Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Why would a creature so elusive, and allegedly agile and strong, slowly amble down the streambed?

That's interesting 'cause in 1967 I'm not sure there was this notion of a bigfoot being "fast" or "agile" - just elusive, rare, and keeping to the wildest places. All the superhuman, deer-catching, pig-throwing stuff comes from anecdotal accounts that post-date the PGF, right?

[Drewbot]

1967 thoughts about the speed of Bigfoot do not enter into a discussion about the KILDEER Theory, which didn't come about until it was questioned why a wild animal would slowly meander across the streambed.

Plus, Roger himself said a Bigfoot picked up his car by the bumper.

Also, the Ostman story had strength of the beasts described. It picked him up in his sleeping bag and carried him around.

The original CREW article, had Bigfoot strides at 10' "Apparently while chasing a deer"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=bigfoot&hl=en

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by ShawnC

If we throw out all of what may or may not be interpreted as a suit or muscle movement, we can just look at the behavior of this "creature" and point out some odd things.
I do not claim to be a biologist or zoologist, but I have spent enough time in the woods and am a pretty good observer of the wild animals I have seen.

Watch a deer or bear or squirrel anything that runs around in the woods. They all exhibit certain behaviors in common. When any animal spots you in the woods, depending on the distance it does certain things. First it stops and stares at you to determine if you are dangerous or not. Then it decides fight or flight. A deer will most often choose flight, then take off. When it gets to a position of perceived safety it might stop and look back to see if it is still being pursued. I have never observed an animal of any kind turn to look back at it's pursuer while it was running for cover. Animals rely on it's natural defenses (speed, camoflage, whatever) and don't "second guess" them.

Ooh! Ooh! But Shawn, Patty was obviously not running away. She was sort of casually strolling away. And if we are to believe that it can not lock it's knees because of it's gait, then we can assume it can't "run" with any speed. Forgetting that, though, we'll accept that Patty wasn't particularly afraid of the men she saw, she was just being cautious. While in her cautious retreat she still turned her whole upper torso, without stopping, and looked to the object of the of her retreat because she heard a noise. No stop, no point of safety, just turns around and keeps on trucking.

Maybe it is a hominid. In fact I would bet on it. I would classify it as homo sapiens. Possibly bobus heironimous.

Someone who was directed to act like an ape-like creature would hunch over a little, walk kinda sorta monkey-like and might be directed to look back at the camera for effect.

Hardly a scientific analysis, but as a layman, it's just an impression I get from looking at it, what I know about wild animals, and what I know about people.

Any thoughts?

I have the same impression. It's not something that wild animals do. They don't look back while trying to get away. It is most consistent with a staged event. But bleevers are very inventive, credulous, and industrious, and ad hoc explanations are their stock in trade. Take for example the Skookum cast, or the Patterson lens, or the idea that modern human mtDNA did not come from modern humans. They just swallowed that last one whole and, without pausing for breath, they speculate on whether President Obama will be the one to announce the discovery of Bigfoot DNA!!

[Drewbot]

Don't forget the GA Hoax.

[River]

Speaking of hoaxes, here's a link to check out an interview I had on Biscardis radio show last week regarding the PGF hoax and my article.

[Drewbot]

The comments are priceless

[River]

Haha yeah, it's pretty entertaining.

[ShawnC]

Originally Posted by parnassus

I have the same impression. It's not something that wild animals do.

I just noticed your signature and had to laugh because basically I've had the same arguement for years.

[River]

Turtle shell gap?

[River]

I think this is the left imprint Patterson cast and claimed to be from "patty". (note the toes and the triangular imprint in the center) You can find the imprint and cast images here.

[River]

This is where the casting footage/4 imprint footage was shot. (green rectangle - ignore the red marks they are not mine)

[LTC8K6]

Sez who?

[River]

Sez me I think I've located the source of the shadow in the casting footage also.

