Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

OK... Meldrum is talking about problems with the little (baby) toe bones. That is the "fifth metatarsal".



The head and base of the fifth metatarsal are waves 1 and 2 in the cast. Jeff thinks the bone is screwed up there in two places. It's what Odinn called the double ball. Meldrum is calling it just another kind of "cripple foot".

ETA: LOL... we both wrote cripple foot. I was typing during your post.

I was going to ask Odinn about the double ball being on the wrong side...

[LTC8K6]

http://www.hancockhouse.com/media/se...r%20upload.pdf

Quote:

The Abbott Hill Cast
This cast is probably the best
impression of a sasquatch footprint
ever taken. The foot measure 15.5
inches (39.4 cm) long and has very
distinct toes. The print that produced
the cast was one of several found in
April 1982 in an area of Grays Harbor
County, Washington, referred to as
Abbott Hill. The original cast (the cast
shown here is a copy) was made by
Deputy Sheriff Dennis Heryford. On
the same day, other prints were found
about 7 miles away at a place called
Workman’s Bar. These prints were
also investigated by Deputy Heryford.
This time, there were two different
lengths—15.5 inches and 17 inches
(39.4 cm and 43.2 cm).
Heryford is seen
here on the left with
Sheriff Dennis
Morrisette and the
original cast. A
detailed police report
was written on the
incidents and while
the police did not rule
out hoaxing, at least
one scientist did. Dr.
Henner Fahrenbach
inspected the prints first hand and noted that there were half-tracks and
other evidence that indicated a flexible or natural foot. Furthermore,
subsequent research by Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum gave the prints very high
credibility as genuine sasquatch footprints.

[William Parcher]

Quote:

Heryford said that several hairs were found between the toes of the print, and they were to be analyzed.

Quote:

He sent a hair sample found at the Abbott Hill site to a physical anthropologist in Arizona. In order to "test" the lab credibility, he also sent a human hair sample and asked the anthropologist to identify both samples.

He correctly identified the human hair, and said the other hair had a "non-human root," and did not "resemble known human or primate hairs on file."

The "physical anthropologist" in Arizona was marine biologist Fahrenbach?

Quote:

The boy, who was "very upset," told Heryford later the large, brown furred creature had a furry face and long, hairy arms, which swung while it walked. "It appears it was more shy than anything. The kid took off running and looked back and saw it running in the opposite direction," Heryford said.

He collected hair samples and a plaster-of-paris footprint mold at the scene, but the evidence was later lost, he said, adding that he found roots chewed off ferns and saliva on fern shoots.

He said his interest in Sasquatch "snowballed" after the incident.

Heryford was a Bigfoot believer long before the Abbott Hill/Grays Harbor tracks were found. He was damn good at finding Bigfoot hairs with each track set he came across. Awesome. Footers need Heryford for new track finds. I wonder if he still believes after all these decades have gone by.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

My main problem with the one that doesn't look much like a foot print is that there are no rocks in the print. There are rocks all around it but nothing in the print.

Great - thanks for elaborating. I agree.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Well that last print, it's entirely ridiculous to me Shrike, and so obviously fake as to cause a severe reprimand to the hoaxer for making hoaxers look bad...but let's get specific.

What do you think of the big toe area?

From post 4492? If you mean that one, then the oddest thing to me is the elongated/pointed shape of the big toe, but it's tough to tell how much of that appearance is accentuated by the light-colored material and a more "biological" appearance would be evident from seeing the cast firsthand.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

From post 4492?

He's asking about 4502, which is a Blue Creek Mountain Wallace Stomper.

Originally Posted by GT/CS

My main problem with the one that doesn't look much like a foot print is that there are no rocks in the print. There are rocks all around it but nothing in the print. How can that happen?

A person might think that the hoaxer manually pulled out the gravel before impressing the fake foot. I don't think that happened. First, it looks like the substrate was moist/soft when the impression was made. I think the hoaxer intentionally chose to step in a place(s) where there was less gravel so that the track would be visible. Here are others from the same series...

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

From post 4492? If you mean that one, then the oddest thing to me is the elongated/pointed shape of the big toe, but it's tough to tell how much of that appearance is accentuated by the light-colored material and a more "biological" appearance would be evident from seeing the cast firsthand.

4502, the one I said was ridiculous.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Meldrum says that the Heryford casts (here called "Abbott Hill") actually show foot pathology and a mid-tarsal break with a flexion crease. The step length was 108".

even with a compliant gait, this puts the heryford creature around 12 feet tall. Why haven't these guys showed up at an NBA try out?

