Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

What did he do with his kneeprints?

There may not have been any kneeprints around the faked trackway. He could have squatted down remaining on his feet (boots) as he created them. He could have kneeled or squatted on some object that kept his own impressions from distinctly registering in the sand.

But none of that really matters much. Take another look at the photos of Patty's tracks that I posted. The shots are pretty tight in on the track and don't show much of the surronding sand. Those shots may have been cropped as well. But it wouldn't even matter if Laverty or we did see boot and kneeprints next to the Patty tracks. That would only be explained as P&G getting close to the tracks to examine and/or plaster-cast them. How could anyone really distinguish the bootprints (and maybe kneeprints) of someone who was creating a fake footprint from someone who was just examining such a print? Patterson is "covered" no matter what anyone sees.

Quote:

The difference is in the size of the toe prints, not just length.

I can imagine at least two reasons why this could have occured.

1) Different ways of applying the fake foot into the sand could give the impression of inconsistent toe size.

2) Patterson may have had numerous fake feet that he used. At the minimum, he would have had a left and right foot.

[LTC8K6]

What we need is a crop-circle type expose'.

Make a nice set of bigfoot tracks and film the process.

Then wait for the bobber to go under......

[William Parcher]

LTC, we have no reason to believe anything that P&G said about the encounter or their actions relating to it. These men created a grand hoax in an attempt to fool the world. Even reasonable statements and actions (such as Patterson leaving the camp and going off alone on the morning of October 21) do not have to be true at all.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Does Lu expect us to believe that each bigfoot has a different foot?

Or are we supposed to believe Meldrum believes this?

Or is it that there are several different feet amongst the bigfoot population?

Meldrum says several wildly different prints are from the same foot, period. A bigfoot foot. There is not a snowball's chance in hades of this being true.

Lu's attempt to make it seem like I meant a single bigfoot made all the tracks is pretty strange.

We need a term stronger than obtuse, methinks.....

Edit: tacks, tracks, what's the diff?

***

It's "Wild" Bill - After John Belushi's character in "1941".

I can't even make any sense of that. Nice try wiggling out of it,though. If you'd read the article instead of just grabbing pictures, you'd have known what it said and there would have been no need to try to wiggle out in the first place.

You said:

"Articulating toes indeed. All of these made by the same foot, according to the esteemed Dr. Meldrum."

Is there some way I could have possibly misread that?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

There may not have been any kneeprints around the faked trackway. He could have squatted down remaining on his feet (boots) as he created them. He could have kneeled or squatted on some object that kept his own impressions from distinctly registering in the sand.

He only cast two. The scene was examined by Laverty next day. Just how easy would it have been to fake all those tracks, especially in the rain?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

LTC, we have no reason to believe anything that P&G said about the encounter or their actions relating to it. These men created a grand hoax in an attempt to fool the world. Even reasonable statements and actions (such as Patterson leaving the camp and going off alone on the morning of October 21) do not have to be true at all.

You assume it was a hoax because that fits your paradigm. You have no evidence it was, right? You've already accused Gimlin of lying even though you've never met the man and have no proof he was. You've assumed he's made money off appearances, haven't you, but presented nothing to substantiate that.

Patterson was washing up or something. That does seem too reasonable for your scenario.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

He only cast two. The scene was examined by Laverty next day. Just how easy would it have been to fake all those tracks, especially in the rain?

Good question.. Interesting that the tracks persisted in the rain, and a rising creek no less.


The trackway was clearly in the open ...

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

He only cast two.

He only cast two or he presented two castings to the world?

Quote:

The scene was examined by Laverty next day. Just how easy would it have been to fake all those tracks, especially in the rain?

Patterson didn't create fake tracks in the rain. It began raining in the early morning (still dark) the day after he made them (October 21). I suspect he made them shortly before he filmed them and cast them. The sun's position suggests it was near mid-day when he filmed them and the pouring of some plaster (I suppose Gimlin was holding the camera at that time). We can't say for certain exactly what time of day this "second roll" was shot... but the sun suggests mid-day. As I said, some research (into sun angle) might yield a good approximation.

But just for an example, if it was determined that this angle suggests about noon... I might speculate that he made the trackway before noon on the morning of October 20, 1967... and then filmed the tracks and plaster-casting at about noon.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Good question.. Interesting that the tracks persisted in the rain, and a rising creek no less.


The trackway was clearly in the open ...

