Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here is a stabilization which shows Patty walking away from the big fallen tree and collected debris in the creek which she was hidden behind...

Interesting how that stabilization shows the camera moving in a circular motion, which appears contrived IMO

[LTC8K6]

One can also clearly see the water flowing...

Well, I can...

[The Shrike]

Still just trying to have some idea of what folks are discussing here, so please bear with me.

Mangler, your image of the "pour scene" seems to match best with a 41-degree sun angle. Is that your contention?

If so, what does that mean? I'm assuming it establishes something about the timeline of PGF events that either supports or refutes the Patterson/Gimlin narrative.

[William Parcher]

It's a really big logjam in the creek and Patty is walking directly away from it. The Rugg illustration is more accurate (according to Gimlin) than Steindorf/Hajicek because he has put Patty right next to the flowing creek water (Gimlin said 18") alongside the logjam.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Mangler, your image of the "pour scene" seems to match best with a 41-degree sun angle. Is that your contention?

If so, what does that mean? I'm assuming it establishes something about the timeline of PGF events that either supports or refutes the Patterson/Gimlin narrative.

[LTC8K6]

Seems like Patty could easily have kept out of sight.

[parnassus]

Shrike,
The sun did not reach 41 degrees on Oct. 20. It only reached 38.
It did reach 41 degrees on Oct 12 (the date of the filming according to Bob H was either Oct. 12th or 5th) or earlier.

Furthermore, those elevations were reached at solar noon, roughly 1pm. The sun sinks after that. To suggest that this was filmed at 230 or 300 oclock, on Oct. 20, verges on the absurd, imho, as the sun would have been more like 30 degrees or less.

Incidentally, 30 degrees will be reached here at noon today at 37 degrees 46 minutes north latitude. You can check your own max solar angle at http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html.
If I get a chance and the sun is out at noon I'll take a pic.

[The Shrike]

So . . . Gimlin and Patterson claim to have filmed THAT photo at 2:30 or 3:00 pm on 20 October, 1967? (We have specific evidence that they made that claim about that photo?)

The evidence from the photo itself suggests that it had to have been taken instead closer to 12:00 pm, and perhaps no later than on 12 October, 1967? If that is true, then we have evidence that Patterson and Gimlin were untruthful about events related to the filming but the one man who has repeatedly claimed to have been involved in the hoax (Bob H.) has had his timeline potentially corroborated?

[William Parcher]

You are paying too much attention to BFF instead of JREF.

Originally Posted by The Shrike

So . . . Gimlin and Patterson claim to have filmed THAT photo at 2:30 or 3:00 pm on 20 October, 1967? (We have specific evidence that they made that claim about that photo?)

No. Roger is dead and there is no record of him saying anything specific about that specific scene. Gimlin has said nothing specific about that specific scene. He simply says that he has no recollections of using a camera... not that he didn't use a camera.... but that his memories of such are blank. I could imagine a series of questions posed to him of which all would be answered "I don't remember."

Quote:

The evidence from the photo itself suggests that it had to have been taken instead closer to 12:00 pm, and perhaps no later than on 12 October, 1967? If that is true, then we have evidence that Patterson and Gimlin were untruthful about events related to the filming but the one man who has repeatedly claimed to have been involved in the hoax (Bob H.) has had his timeline potentially corroborated?

I doubt that you would get any PGF proponent to outright say that this represents P&G lying. Mainly because neither man has said anything specific about this specific scene. PGF historians and believers can say that they themselves made mistakes and assumptions but that P&G were essentially honest and did film a real Bigfoot. Look at the size and bulk, look at the muscles and look how it walks like no man can. It's a Bigfoot so get over your sun shadow nit-picking already.

[William Parcher]

Besides that, Odinn/Gigantofootecus still says the plaster pour scene could have been filmed in the late afternoon of Oct. 20th. I think.

[mangler]

Shrike,

I agree with Parcher, I don't believe there is any evidence that Patterson or Gimlin claimed that this film strip was indeed taken on Oct.20. It has simply been a question mark, I suspect this clip is probably the film that Patterson referenced to Krantz regarding the filming of fake tracks.

“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).' “


m

[Drewbot]

Which of course means that the pour scene was NOT on roll 2.