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

4502, the one I said was ridiculous.

Sorry, I got confused because I can barely make out any toes in 4502. It just looks like a cleared area in some gravel.

[Óðinn]

HEY, you guys want to stay on topic!

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

HEY, you guys want to stay on topic!

Sure, the topic is purported sasquatch prints and casts as compared to the PGF, with respect to Meldrum's claimed foot construction.

[Drewbot]

Bill Munns has new hi-res scans of the Pour Scene.

Bill Munns claims that Roger is

Originally Posted by Bill Munns @ BFF

Roger is immaculately clean shaven in this footage. He could do a Gillette commercial.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...328#entry19328

[William Parcher]

Drew, jog my memory. Does anyone claim that Roger was not clean-shaven in the plaster pour scene?

I believe that there are people who claim that Roger is clean-shaven in the cast display scene. I think he has a very heavy beard in that footage... more than just a couple days growth. Will Munns be hi-res scanning the cast display scene?

Also, ask him why his version of the plaster pour scene has no color. It looks all sepia tone.

[LTC8K6]

And the cast he's making is of a footprint in mud. Roger himself is right on the edge of the mud and the print is entirely in the mud.

[William Parcher]

Somebody please ask Gimlin if Patterson was in the habit of shaving while at Bluff Creek. Did he go down to the creek and groom himself, or in their camp?


ETA: Nevermind. Gimlin will just say he doesn't remember and that will be the end of it.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Drew, jog my memory. Does anyone claim that Roger was not clean-shaven in the plaster pour scene?

Bigfoothunter Bill Miller claims that Roger was not clean shaven in the pour scene.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Bigfoothunter Bill Miller claims that Roger was not clean shaven in the pour scene.

Does Bill Miller say anything about Roger's state-of-shave in the cast display scene?

[LTC8K6]

Roger cannot be immaculately clean shaven in the pour scene unless he shaved regularly in the field, and if he did shave regularly in the field, why the near beard in the display scene?

Anyone hunting an animal, and shaving in the field, is pretty stupid...

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-conten...-patterson.pdf

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-conten...-patterson.pdf

Is that Blevins' Bullfeces?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Is that Blevins' Bullfeces?

Chris Murphy...

It's amazing how sure some footers are of some things that are nearly directly contradictory...

[William Parcher]

This is what I see...

[LTC8K6]

Murphy's idea with the tree graphics would directly contradict Munn's claim of Roger being clean shaven at the time of the cast pour.

Something's gotta give.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

According to long term research from the likes of Christopher Murphy and others, these images were taken at Bluff Creek. They are on the second film roll that Patterson was going to use for his documentary, not “Rene’s film.” The images were naturally taken by Bob Gimlin using Roger Patterson’s rented camera.

Murphy, working with image upgrades from Bill Munns, passes this along: “The images are on the second roll. I am reasonably sure this roll was sent for processing with the other roll on the evening of October 20. The film images could not, therefore, have been taken in Yakima, or anywhere else for that matter, the next day.

“Given the second roll was not sent with the first roll: The images are taken in sunlight. It rained the next day. Although I suppose the sun could have come out briefly.

“Patterson is unshaven and in his grubby clothes. If he took the images the next day, then he either did not shave or change (slept in his clothes) or put the same cloths on the next day for the benefit of the photos. (All certainly possible, but not probable).”

See Chris Murphy’s in-depth comparative analysis of these images, placing them at Bluff Creek, in his pdf, questioned-photo-patterson.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo...rt-conspiracy/

[William Parcher]

Kooky Chris Murphy is kooky...

[River]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

This is what I see...

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/cf5f3a61.gif

There is definitely a hill behind that tree. I can't say I agree with that being the tree though..

Just sayin! I can't remember where the reference was, but if I'm not mistaken Meldrum thinks the displaying the casts footage may have come from when they were back in Yakima. I still think this footage of Roger casting the track could be from what he decribed to Krantz. I don't see any more tracks visible past Rogers position either. His body positioning may or may not be covering that area, but it appears that we should be able to see the next track.

Opinions? (i know at least one person here has an opnion on that!)

Quote:

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

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

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by River

There is definitely a hill behind that tree.

Right but it looks to me like the cast display tree is actually on a hill (Roger stands on a downward incline). The other tree looks to be on flat ground in front of the hill.

