittal plane were computed by dividing the tangent of the apparent angles by the cosine of 27 degrees. This gave the tangent of the desired angle in each case, from which the actual thigh and shank angles were obtained. The knee-angle was obtained as the difference between the thigh and shank angles. A summary of the observations is given in the following table.

Frame event or
No./Comment Angles measured on left limb
Apparent on film Corrected for 27 degs obliquity
Thigh Knee Shank Thigh Knee Shank
3. R. toe-off + 7 14 - 7 + 8 16 - 3
4. + 1 19 -18 + 1 21 -20
5. - 7 10 -17 - 8 11 -19
6. blurred -18 3 -21 -20 3 -23
7 R. foot pass L. uncertain
8 of
9 limb
10 outlines
11 R. heel strike here
12 R. heel strike -27 13 -40 -30 13 -43
13 L. toe-off -25 22 -47 -28 22 -50
14 0 61 -61 0 64 -64
15 +10 63 -53 +11 67 -56
16 L. foot pass R. +10 64 -54 +11 68 -57
17 +13 62 -49 +14 66 -52
18 +17 45 -28 +19 50 -31
19 +23 38 -15 +25 41 -16
20 +28 29 -1 +31 32 - 1
21 L. heel strike +17 : 6 +11 +19 7 +12
22 L. heel strike +20 10 +10 +22 11 +11
23 +19 16 + 3 +21 18 + 3
24 R. toe-off +17 18 - 1 +19 20 - 1
25 R. toe-off +19 33 -14 +21 36 -15
26 +8 15 -7 + 9 16 -7
27 +2 19 -17 + 2 21 -19
28 R. foot pass L. + 4 28 -24 + 4 30 -26
29 R. foot pass L. no measurement

The pattern of movement, notably the 30 degrees of knee flexion following heel strike, the hip extension during support that produces a thigh angle of 30 dregrees behind the vertical, the large total thigh excursion of 61 degrees, and the considerable (46 degrees) knee flexion following toe-off, are features very similar to those for humans walking at high speed. Under these cinditions, humans woul,d have a stride length of 1.2 X stature or more, a time of swing of about 0.35 sec, and a speed of swing of about 1.5 X stature per second.

Conclusions
The unknown framing speed is crucial to the interpretation of the data. It is likely that the filming was done at either 16, 18, or 24 frames per second and each possibility is considered below.

16 fps 18 fps 24 fps
Stride length approx. 262 cm 262 cm 262 cm
Stride/Stature 1.27 - 1.46 1.27 - 1.46 1.27 - 1.46
Speed approx 6.7 km/hr 7.5 km/hr 10.0 km/hr
Speed/Stature 0.9 - 1.04 sec 1.02 - 1.17 1.35 - 1.56
Time for complete cycle 1.41 sec 1.25 sec 0.94 sec
Time of swing 0.53 sec 0.47 sec 0.35 sec
Total time of support 0.88 sec 0.78 sec 0.58 sec
One period double support 0.17 sec 0.15 sec 0.11 sec

If 16 fps is assumed, the cycle time and the time of swing are in a typical human combination but much longer in duration than one would expect for the stride and the pattern of limb movement. It is as if a human were executing a high speed pattern in slow motion. It is very unlikely that more massive limbs would account for such a combination of variables. If the framing speed was indeed 16 fps it would be reasonable to conclude that the metabolic cost of locomotion was unnecessarily high per unit distance or that the neuromuscular system was very different to that in humans. With these considerations in mind it seems unlikely that the film was taken at 16 frames per second.

Similar conclusions apply to the combination of variables if we assume 18 fps. In both cases, a human would exhibit very little knee flexion following heel strike and little further knee flexion following toe-off at these times of cycle and swing. It is pertinent that subject has similar linear proportions to man and therefore would be unlikely to exhibit a totally different pattern of gait unless the intrinsic properties of the limb muscles or the nervous system were greatly different to that in man.

If the film was taken at 24 fps, Sasquatch walked with a gait pattern very similar in most respects to a man walking at high speed. The cycle time is slightly greater than expected and the hip joint appears to be more flexible in extension than one would expect in man. If the framing speed were higher than 24 fps the similarity to man's gait is even more striking.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man.

D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D.
Reader in Biomechanics
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine
London"

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/grieve.html

Mad Hom

21st November 2006, 08:00 AM

Not really. I was getting pissed off at the level of apology coming from people like yourself who attempted to justify his games.

Of course, you can't make any hay over Dfoot's utter failure, so you focus on my arguments with the apologists.