And far from the creek. The photos of Titmus' casts I referred to clearly show big rain spatters on one. Didn't we talk about the substrate before?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

And far from the creek. The photos of Titmus' casts I referred to clearly show big rain spatters on one. Didn't we talk about the substate before?

And why, pray tell, should we assume the track found ' far ' from the creek was made by the subject in the film, or on the day the film was made ?

Wasn't Titmus there several days later ?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

You assume it was a hoax because that fits your paradigm. You have no evidence it was, right? You've already accused Gimlin of lying even though you've never met the man and have no proof he was. You've assumed he's made money off appearances, haven't you, but presented nothing to substantiate that.

Yes, I assume this was a hoax. But my assumption is based on a crazy amount and type of circumstancial evidence that points directly to it being a hoax. That is besides the fact that Bigfoot has not been confirmed to be a real animal in the first place.

Quote:

Patterson was washing up or something. That does seem too reasonable for your scenario.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I have no good reason to believe anything that P or G had to say about this "event".

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

That may be its source. I linked the image from a posting on BFF.

It is. I own the book.

Quote:

It doesn't change much if the filming happened at 1:30 or 2:00. There just isn't enough daylight left for P&G to do everything they said they did and then capture the plaster-casting on film without long shadows or a general darkness to the scene. The shadows shown in the still images suggests that the sun is nearly overhead. Somebody could do some research to determine what the angle of the sun is at Bluff Creek on October 20 and what time is sunset.

Yep. It's probably been done and is on BFF somewhere.

Quote:

An approximation might be determined by looking at the shadows in the images and then figuring out where the sun would have to be and about what time of day it was.

Yep again. It should be established whether the photos are of Roger casting on the same day or whether they're of a demonstration he evidently did at one point. There's a thread on this somewhere on BFF. John Green has a copy of reel 2. Perhaps he'd be willing to answer the questions.

Quote:

I have pointed out before that the time needed for P&G to do what they say they did after the encounter seems impossible. After the encounter and filming, an unstated amount of time passes before they begin to track her up the mountainside. At that point Patty is walking through wilderness up the mountain. P&G are on horseback following whatever signs they can use to follow her. They follow this sign for 3.5 miles before losing her trail. Just how quickly can you follow such a trail on horseback up a mountain? But also, once they lose her trail, they have to turn around and ride back through the wilds to return to Bluff Creek and the film site. Then they are still about 2 miles from their truck and the plaster. I believe Gimlin said that 2 mile horseback ride took about 40 minutes. But they have to make a round-trip. They have to get the plaster and then go back to the film site to do the casting and take more film footage.

What's your source on the 3.5 miles? I haven't found that. Gimlin started off after her on horseback and Roger called him back because he didn't want to be left alone. My source doesn't say whether they followed her on horseback or on foot.

Quote:

We are supposed to believe that the sun is in a position to create short shadows after all of that? Get lost! These guys were lying.

The shadow on the left looks pretty long to me. I don't think anyone was lying. You may have garbled the information, though.

Quote:

Articulating?! Lu, this array of toes seems to have shifted itself almost perpendicular to the foot itself.

It wouldn't look like that in a staight on view, would it?

Quote:

This is the photo that seems to show what Meldrum is calling a "mid-tarsal break":



That is Meldrum's interpretation, in spite of no known bipedal hominid having such an adaptation.

Except for Australopiths. Did you see the article I posted re Laetoli about Homo habilis bones being used in the A. afarensis foot reconstruction? How about the one by Deloison? Are there any foot bones of Ardipiths? Orrorin? How do we know what their feet were like from fragments of other bones?

Quote:

What I believe we are seeing is a fake footprint that Patterson made in which he was trying to simulate a push-off. The fake foot he used to create the print doesn't have a mid-tarsal break. He never faked a mid-tarsal break. He faked a push-off from the ball. It's not even a good fake in that respect, as the toes should show distortion instead of being perfect.

There are many other tracks showing the bend. Just how many accomplices in how many states did Patterson have altogether? Total number of fake feet with different toe positions?

Patterson cast the best and Laverty photographed the clearest. Titmus' series of eight casts revealed much more information. The toes there are far from "perfect".

There would be no distortion if the foot was bent, then lifted more or less straight up. Compliant gait, remember?

Quote:

Patterson could have created this print using a fairly rigid fake foot and a creative application into the sand. You don't just lay it on the sand and start pounding it in directly from above. You articulate the foot in different directions and also hammer it in by hitting different spots using varying force and angle. Your last few hits come with the foot tilted forward simulating the push-off.