[parnassus]

The idea that the trackway scene was filmed on the afternoon of Oct. 20 directly after the Pattywalk is an important part of Meldrum's paper naming the footprints. He calls it part of the PGF.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by parnassus

The idea that the pour/trackway scene was filmed on the afternoon of Oct. 20 directly after the Pattywalk is central to Meldrum's paper naming the footprints.

Why? Those are two different scenes. Meldrum can completely discard the pour scene (because it was only practice) and retain the trackway pan scene.

He would say that the trackway panning film shows Patty's tracks on the afternoon of Oct. 20th. And that Roger obviously put plaster into one of her tracks but we do not (yet) have any footage of him actually putting that plaster there (if such action was filmed at all).

[parnassus]

Gimlin, however, has said that they did shoot film after the PattyWalk, and that it included the stomp scene, which was "disappeared" by DeAtley, according to what Patterson told Gimlin.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Chris Murphy

At one point, prior to Patterson's death, Gimlin inquired of him (Al DeAtley) as to the location of the second roll. Patterson informed Gimlin that Al DeAtley had it 'somewhere.' Gimlin followed up with DeAtley, but he denied both having the film and that it ever existed. Evidently, DeAtley forgot that he probably had the film developed.

This is just so bizarre. DeAtley tells Gimlin that there was no such thing as a 2nd Reel. He is telling that to the man who would have been there to film it. Gimlin could have knocked him down instantly. "Al, it's what we filmed after the first reel ran out. The tracks, me jumping off the stump, Roger holding up the casts and showing them off. We showed this film to people. Telling me it never existed is like telling me I have no mother."

[parnassus]

Does anyone have Murphy's 2004 book Meet the Sasquatch? That supposedly has some info on this issue.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by parnassus

Gimlin, however, has said that they did shoot film after the PattyWalk, and that it included the stomp scene, which was "disappeared" by DeAtley, according to what Patterson told Gimlin.

They can say what they want, they are never held to it.

In the 67 radio interview, they also say they filmed the tracks right then and there. Now the interviewer is not dreaming. He saw tracks in a movie.

Quote:

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

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

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

R: That's right.

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

R: Right.

[LTC8K6]

There is no mention of jumping off a stump in the 67 radio interview, even though questions about Patty's weight are asked, and the tracks in the movie are talked about, and the depth of the tracks is mentioned.

[River]

Originally Posted by mangler

Shrike,

I agree with Parcher, I don't believe there is any evidence that Patterson or Gimlin claimed that this film strip was indeed taken on Oct.20. It has simply been a question mark, I suspect this clip is probably the film that Patterson referenced to Krantz regarding the filming of fake tracks.

“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).' “


m

I agree this may be the case and I've said so a few times in this thread previously. That could explain the beard growth on patterson for the "display" footage also. Sure seems like quite a bit of growth there. Would be interesting to see the entire "second reel" footage to see if there are any shots of Patterson on there. (and if that was part of it)

For now though, it's my opinion that this footage of Patterson casting the tracks that we have may very well have been what Krantz referenced. I've discussed this very thing with a few proponents in the past. (like Munns, and Murphy) I suspect that Gimlin "won't remember" if asked where this footage came from. I've already asked Murphy to pose that question to Gimlin at their next meeting. I don't know if he will, or if Gimlin would answer with more than that. I've also asked him to relay a question about the identity of the "fake Gimlin" that Patterson went on tour with.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by River

For now though, it's my opinion that this footage of Patterson casting the tracks that we have may very well have been what Krantz referenced.

Which would mean that it was filmed on about Oct. 17th if Roger told the truth to Grover. I asked parnassus to do a NOAA solar positioning for that date but he gave me the 20th instead. Roger apparently gave no indication of time-of-day for his alleged practice cast nor the specific location of the practice at Bluff Creek. Wouldn't it be "funny" if his practice cast was in the same place that Patty walked 3 days later?

Recall that according to Titmus he spent his entire first day looking for the Patty tracks but couldn't find them. "I walked some 14 to 16 miles on Bluff Creek and the many feeder creeks coming into it and found nothing of any particular interest other than the fact that Roger & Bob's horse tracks were everywhere I went. I found the place where the pictures had been taken and the tracks of Bigfoot the following morning." Note that he does not mention finding the practice track with plaster slop and bootprints all around it.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

This is just so bizarre. DeAtley tells Gimlin that there was no such thing as a 2nd Reel. He is telling that to the man who would have been there to film it. Gimlin could have knocked him down instantly. "Al, it's what we filmed after the first reel ran out. The tracks, me jumping off the stump, Roger holding up the casts and showing them off. We showed this film to people. Telling me it never existed is like telling me I have no mother."