Guess, Einstein.........

Fudd...your denial..is astonishing. As I recall you had a hook firmly embedded in your mouth with regards to Dfoot's subterfuge....It's been awhile since I read every page...or at least the part with Dfoot in it..of this thread....or any of the Think Tank version of Dfoot's hitting a little to close to home Patty Hoax....but as I recall Fudd you bought it for awhile...so shut your hole about how much of a failure it was....would ya?

Oh and by the way...just checked Cryptomundo.com...and darn the luck...

Still no actual usable proof of Bigfoot!!!

Mad Hom

21st November 2006, 08:01 AM

She's never walked just like a human.

The biomechanical analyses were done out of the country. How would reports from obscure British and Russian Scientists help business, especially after the tour was over?

Note the dates on the reports below.

Krantz couldn't find anyone to do an analysis. He did his own. It's quite thorough. He even found an error in Grieve.

I don't know what all the problems are, but the original is not available at this time. I doubt much more could be learned from it now. There's been information obtained from it since it was digitalized in an age where biomechanics is no longer in its infancy.

Her gait is like that of Australopithecines, according to a new analysis. How would Roger have known to put that in before Lucy's knee was discovered?

"THE FIRST RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DMITRI BAYANOV AND IGOR BOURTSEV OF THE DARWIN MUSEUM, MOSCOW

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FILM - Roger Patterson's filmstrip shows a hairy man-like creature, walking erect, having well-developed breasts and buttocks. The last three points, if we accept for a time the authenticity of the creature, indicate its belonging in the Hominid, not the Pongid (anthropoid), line of evolution of higher primates.

Proof?

Morphology of the head shows a very outstanding brow ridge, a low bridge of the nose, very pronounced prognatism, a cone-shaped back of the head.

Judging by the well-developed breasts the creature is female. However, the muscles of the back, arms and legs are so much in relief that they call for comparison with those of a heavy weightlifter.

The creature "has no neck," or at least the neck is not to be detected at first sight. Looking back the creature turns its upper torso along with the head to a much greater extent than would normally a human being. This might indicate a somewhat different attachment of the skull to the spine than in man, and a strong development of the neck muscles which conceal a short, sort of simian, neck.

LOCOMOTION AS SEEN IN THE FILM - It seems smooth and resilient like that of a big quadrupedal animal. One gets the impression that the creature steps on slightly bent legs. If that is the case the impact on the heels should be less manifest than in man's walk, and the hominoid tracks, usually rather even in depth, seem to corroborate this conclusion. While walking the creature swings its arms intensely using them as walking beams as it were.

COMPARISON TO SUPPOSED GAIT OF NEANDERTHALER - Prof. Boris Porshnev, who put forward the Neanderthal hypothesis ot the relict hominoid origin, in his monograph (1963), page 288, refers to the opinions of Russian anthropologists V.P. Yakimov, G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky and V.V. Bounak concerning the walk of Neanderthalers as construed by analysts of fossil material. We find it very significant that the two characteristics mentioned above-i.e. less impact on the heels and arms swinging-are listed by anthropologists as supposed traits of Neanderthal locomotion, while slightly bent legs are ascribed to Neanderthalers even in a standing position.

THE HOMINOID FOOT - The main features standing out in both the American and Soviet (Russian) material: 1. Tracks show flat feet (without an arch). 2. The width of the foot in proportion to the length is much greater than in man's foot. 3. The hominoid foot is generally much bigger than man's.

Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov

Besides, as has been often noted by late Pyotr Smolin, chairman of the Hominoid Problem Seminar at the Darwin Museum in Moscow, the hominoid foot is distinguished by a great mobility of its toes which can bend very much or fully extend or spread very widely.

One more peculiarity: the so-called double ball at the back of the big toe as evidenced in many North American tracks (Green, 1968; Krantz, 1972). We find Grover Krantz's explanation of this feature very interesting, and we especially value at this stage the conclusion drawn by him concerning the size of the creature's calcaneus (heel bone). In some frames the creature's foot seems to have an unnaturally protruding heel. To a casual observer this may look like a sticking out edge of an artificial sole, but to those who know better this is an omen of the creature's reality.

As for the double ball itself we would like to make here the following remark. The double ball is made up not only of two bulges of tissue but also of a furrow between them, which is like a kind of fold on the sole. Hence the question can also be put this way. Why is a fold formed at this spot on the hominoid sole?