Did you get that from Long or did you imagine it all by yourself?

Quote:

For all we know, Patterson could have practiced making these tracks hundreds of times at his leisure anywhere. Once he is confident, he makes the imprints at Bluff Creek...possibly even a month after he filmed the fake Bigfoot there.

The turning Vine Maple argues against that.

Why go to California at all when they, Heironimus included, lived in Yakima, Washington? Patterson and Gimlin were already in the St. Helens area, a hot spot even today, when Patricia got the call from Hodgson. Why not just pull the hoax there instead of spending three weeks in California and then pulling a hoax? There were tracks discovered before they got there. And why call in scientists who would have been sure to expose it if they'd bothered to show up? Patterson looked blank when Krantz questioned him on some aspects of biomechanics, yet he would have had to know all that in order to pull it off.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

And why, pray tell, should we assume the track found ' far ' from the creek was made by the subject in the film, or on the day the film was made ?

Wasn't Titmus there several days later ?

Nine.

Because maps were made and we can see her feet sinking into the substrate?

It started raining around midnight that night. I'm assuming it would take many hours to fake that many tracks, especially with the carry and pound method proposed, not to mention erasing the signs of the handiwork before anyone with any brains arrived the next day.

"On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself. Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.

At about 1:30 p.m. that day, Friday, October 20, 1967, Patterson and Gimlin spotted a female Bigfoot down on a Bluff Creek gravel sandbar. Patterson estimated the creature to be about six feet tall, maybe taller, and weighing about 400 pounds. Patterson's horse reared in alarm at the sight of the creature, bringing both horse and rider to the ground, Patterson pinned below. Gimlin's horse and the pack horse, being led by Gimlin, also reacted. The pack horse panicked and Gimlin released its lead in order to control the horse he was riding. Patterson, being an experienced horseman, quickly disengaged himself and grabbed his camera. He ran towards the creature, stopping within about 80-feet and filmed the creature in the distance. While then running, stumbling, stationary, and later walking, Patterson took 24-feet of color film footage which expired the film roll in the camera. During this time, the creature crossed the creek and walked along the opposite sandbar heading upstream. At one point, the creature turned and looked towards Patterson. The creature then hastened its pace somewhat as it continued its passage into a sparsely wooded area directly ahead. In the meantime, Gimlin, on horseback, rode slowly towards the creature. Gimlin crossed the creek and dismounted. He then observed the whole scene, rifle in hand, in case his friend was attacked by the creature. The men had previously agreed that under no circumstances would they shoot a Bigfoot unless to protect themselves or each other. The footage taken by Patterson shows the creature as it disappeared and reappeared between trees in the distance.

Gimlin wanted to immediately continue pursuit on horseback and proceeded to do so. Patterson, however, did not have his horse or his rifle and did not want to be left alone. He therefore yelled at Gimlin to return, which he did. After Patterson's situation was rectified, the men then followed the path taken by the creature. They found scuff mark in the gravel and in the creek bed which may have indicated the creature ran when it was out of the mens' sight. They continued up the creek for a considerable distance and observed a rock with a wet half foot print on the surface. From that point the path led up into the mountains. The men then returned to the film site and examined the path the creature had taken along the sandbar. They observed and filmed (on the second film roll) the creature's footprints in the soil and later made plaster casts of the left and right foot. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured 14.5-inches long by 6-inches wide. Gimlin jumped off a stump to see how far his footprints would sink into the soil in comparison with the creature's prints. The results were that the creature's foot prints were deeper. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment together with footage of horse prints alongside the creature's prints, and the mens' cast-making activities.

Patterson was eager to get his film of the creature developed to ensure that he had in fact caught the creature on the film. On this point, Gimlin has stated, "We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sandbar and getting up and running...we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on the film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything." They therefore decided to airship the film to Al De Atley, Patterson's brother-in-law in Yakima, for immediate processing. It appears the mens' plan was to wait for word from De Atley as to what, if anything, was on the film. This information would dictate their next move. In other words, if they had not captured the creature on film, they would stay longer and try again. The men decided they would both travel to the airport to make the shipment. This task accomplished, they would then return to their campsite. Leaving their horses tethered at their campsite, the two men started out in their truck for a local airport, probably Murray Field in Arcata. On their way, they stopped at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek to talk to their friend, Al Hodgson. As it was after 6:00 p.m., however, the store was closed. Patterson therefore telephoned Hodgson at his home. Hodgson and other friends, including Sly McCoy, thereupon met with Patterson and Gimlin, presumably at Hodgson's store. Patterson and Gimlin then related their experience to their friends. Also, during this time Patterson telephone Al De Atley to inform him of the pending film shipment. Patterson shipped the film to the Seattle, Washington airport for pick-up by De Atley the next day.