Gimlin doesn't know they showed the film of the stomp test to anyone does he?
Wasn't he absent from the gatherings after the film?

Perhaps Roger duped him into thinking they were filming after the Patty walk.

What do we KNOW is after the Patty walk? and could it have been shot before the Patty walk? Perhaps the stomp scene people say was shown at BC in 67 was not from after the walk, but from another track find they had previous, during the documentary filming, or perhaps they did the stomp test next to the test casts, and Roger had Bob do a fake stomp test after the patty walk.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Gimlin doesn't know they showed the film of the stomp test to anyone does he?

Gimlin was at the UBC showing on Oct. 26th. He certainly would have known if the stomp test was being shown or anything else that was supposed to be on the 2nd reel.

[William Parcher]

History of the PGF...

Originally Posted by Chris Murphy

Whether or not the second film roll was shown at these (UBC) sessions is not clear. John Green, who was present, states this roll was shown; Rene Dahinden, also present, says it was not shown.

[parnassus]

I missed that request;
1PM 39.29 degrees solar elevation Oct 17, 1967 at film site
2 37.46
3 32.31
4 24.66
5 15.35

(sorry, no sun here today for photos of parnassus)

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

This is just so bizarre. DeAtley tells Gimlin that there was no such thing as a 2nd Reel. He is telling that to the man who would have been there to film it. Gimlin could have knocked him down instantly. "Al, it's what we filmed after the first reel ran out. The tracks, me jumping off the stump, Roger holding up the casts and showing them off. We showed this film to people. Telling me it never existed is like telling me I have no mother."

Murphy may not be quite correct here. It is my impression that only the stomp test was disappeared by DeAtley. I suppose I will have to look that up.

[parnassus]

the film was shown to three audiences on the 26th. Green, as a newsman, would not have been admitted to the showing on campus. He and Dahinden may well have gone to different showings. I see no contradiction, and would accept Green's account as true, and Dahinden's as "Dahinden didn't see it."

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wallace-iv/

Green probably refuses to this day to accept that Ray Wallace fooled him...

You can tell in his response to Loren Coleman's call to remove Wallace fakes from the database...

[HarryHenderson]

Not sure if I should be embarrassed or rewarded for admitting that although I've followed this thread mostly regularly for a long time now, at this juncture I don't have a ******* clue what it is you guys are actually talking about and/or ultimately trying to prove. That Patterson and Gimlin were telling lies? Really?

Now to be fair, you're all doing a really good job of it, whatever it is. I think I've now read more official PGF/Bluff Creek minutiae than I ever thought I could want to, but seriously, how many more electrons need to die? I mean, the absurdity of the very premise of our spending ungodly amounts of time discussing, analyzing, arguing, and never truly reconciling, a supposed Bigfoot incident 40+ YEARS OLD because we don't have anything more recent to discuss should be our real clue.

Somebody at least wanna try to explain what's going on and in terms that can penetrate my obviously thick skull?

[Correa Neto]

Oh, sure. Here's the basics.

A long, long time ago someone posted a thread far, far away named "Bigfoot Follies", mostly about Beckjord's fantasies. Beckjord himself showed up for debate; later LAL joined attempting to prove bigfootery was actually serious business and submitted PGF as evidence. This piece of evidence, since then, has been examined in detail by some JREF folks.

And that fishy smell ehxaled by PGF just keeps getting thicker and thicker while its dissected...

Checking and collecting minutiae about PGF became a hobby for some posters and they are happy with it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Not sure if I should be embarrassed or rewarded for admitting that although I've followed this thread mostly regularly for a long time now, at this juncture I don't have a ******* clue what it is you guys are actually talking about and/or ultimately trying to prove. That Patterson and Gimlin were telling lies? Really?

...............

I was just thinking about this last night, and it was such a ' Doh ! ' moment ..

There is so much denial on both sides..

Note: I mostly lurk now..

[Drewbot]

Wow. Green and Coleman really duke it out in that Cryptomundo link. fun stuff, Green can't admit Wallace foots were fake now, without making all of his work worthless.

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Oh, sure. Here's the basics.