The answer, probably, can be like this: because the hominoid foot is not so rigid as man's foot, it still retains a certain measure of mobility inherited from the hand-like foot of the ape, and therefore has a furrow somewhat analogous to lines on man's palm.

Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov

Grover Krantz finds the correlation between the great weight of the creatures in question (as evidence, among other things, by the depth of footprints) and the anatomy of the foot, as it is revealed in the very same footprints, so natural and binding that he makes the following conclusion: "Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest."

It's the first time such an unambiguous statement is made by a professional anthropologist regarding the problem of relict hominoids, a statement made even more welcome by the fact that it came about as a result of study of material evidence which is the plastercasts and photographs of footprints.

COMPARISON TO THE NEANDERTHAL FOOT - As far as we know, none of the American researchers has compared the hominoid foot, as revealed in footprints, to the Neanderthal foot, reconstructed on the basis of fossil material.

In the Soviet Union this job has been done by Prof. B.F. Porshnev who noted a similarity in such features as lack of an arch, the width to length ratio, great mobility of toes (Porshnev, 1963).

Statue

It seems that a new and very important development in this direction of research is a comparison made by us between the calcaneus (heel bone) of the Neanderthal foot and that of North American Hominoids as shown in the materials of American hominologists. Grover Krantz, on his part, concludes that the Bigfoot has "enlarged heels", "the heel section must be correspondingly longer." He also writes that the creature's "ankle joint must be set relatively farther forward along the length of the foot", its length is expected to be "set relatively farther forward on the foot than in man."

Thus, this is also true of the Neanderthal foot, dramatically illustrating the above point.

To make things even more fascinating, the very same features show on the foot of the creature in Roger Patterson's filmstrip. To our knowledge, this fact has not been mentioned before by analysts of the film.

It follows that analysing a possible anatomy of the hominoid foot we find agreement in three, apparently, independent sources: 1. Roger Patterson's film; 2. Photographs and plaster casts of footprints obtained by Rene Dahinden and others, and analyzed by Grover Krantz; 3. Morphology of the Neanderthal foot.

As for the giant size of North American Hominoids, we think this cannot be a sufficient argument against Porshnev's standpoint since big variations in size are also true of the species Homo sapiens.

In our analysis we did not refer to Gigantopithecus because virtually nothing is known about that form of primates except their giant size. As for what is known of the foot of Australopithecus and "Homo habilis", it does not seem to fit the pattern of the hominoid foot we are dealing with.

NOT MAN-MADE - So our conclusion at this stage is the following: though it is not yet clear in what relation North American hominoids stand to the making of man, it is pretty clear now they themselves are not man-made.

Moscow , October, 1972. Dmitri Bayanov , Igor Bourtsev

References:
Porshnev, Boris,1963. Sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa ? relictovykh gominoidakh (Present state of the problem of relict hominoids), Moscow, V.I.N.I.T.I.
Porshnev, Boris,1969. Troglodytidy i gominidy v sistematike i evolutsii vysshikh primatov (The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and evolution of higher primates) in Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, volume 188, issue 1.
Krantz, Grover, 1972. Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 6, No. 1.
Urisson, Mikhail, 1966. Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the related hominid forms, in the Collection of articles Iskopaemye Gominidy i Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka (Fossil Hominids and Man's Origin), Moscow, Nauka publishing house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SECOND RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DR. DMITRI D. DONSKOY, CHIEF OF THE CHAIR OF BIOMECHANICS AT
THE USSR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CULTURE IN MOSCOW, USSR

Dr. Dmitri Donskoy

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of a two-footed creature in the 1967 "Bigfoot" footage and detailed examination of the successive stills from the footage one is given the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion shown therein, with all of the particular movements combined in an integral whole, suggesting a smoothly operating and coherent system.

In all of the strides the movements of the arms, or upper limbs, and of the legs, or lower limbs, are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by a movement of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is essential for man as well as being quite natural for many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds, such as in walking or trotting movements.

The strides are energetic and strong, with the leg swinging far forward. When a man extends his leg in this manner he walks at a rapid pace and overcomes by momentum the breaking effect of the angled hurdle provided by the outstretched leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed so the more massive the biped the less speed is needed to overcome the breaking effect of an outthrust striding leg.

The arms have swinging motion, which suggests that the muscles are exerted at the commencement of each cycle, after which they relax, allowing the movements to continue by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong. After each heel strike the leg of the creature bends, absorbing the full weight of the body and smoothing over the harmony is the result of synergy, i.e., the combined operation of a whole group of muscles.