[parnassus]

The shadows in the Patterson pour scene seem to me to incompatible with a mid to late afternoon pour timeline. Recall their story that after they filmed the subject at 1:30pm they had to round up their horses, ride back to camp, 2-3 miles, get the plaster and ride back to the film site, and mix the plaster before they could pour. The max elevation of the sun (which would have been at 1 pm) on October 20 at that location is only 38 degrees. Just eyeballing it, the shadows suggest an elevation that high (or higher). So if that film was shot on October 20, I think it shows that Patterson was already casting "tracks" before the time when he said Patty was walking.

The shadows seen in the trackway sequence of the "second roll" suggest that it was shot a couple hours later. If you look closely at the casted print, there is a dug out spot at the front, suggesting someone was checking to see if the caster was hard; this would have been a couple hours after pouring a cast.

[LTC8K6]

If we assume that is the same tree right after the pour, then the shadows in the display versus the pour might be an interesting comparison.

[LTC8K6]

You would have to scrub a layer of plaster off to remove the color of the soil from the cast. Merely washing won't do it. The soil is bonded to the plaster.

Now, what color is the mud in the pour scene?

[River]

Even better, shouldnt the shadows help determine if the orientation of that tree would make it a candidate?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by parnassus

The max elevation of the sun (which would have been at 1 pm) on October 20 at that location is only 38 degrees. Just eyeballing it, the shadows suggest an elevation that high (or higher).

It has been said that the exact filmsite is at the bottom of a narrow canyon surrounded by mountains with tall trees. At 38 degrees, the sun may be completely behind a forested mountain with no chance of shining on that specific sandbar.

[Skeptical Greg]

Perhaps Óðinn will drop by and take you to town on the Sun elevation question,
even though Mangler mangled that one a long time ago with a computer simulation ..

[William Parcher]

It sets at 6pm but what about the big mountains?...

Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus on BFF

This could be fine-tuned if we knew Patty's exact direction of travel for that frame and the sun angle. But I think this is pretty close, which puts this frame about 5pm DST. The sunset Oct 20th at the PGF site was ~6pm.

Gimlin interview with John Green 1992...

Originally Posted by Bob Gimlin

Then we decided it was getting late in the afternoon. In that area, that time of year, the sun goes down about 3:30 or 4 o'clock. We wanted to get back and take plaster casts of the tracks and then go on into town to see if we had anything on film. We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sand bar and getting up and running, ..we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything.

Al Hodgson interview in 2010...

Quote:

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Things are tricky in that canyon, too…

AL HODGSON: That's right.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: …you can be down in there at the film site and feel like it's much later.

AL HODGSON: Yep.

C.I: Personal experience there, boy. I think everyone who's been up that creek…

AL HODGSON: Well you're down there, that canyon's so steep…

C.I.: Exactly. It's deceptively steep, and the sun disappears very quickly.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: And it was getting dark, he [Gimlin] said it was already getting dark when they left. I mean, starting to, but that could have been in the afternoon with the sun disappearing behind the canyon wall.

Maybe the plaster pour footage was filmed in the summer. Maybe even in Washington. Maybe a part of Bluff Creek where the mountains did not block the sun... maybe miles from the Patty sandbar.

From Gigantofootecus...

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Gimlin

We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sand bar and getting up and running, ..we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything.

This reminds me. Gimlin says (even recently) that Patterson fell to his elbows while filming and that we can see it happen on the film. Can we really? Did Roger cut that part out of the PGF?

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

It sets at 6pm but what about the big mountains?...




Gimlin interview with John Green 1992...




Al Hodgson interview in 2010...



Maybe the plaster pour footage was filmed in the summer. Maybe even in Washington. Maybe a part of Bluff Creek where the mountains did not block the sun... maybe miles from the Patty sandbar.

From Gigantofootecus...
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/47152657.png

But the funny thing is that I don't think the casting footage is from the 2nd reel. IMO, it fits the timeline tho.

[Skeptical Greg]

Have anything that might be a more realistic perspective, as seen from the creek bed, with towering trees blocking the view ?

[William Parcher]

Is that miniature or bonsai sagebrush? ROFL

[Óðinn]

What it "is" is what "mountains" the sun was up against on the horizon, Oct 20 1967. WP, those bushes are from real Google Earth satellite images of the "alleged" Bluff Creek location. ROFL

SG, tall trees don't make the sun set any quicker. And obviously, your hypothetical trees weren't blocking the sun from Roger. This graphic was intended to show the latest time of day the sun was in full view from the vantage point of the PGF site.

Of course if this isn't footage from the PGF site, then all bets are off.

[LTC8K6]

But where is Roger's tree?