Patterson and Gimlin then headed out to an air shipping facility and shipped the film to Al De Atley. As far as we know, only one film roll was shipped to De Atley. It is reasonable to assume Patterson still had the second roll in his camera with sufficient unexposed film for a possible second sighting. The two men then contacted a reporter for The Times-Standard newspaper at Eureka, to whom they related their experience in considerable detail. It is not known if this was a telephone contact or a personal contact. We do know, however, that it took place at about 9:30 p.m. The article appeared in the newspaper the following day, October 21, 1967. The men then immediately headed back to their campsite. By the time they arrived, bad weather was closing-in. By about midnight, it was raining heavily.

In the meantime, at Patterson's request, Al Hodgson telephoned Dr. Don Abbott of the British Columbia Museum of Anthropology and asked him to come down to the film site with tracking dogs. Abbott, however, declined stating that he would wait to see the film. After talking with Hodgson, Abbott informed John Green of events. Abbott also telephoned Al De Atley and requested that the film be brought to Vancouver, B.C., for viewing by scientists at the University of British Columbia. De Atley promised he would discuss Abbott's request with Patterson.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/bio...gf_history.htm

[LAL]

"W: Now, after all this too dreadful excitement what did the pair of you do? Here you've, after all these hundreds of years of rumours and sightings and all the rest of it all up and down the Pacific Northwest and Michigan and Wisconsin and everywhere else, what did you do when
you're standing there, you've recovered from the shock, with a camera full of film? I mean just tell me precisely what you did at that time. What did you say to each other?

R: Well I, when Bob come back, I yelled to him and I said, "Bob, come back," because at this point my horse was I didn't know where and the pack horse was gone, my scabbard, and my rifle was in the scabbard, on the horse, and the tracks before, down in there that we had heard about, were in a set of three, and there was a bigger one there, and I thought that possibly there was a male in close in .

W: You were getting nervous.

R: I was getting nervous.

W: You were on foot there without the rifle.

R: I was on foot without anything, and I yelled to Bob to come back and
we would think the thing over and .

W: Was that just about the time you broke off the chase, you might say?

B: Right, that was, when I last seen her go round the curve. And at that time I went back and proceeded to gather up Roger's horses, his horse that he was riding and the pack horse, and after .

W: Then what?

B: After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera
while he gathered up his stuff and ..

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.

W: How come you had plaster casts with you . plaster with you?

R: We didn't have plaster, 'cause we went, we had to go back to the, to the truck and get plaster and come up and cast them.

W: How long would that take you, to leave the scene, go back to the truck and come up again?

R: We were at that point about two, what, maybe two miles from that area then?

B: Not two miles, I'd say. By the road it was just about an even two miles, across the hill that way it was a little shorter but we went .

W: Now, okay, so you then gave up . you took the plaster tracks . How deep were these tracks by the way, in inches? . Inch and a quarter or .

B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil. These particular ones we took here were, weren't quite so deep because they were flatter tracks.

W: Alright now, many of the zoologists that were people you consulted, have they given you any idea of the weight of this creature? The height or the weight?

B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches.

W: What was the length of the stride?

R: Just pardon me, this was estimated on a fourteen and a half inch, excuse me a fourteen inch track and these tracks were fourteen and a half inches, which would, would add quite a considerable bit .

W: What was the stride cadence? I believe that's the proper technical description.

R: She averaged a forty-one inch stride, somewheres thereabouts. She was taking, she took up to a forty-six inch stride.

W: So that was three feet five to . twelve threes are thirty-six, twelve fours are forty-eight . three feet five to three feet ten.

R: Yes.

W: My goodness gracious me. Of course this . There must be lots of them around there, I mean, whatever were they doing down by the creek?

R: Well there were fish in this creek, we didn't fish it but we seen them jumping, and I . I can only surmise what, she was either drinking or possibly trying to catch a fish in the creek.

W: Any sign of feces as a result of that, feces around, any other tracks of the animal?