Since the creature is manlike in appearance as well as bipedal, its gait resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all of its movements indicate a much greater weight than is normally found in modern man. Its muscles appear to be much stronger and the walk swifter than that of the normal walk of a man.

There are certain characteristics of the creature's walk, which are difficult to explain in words. They might be called "expressiveness of movement." In modern man this is sometimes seen in a sporting or labour activity where economy and accuracy of movement is vital and essential to the activity. In study this particular characteristic can be seen by an experienced observer. In "expressiveness of movement" the motor systems upon which the particular quality is dependent are perfectly adapted to the tasks which they are called upon to perform. In other words, in the case of this creature, the movements have a neat perfection which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

On the whole the most important thing in the study is the consistency of all of the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only complement each other but also interact in many ways.

All of these factors together allow us to evaluate the gait of the creature of the footage as a natural movement without any sign of the artfulness that one would see in an imitation. At the same time, with all of the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.

Dmitri Donskoy, 1973."

http://www.cryptozoology.com/articles/dmitri.php

"Report on the Film of a Supposed Sasquatch

D.W. Grieve
The following report is based on a copy of a 16mm. film taken by Roger Patterson on October 20th, 1967, at Bluff Creek, Northern California, which was made available to me by René Dahinden in December 1971. In addition to Patterson's footage, the film includes a sequence showing a human being (height 6 ft. 5½ in.) walking over the same terrain.

The main purpose in analysing the Patterson film was to establish the extent to which the creature's gait resembled or differed from human gait. The bases for comparison were measurements of stride length, time of leg swing, speed of walking and the angular movements of the lower limb, parameters that are known for man at particular speeds of walking. Published data refer to humans, with light footwear or none, walking on hard level ground. In part of the film the creature is seen walking at a steady speed through a clearing of level ground, and is it data from this sequence that has been used for purposes of comparison with the human, pattern. Later parts of the film show an almost full posterior view, which permits some comparisons to be made between its body breadth and that of humans.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists.The film has several drawbacks for purposes of quantitative analysis. The unstable hand-held camera gave rise to intermittent frame blurring. Lighting conditions and the foliage in the background make it difficult to establish accurate outlines of the trunk and limbs even in un-blurred frames. The subject is walking obliquely across the field of view in that part of the film in which it is most clearly visible. The feet are not sufficiently visible to make useful statements about the ankle movements. Most importantly of all, no information is available as to framing speed used.

Body shape and size
Careful matching and superposition of images of the so-called Sasquatch and human film sequences yield an estimated standing height for the subject of not more than 6 ft. 5 in. (196 cm.). This specimen lies therefore within the human range, although at its upper limits. Accurate measurements are impossible regarding features that fall within the body outline. Examination of several frames leads to the conclusion that the height of the hip joint, the gluteal fold and the finger tips are in similar proportions to the standing height as those found in humans. The shoulder height at the acromion appears slightly greater relative to the standing height (0.87:1) than in humans (0.82:1). Both the shoulder width and the hip width appear proportionately greater in the subject creature than in man (0.34:1 instead of 0.26:1; and 0.23:1 instead of 0.19:1, respectively).

If we argue that the subject has similar vertical proportions to man (ignoring the higher shoulders) and has breadths and circumferences about 25 per cent greater proportionally, then the weight is likely to be 50-60 per cent greater in the subject than in a man of the same height. The additional shoulder height and the unknown correction that should be allowed for the presence of hair will have opposite effects upon an estimate of weight. Earlier comments that this specimen was "just under 7 ft. in height and extremely heavy" seem rather extravagant. The present analysis suggests that Sasquatch was 6 ft. 5 in. in height, with a weight of about 280 lb (127 kg.) and a foot length (mean of 4 observations) of about 13.3 in. (34 cm.).

Timing of the gait
Because the framing speed is unknown, the timing of the various phases of the gait was done in terms of the numbers of frames. Five independent estimates of the complete cycle time were made, from 'R. toe-off', 'L. toe-off, 'R. foot passing L.', 'L. foot passing R.' and 'L. heel strike' respectively giving:

Complete cycle time = 22.5 frames (range 21.5 - 23.5). Four independent estimates of the swing phase, or single support phase for the contra-lateral limb, from toe-off to heel strike, gave:

Saving phase, or single support = 8.5 frames (same in each case). The above therefore indicates a total period of support of 14 frames and periods of double support (both feet on the ground) of 2.75 fames. A minimum uncertainty of ± 0.5 frames may be assumed.

Stride length
The film provides an oblique view and no clues exist that can lead to an accurate measurement of the obliquity of t