I'm also looking for more confirmation images (possibly from greens footage or early pgf frames)

[William Parcher]

If this scene really was filmed after the Patty encounter then Roger's boots and pantlegs should look wet or at least moist. According the the P&G story, he would have run through the creek at least twice. Once in pursuit of Patty with the camera, and then again to go after the runaway horses who stayed on the other side of the creek.

That kind of leather boot in that condition ought to be noticibly darkened after being submerged in water. It would take at least a day or days for them to dry enough to end up looking like this again. The denim pantlegs would look wet for a really long time. The boots and pantlegs are obviously dry.

This scene wasn't filmed after the Patty encounter according to the story given by Patterson and Gimlin. It's a demo or fake casting scene which didn't include a creekwalk beforehand.

[River]

Yeah the timing of it is harder to nail down. The right toe of Rogers boot may be wet in there. The creek doesnt look too deep in the shots showing it. Hard to say.

Perhaps they did it after Heironimus left like he claimed (but who knows how he knows what they did after he left) According to his story they did come by and pick up the suit so that puts them going back to Yakima before going back to make the announcement. Makes a lot of sense that way so they can personally review the film.

Krantz statement puts them within a certain time range (according to his memory banks)

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by River

Hard to say.

You can't cross that creek on foot and still have dry boots. There. That was easy to say.

[River]

Well, his boot does look wet. "lets look at the meta data" on the uh film for the date. hehe

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I've had animals look back at me, but not like Patty. I spooked a deer on Kodiak Island that ran through a thicket, and on the other side was a tiny clear spot just before a steep embankment going down. I laid the scope on that clear patch and sure enough the deer stopped to look back at me at that spot, and pow! Right throught the heart.

The first Kodiak bear I ever saw was as I ascended a ridge, and it was a real monster. He was ambling up the other side of a small draw between us. It was snowing, the sun was setting, and it was a beautiful scene with this one-ton class beast in front of me. I was thinking "what do I do if he turns around" because I only had this puny 30-06 rifle. He stopped at the peak, and this massive head turned to look back at me. Then he disappeared over the other side.

What animals do always makes strategic sense because they have brains enough to plan. These two examples are situations where they took a glimpse at a tactical vantage point before making a decision about their next move.

When we see Patty, the track is along what made the easiest walking/filming, not what makes any kind of strategic sense for escape. Where is Patty going? Not to any kind of cover or trail out or spine to ascend upward. These bigfoot hunters seem to have no animal sense whatsoever. They don't even ask the question: "where is this animal going...what is he doing?" I would say that the majority of big game animals I've shot had me sprinting to a position to fire from after quickly determining where they were going. The vast majority of those, the animal had not spotted me yet.

One thing for sure: if you chase after an animal directly, they ignite the JATO Units and nitrous oxide boosters, and take off into low-earth orbit. No looking back. That's why if they have spotted you, you approach them obliquely and make it look like you are doing something really important, and not paying attention to them. I have gotten herds of caribou to follow along beside me by doing that. They are curious about what I am doing. Same with moose in the yard. If I go from the front of the cabin to the shop and bang around in the shop they don't spook. If you take one step directly at them... then they're skittish and flee.

[River]

Pretty vague because of the zoom, but I think we have a wiener.

[Skeptical Greg]

River ,
What is the source of the upper segment ? ( If you can share ....)

[River]

Skeptical Greg: The source is this photo from Bluff Creek in the upper left corner.

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks..

I have seen that before, but I had no idea that picture was taken, around the time of the filming.

That is very good work ..

One would be inclined to wonder if there are not some other pictures taken at the same time?


Did you ever question Munns about the apparent perspective, possibly from horseback, at the beginning of the film ?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I have seen that before, but I had no idea that picture was taken, around the time of the filming.

That is very good work ..

That picture is 1971 Dahinden, shot from a hillside overlooking the Patty walk area.

River, let me get this straight. You are claiming to see the features shown in the trackway pan scene including individual tracks and some other things that might not be much bigger than a fist?

[River]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

That picture is 1971 Dahinden, shot from a hillside overlooking the Patty walk area.

River, let me get this straight. You are claiming to see the features shown in the trackway pan scene including individual tracks and some other things that might not be much bigger than a fist?