R: No, there was no, no, no droppings at all.

W: That's the word I was looking for. Well now what? You going to sell this film to the highest bidder?

R: Well, we're just having to . we haven't made any definite plans but I would imagine that we will, will in future probably sell it.

W: How can you afford to take all this time off to go down . oh no, well first of all, how long have you been looking for sasquatch, live sasquatch?

R: Well, off and on, for about seven and a half years, but the last four years I've made much more of an effort than any other time.

W: You're financially independent?

R: Well, somewhat.

W: In other words you can go out for this kind of caper without suffering too much financially.

R: Well, it's been tough.

W: Why has nobody ever found any bones of these sasquatch, down in that Bigfoot country where they have been reported so many times?

R: Well, not only down in that country but there's been tracks all over the Northwest and Canada, as you well know in Canada, but they seem, I think anyway . this maybe doesn't agree with all the fellows that's been involved in this . but they seem to dwell primarily in the rainforest or they can get to the rainforest fairly easy, and bones in this type of climate, in the rainforest climate, don't last very long.

W: Do you realize, Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson, that people are going to say you're total nuts? You know that, don't you? You're going to be held up to ridicule by some people.

R: Well, I've taken quite a bit of this in the past and it doesn't surprise me. I know they're there, and I know that we're going to get one in the next possibly five to ten years or maybe sooner and when we do I think there's going to have to be many people and also scientists
maybe eat a little crow.

W: You said they are vegetarians, eh?

R: I don't think that they're solely vegetarians.

W: Do you think they go for fish, like bears go for fish?

R: I think that they, they will eat what they have to, to keep alive,
and in some areas if they can get enough vegetation they ...."

Tape ends there.
--------

Source: Graciously contributed to this website by John Green.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/int...opatterson.htm

[RayG]

Originally Posted by LAL

What's your source on the 3.5 miles? I haven't found that. Gimlin started off after her on horseback and Roger called him back because he didn't want to be left alone. My source doesn't say whether they followed her on horseback or on foot.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php

According to the Ivan Sanderson interview, it was Patterson himself who stated:

Quote:

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off-running, I mean — because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three-and-a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks."

RayG

[LTC8K6]

What was the matter with my 3.5 miles quote just a few posts ago?

Quote:

I haven't found that.

Lu may not have found it, but she certainly knew about it long ago since we have discussed these discrepancies in P/G's account many times over. It's just that when we tell her these things, she dismisses them, even with the quotes. That's why she conveniently forgets things despite arguing about them here previously.

Sometimes Roger falls off the horse, sometimes he doesn't....
Sometimes it's 1:30, sometimes it's 3:30....
Sometimes they tracked Patty for miles, sometimes they didn't....
Sometimes Patty stopped and looked at them, sometimes Patty didn't....

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

R: Well I, when Bob come back, I yelled to him and I said, "Bob, come back," because at this point my horse was I didn't know where and the pack horse was gone, my scabbard, and my rifle was in the scabbard, on the horse, and the tracks before, down in there that we had heard about, were in a set of three, and there was a bigger one there, and I thought that possibly there was a male in close in .

W: You were getting nervous.

R: I was getting nervous.

W: You were on foot there without the rifle.

R: I was on foot without anything, and I yelled to Bob to come back and
we would think the thing over and .

W: Was that just about the time you broke off the chase, you might say?

B: Right, that was, when I last seen her go round the curve. And at that time I went back and proceeded to gather up Roger's horses, his horse that he was riding and the pack horse, and after .

W: Then what?

B: After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera
while he gathered up his stuff and ..

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 .

So, Bob has taken the camera from Roger and gone off in the hope of sighting and filming the other one. Roger must therefore have already reloaded the camera by this point. We know from his prior statements that he knew the camera had run out of film.

Can you successfully do this in bright sun under an old poncho, and how long would it take to do it?

They didn't even start on the 3.5 mile track until after all of this was done.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

Yep. It's probably been done and is on BFF somewhere.

Don't bet on it.

Quote:

Yep again. It should be established whether the photos are of Roger casting on the same day or whether they're of a demonstration he evidently did at one point. There's a thread on this somewhere on BFF. John Green has a copy of reel 2. Perhaps he'd be willing to answer the questions.

It's silly that this remains as a question.

Quote:

What's your source on the 3.5 miles? I haven't found that. Gimlin started off after her on horseback and Roger called him back because he didn't want to be left alone. My source doesn't say whether they followed her on horseback or on foot.