A long, long time ago someone posted a thread far, far away named "Bigfoot Follies", mostly about Beckjord's fantasies. Beckjord himself showed up for debate; later LAL joined attempting to prove bigfootery was actually serious business and submitted PGF as evidence. This piece of evidence, since then, has been examined in detail by some JREF folks.

And that fishy smell ehxaled by PGF just keeps getting thicker and thicker while its dissected...

Checking and collecting minutiae about PGF became a hobby for some posters and they are happy with it.

Okay good, glad we got that all cleared up.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I was just thinking about this last night, and it was such a ' Doh ! ' moment ..

There is so much denial on both sides..

Note: I mostly lurk now..

As do I. And speaking of denial, out of all this JREF investigation, I'm not so sure Roger Patterson is the one coming out of it as 'the bad guy'.

And to give credit where credit is due - even misdirected credit - I was genuinely prompted to attempt some real understanding of what was happening here specifically by your previous post:

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Wow ! Just Wow ! Doing this and not getting paid is admirable...

I was thinkin' even that Greg guy who's barely been around of late was totally 'gettin it' and I was still out in left field. And I was the one supposedly paying attention. But apparently, that's not quite true?

Actually, I think I do understand more now. And Correa Neto did help. I've always liked fast and/or cool cars. Most kinds. Watching them, working on them, driving them, owning them. But I was just never one who liked sitting around discussing, say, proper jetting sizes or flow bench statistics for a Weber 48 IDF carb. There are plenty who do though. And simply, it appears the JREF Bigfoot contingent is 'those guys'.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

<snip>
I've always liked fast and/or cool cars. Most kinds. Watching them, working on them, driving them, owning them. But I was just never one who liked sitting around discussing, say, proper jetting sizes or flow bench statistics for a Weber 48 IDF carb. There are plenty who do though.
<snip>

Some of us do both, but thankfully I don't have to deal with Weber carbs!

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Is BigfootBookman still posting here? I have some info that may be of interest to him...

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Quote:

I'm not so sure Roger Patterson is the one coming out of it as 'the bad guy'.

Say whaaaaaaaaaat?

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

As do I. And speaking of denial, out of all this JREF investigation, I'm not so sure Roger Patterson is the one coming out of it as 'the bad guy'.

I thought Greg Long's book was outstanding for giving a tremendous amount of insight into Patterson.

On the one hand you have to respect his athletic and artistic abilities. But on the other hand he left a massive wake of bad debts, defrauded investors, stiffed friends, reputations put at risk, etc. - not things to admire.

If Roger had lived a full life his incessant scams would have brought far more scrutiny to the hoax, likely leading to its complete exposure, and also clarifying in terrible relief what kind of person he was. In death he escaped that scrutiny.

Quote:

Actually, I think I do understand more now. And Correa Neto did help. I've always liked fast and/or cool cars. Most kinds. Watching them, working on them, driving them, owning them. But I was just never one who liked sitting around discussing, say, proper jetting sizes or flow bench statistics for a Weber 48 IDF carb. There are plenty who do though. And simply, it appears the JREF Bigfoot contingent is 'those guys'.

I spent a few years on a forum discussing biblical criticism and history. I was driven to discover how the Christian fraud had been perpetrated.

That is an extremely fascinating story to me, and I am satisfied that I understand the entire history from the first century where no Jesus Christ of the gospels existed and the 4th century where the final state-sanctioned canon was imposed.

My participation here is similar. It isn't to argue about whether Bigfoot exists or not, but to come to a better understanding of how the fraud was perpetrated. That is a fascinating story to me, although it isn't taking even a fraction of the time to figure out.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Actually, I think I do understand more now. And Correa Neto did help. I've always liked fast and/or cool cars. Most kinds. Watching them, working on them, driving them, owning them. But I was just never one who liked sitting around discussing, say, proper jetting sizes or flow bench statistics for a Weber 48 IDF carb. There are plenty who do though. And simply, it appears the JREF Bigfoot contingent is 'those guys'.

Glad to be of some use!

It's just like that line about the people who know nothing about everything and those who know everything about nothing...
There' room for both kinds.

[parnassus]

yes, the faking of the film is an interesting puzzle to solve.

[BigfootBookman]

Yes, Bookman is here. What is this information? I simply MUST know.

If private, bigfootbooks@gmail.com or PM on here.
though I am sure the rest here would love to hear it, too.

s.

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

Is BigfootBookman still posting here? I have some info that may be of interest to him...