If you'll note my post - it says the image is vague. The footprints are only approximate (although two appear to still be partially visible) I think with a large res scan of the negative some good detail could be brought out. I'm pretty sure about the location being right.

[River]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Thanks..

I have seen that before, but I had no idea that picture was taken, around the time of the filming.

That is very good work ..

One would be inclined to wonder if there are not some other pictures taken at the same time?


Did you ever question Munns about the apparent perspective, possibly from horseback, at the beginning of the film ?

Dahinden took several images (of which I have seen probably most if not all of) but that was the only one I've seen yet showing the overview perspective.

I never questioned Munns about the perspective. To me it is not much proof of anything, but maybe a confirmation of what Heironimus claimed.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by parnassus

I have the same impression. It's not something that wild animals do. They don't look back while trying to get away. It is most consistent with a staged event. But bleevers are very inventive, credulous, and industrious, and ad hoc explanations are their stock in trade. Take for example the Skookum cast, or the Patterson lens, or the idea that modern human mtDNA did not come from modern humans. They just swallowed that last one whole and, without pausing for breath, they speculate on whether President Obama will be the one to announce the discovery of Bigfoot DNA!!

I disagree about not looking back while trying to get away, at least in the case of mule deer. I have startled deer many times, and they frequently will run off about 100 yards, then turn sideways and look back. I suspect this behavior gets a lot of them shot during hunting season.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by CORed

I disagree about not looking back while trying to get away, at least in the case of mule deer. I have startled deer many times, and they frequently will run off about 100 yards, then turn sideways and look back. I suspect this behavior gets a lot of them shot during hunting season.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. They don't look back while running. It's a small point. They stop and look back.

[The Shrike]

I remember one time I flushed this chickadee and as it was flying away from me it turned its head and looked directly at me. Actually, that is not at all true.

I agree, many times I have flushed animals that at some point paused and looked back at me, but I cannot recall an instance of one looking back at me while it was moving away.

[RayG]

Yes, but bigfoot is no ordinary animal. Why, he's almost human...

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

That picture is 1971 Dahinden, shot from a hillside overlooking the Patty walk area.

Just out of curiosity, how do we know this?

[BigfootBookman]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Just out of curiosity, how do we know this?

Christopher Murphy had the print of this photo, from one of the Dahinden sons, on loan. He told me that "1971" was written on back. The landmark trees and stumps are clearly identifiable in the image. Rene was there on site in 1971, 1972, 1977, and other later trips.

BFBM

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by River

If you'll note my post - it says the image is vague. The footprints are only approximate (although two appear to still be partially visible) I think with a large res scan of the negative some good detail could be brought out. I'm pretty sure about the location being right.

Think about how many people left their own tracks on that sandbar from 1967-71. I'm not even saying that what you found are tracks of any kind. But if what you found is the filmed trackway with plaster remnants then it should be lost amongst human observer tracks.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by BigfootBookman

Christopher Murphy had the print of this photo, from one of the Dahinden sons, on loan. He told me that "1971" was written on back. The landmark trees and stumps are clearly identifiable in the image. Rene was there on site in 1971, 1972, 1977, and other later trips.

BFBM

That's all we have to verify the date, and it's only the year?

[River]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Think about how many people left their own tracks on that sandbar from 1967-71. I'm not even saying that what you found are tracks of any kind. But if what you found is the filmed trackway with plaster remnants then it should be lost amongst human observer tracks.

Pasted from an email I wrote earlier sort of about this. Also, I think the reason why a few of the tracks were still visible is they were made much deeper than any normal footprint or animal sign. Even with rain, and weather it would just wash out a hole but the shape would still be vaguely there after much time. (dig out a small hole in an exposed area and leave it for a few years and depending on how much water washes over it etc will influence its shape life) I also am amazed that there is anything left at all to see of a track. (seems like there are two partially visible from the 4 imprint scene) This might also indicate that the tracks were made in such a way that they were very deep or pressed hard into the soil in comparison to human tracks for instance. Look at Patterson next to the track and notice how much he doesnt sink into that soil.