This came up months ago and you asked for the source back then.

Quote:

The shadow on the left looks pretty long to me. I don't think anyone was lying. You may have garbled the information, though.

The shadow inside the footprint suggests that the sun is not at any extreme angle. The shadow cast by the kneeling Patterson is almost directly beneath his body. Think about where in the sky the sun would be on October 20 in Northern California. Even at its peak, it is not overhead.

Quote:

It wouldn't look like that in a staight on view, would it?

I think it would. The view we do have shows that the toes are wonky.

Quote:

Except for Australopiths. Did you see the article I posted re Laetoli about Homo habilis bones being used in the A. afarensis foot reconstruction? How about the one by Deloison? Are there any foot bones of Ardipiths? Orrorin? How do we know what their feet were like from fragments of other bones?

Yawn.

Quote:

There are many other tracks showing the bend. Just how many accomplices in how many states did Patterson have altogether? Total number of fake feet with different toe positions?

All Bigfoot tracks are man-made hoaxes. I doubt that anyone was trying to fake a mid-tarsal break (MTB). The MTB (thank you Meldrum) is a way that Bigfoot believers explain a hoax as the real thing. They've done the same thing with the bulge in Patty's upper right thigh. "It's not a flaw in the costume, it's a hernia. Nobody would fake a hernia, Patty is a Bigfoot."

Quote:

Patterson cast the best and Laverty photographed the clearest.

Those are assumptions. Patterson may have cast more than two and ditched others because they looked too fakey. Look at the print at the bottom of the series that Laverty shot. Clear print, huh?

Laverty learns that a "real Bigfoot" has been filmed and its trackway can still be seen in the sand of Bluff Creek. He shows up there the next day and takes only 4 photographs? WTF is up with that? Shouldn't we be examining dozens of photos taken by Laverty?

Quote:

Titmus' series of eight casts revealed much more information. The toes there are far from "perfect".

Titmus made eight castings of Patty footprints at Bluff Creek nine days after the encounter? It rained more than once in that period, yes?

Quote:

There would be no distortion if the foot was bent, then lifted more or less straight up. Compliant gait, remember?

Lifted straight up? How does Patty convert that movement/energy to forwards propulsion?

Quote:

Did you get that from Long or did you imagine it all by yourself?

I haven't read Long's book. I've seen some quoted passages from it and read various reviews. It's a logical and potential explanation for how the fake print(s) was created.

Quote:

The turning Vine Maple argues against that.

You mean the colors of the trees in the PGF? It would help the argument if we knew the approximate earliest date that these trees begin to show color changes in this area.

Quote:

Why go to California at all when they, Heironimus included, lived in Yakima, Washington? Patterson and Gimlin were already in the St. Helens area, a hot spot even today, when Patricia got the call from Hodgson. Why not just pull the hoax there instead of spending three weeks in California and then pulling a hoax? There were tracks discovered before they got there. And why call in scientists who would have been sure to expose it if they'd bothered to show up? Patterson looked blank when Krantz questioned him on some aspects of biomechanics, yet he would have had to know all that in order to pull it off.

I suppose Patterson could have created this hoax almost anywhere. He chose Bluff Creek. So what?

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientists exposing the hoax". All they would see is a series of giant tracks surrounded by human bootprints and horse hoofprints. Then what?

Sure Patterson was baffled by Krantz's ramblings about biomechanics. He had no clue that his hoax would be mounted by a crackpot and ridden like a thoroughbred. He must of thought he died and went to heaven when Krantz turned a cowboy hoax into a wild gigantic Bigfoot. If Patterson were still alive when Meldrum proclaimed the MTB, he probably would have lit up a cigar and chuckled like he had won the lottery. He might even have mailed you a box of chocolates.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Sure Patterson was baffled by Krantz's ramblings about biomechanics. He had no clue that his hoax would be mounted by a crackpot and ridden like a thoroughbred. He must of thought he died and went to heaven when Krantz turned a cowboy hoax into a wild gigantic Bigfoot. If Patterson were still alive when Meldrum proclaimed the MTB, he probably would have lit up a cigar and chuckled like he had won the lottery. He might even have mailed you a box of chocolates.

[William Parcher]

Here's a very interesting little thread over on the BF Think Tank. Look's like "Dfoot" has access to still images from the "second reel".