I noticed something else important about the film, and that also indicates hoax. The imprints the subject left were farther away from the cameras perspective than patty was. Jim McClarin also followed those tracks when he was there with Green (there were some still visible from his previous visits even) The location I identified as the casting scene and 4 imprint scene is just behind McClarins starting position. (and not where patty starts)

This is what McClarin said about it.

Quote:

I had walked along the trail of prints when I was there in 1967, the prior autumn. There were still a few impressions and bits of plaster there the next summer (nothing so distinct that it would call attention to most people unless they had seen the prints when they were recognizable) so it was easy to follow over the stretch where the prints had been made in the sand.
Jim

I’m making an image right now that demonstrates the imprints, and pattys path, along with McClarins path. (patty is approximately 7-10 feet closer (very rough eyeball estimate) to the cameras perspective than the imprints are) This might also explain not only why McClarins path is slightly different than pattys (since he was following a fabricated trackway) and it would also explain the hard time Munns has had trying to figure out the lens formula the footage was shot with. (even tho most assume 20mm) The imprints being further away would definitely cause errors.

Simply put, the footprints were not in pattys pathway.

[NavySEAL]

Originally Posted by RayG

Yes, but bigfoot is no ordinary animal. Why, he's almost human...

RayG

Ray
I have a few SEAL Team Mates like that.
NS

[BigfootBookman]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

That's all we have to verify the date, and it's only the year?

Those years, 1971, 1972 and 1977 are when Rene is known to have made trips up there. Murphy conceded that it might have been taken on the 1972 trip, but that "1971" was written on the back of the image. The aerial shot could not have been made in 1977, as from those (not publishable) photos one may see that the seedlings have really grown up rather large already, and are starting to take over the sandbar.

Re. River's theory (I've been conversing with him about it) I can only say that camera perspective is quite deceptive. With our site survey map, and some optical help from Bill Munns, we should be able to document the track-ways of both the subject and the cameraman as in the actual film, represented on the site as it is found today. Can we really see tracks in an image taken nearly four years later? I doubt it. This may just be "blobtracksquatching."

Our experience in making this site survey is that it is very difficult indeed to see in a way that replicates the camera perspective of the film. Many optical illusions exist in the film, which appear quite different when you are actually on the site walking among the stumps and log piles.

See our map and film site photos here:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...iscovered.html

BFBM

[River]

blobRocksquatch! hehe

I know the image (specifically the aerial) is extremely zoomed in and pixelated. It's pretty vague. I can make out enough features there to match the two locations. Also, McClarin just happens to start his walk with those tracks just behind him. (and he said he followed the remanent imprints and plaster bits)

The location of the tracks I chose, and where McClarin walked would seem to confirm my theory.

[LTC8K6]

Dahinden didn't visit the PGF site until 1971? That seems hard to believe.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

”I talked to Patterson, to people who knew him and who know about film, movement, fur suits. I went to the site seven times and made a thorough analysis of every frame of the movie. I studied the heights and dimensions of the creature.”

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...eneinwalla.htm

[BigfootBookman]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...eneinwalla.htm

That article is from 1987 and by then it is true he'd been back, and again in the 1990s, too. However, I have no dates or documentation of those trips. I'm trying now to gain access to the Dahinden archives, and perhaps have some of it housed here in the Willow Creek Museum. Perhaps it will reveal more. Barely any of that stuff has reached the public in ten years, so I hope some of it was preserved. Larry Lund thinks it is in a basement or closet somewhere. Lund has some boxes, but it seems to be all of Rene's pop cultural detritus. As I understand it, from things John Green has said, Rene had troubles getting into the USA until the 1971 trip, but I may be wrong about the date. He was in the USA when the film was shot, in SF promoting the Blue Creek Mountain tracks; but he came to Willow Creek and then directly to Yakima, passing up a grand chance to witness the site at a prime early time. Rene's family do not seem too keen on Bigfoot these days, but they did appear at John Green's Sasquatch Summit this year... a favorable sign.

BFBM