Apparently Patterson filmed Bob Heironimus on horseback as well as also leading a packhorse. Isn't that fancy?



Take a look at this photo. It includes Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus. See the guy with the long hair? That's Gimlin wearing a wig and pretending to be an Indian tracker. "Me findum big Bigfoot for you, Roger."



Fun stuff, huh?

[Skeptical Greg]

Of course you realize there is more than one version of the story ...

The greatest day of both of their lives, and they cannot remember what happened..

Here is a cool pic from one of the cooler heads over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=283047

Quote:

Isn't that Roger's own foot he's propped up next to a Sas print?

If it is... it sure does have the same bend in the little toe as his 1964 Bluff Creek print.

You don't suppose Roger would stoop to making an enlarged version of his own foot do you?

[William Parcher]

BTW, there is an Internet joke about the "sound of crickets" representing a silence or lack of response in a thread.

The crickets are very loud in that BFF thread.

[William Parcher]

I think that Patterson ditched Gimlin (as a partner in peddling the PGF) fairly early after the filming for a good reason. They were telling conflicting stories about the event immediately after it occured. In some cases the conflict was so great that it looked like they were arguing against each other. The tale of Patterson's bucking horse is the classic screw-up. Patterson realized that he could not control what Gimlin would say at any given time. Their accounts could become more and more divergent over time.

Patterson was damn lucky that Gimlin didn't spill all the beans soon after he was blown off. But at that point, Gimlin was already well invested in telling stacks of lies about the event himself. Poor Gimlin was stuck in an effort to preserve his own personal integrity. Gimlin was trapped. He still is.

[LTC8K6]

Heck, look at the way Roger's big toe is bent well over toward the other 4.

Pretty distinctive foot. Time to look at casts again and see what I can see.....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Heck, look at the way Roger's big toe is bent well over toward the other 4.

Pretty distinctive foot. Time to look at casts again and see what I can see.....

Focus on pre- film dates ..


I don't think he bothered to make more prints after he got the film.. ( except in the days immediately following... )

[Correa Neto]

"Mid-tarsal breaks" are just another item on bigfoot´s list of implausibilities.
Hopefully I am not breaking any forum laws by posting the pics below, since credit is provided. If I am violating any rules, I apologize and humbly submit myself to receive the propper punishment.

Left image taken from http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/deloison/deloison.htm, right image taken from http://williamcalvin.com/portraits;
LAL, as I said before, Deloison´s site contents do not help the cause of those who defend bigfoot as a real creature. On the contrary, it shows how implausible is bigfoot anatomy. Mid-tarsal breaks for bigfoot are implausible and incoherent.
Here´s the real deal. Check the upper image. Here you have a comparsion between the anatomy of human, chimpanzee and gorilla feet. And a nice gorilla on the left. Compare the toe position of the feet with "mid-tarsal breaks" with its position at a human foot.


Upper images taken from http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/deloison/deloison.htm; alleged bigfoot footprint images cropped at this forum.
Now, on the upper part of the image, a comparsion between human, chimpanzee and australopithecine (Laetoli G1/34) footprints. At the lower part alleged bigfoot footprints that we are familiar witth (Bossburg and Bluff Creek). As anyone can see, there are great differences regarding toe positions. Bigfoot, a creature that is said to have a "mid-tarsal break" has its toes at the very same position that humans have! And humans have no "mid -tarsal break".

My personal opinion?
P&G (and F - the Fellow in the gorilla suit) never imagined a researcher would bite so hard unintentional features at the faked footprints. And became quite happy with that. That´s what happens when one lets personal beliefs interferr in any investigation.

edited to fix image sizes

[William Parcher]

I thought we had scientific confirmation of Bigpost.

It was a size misidentification or subsequent morphing. Thanks for fixing the great pictures, Correa!

[Skeptical Greg]

Hey LTC8K6 , I think we have a match :





Particularly the shape of the three smallest toes..

The big toe doesn't twist in, but that could have been changed in the making of the mold or the print.. We have to keep in mind the disparity in the prints of a single trackway when made by a real Bigfoot. Fake tracks made by a flexible foot, would show the same variation..

In fact, a flexible fake foot makes a lot more sense, than a midtarsal break in a bipedal foot.. Right, Correa ?

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I thought we had scientific confirmation of Bigpost.

It was a size misidentification or subsequent morphing. Thanks for fixing the great pictures, Correa!

Bigposts are transdimensional critters that can morph the size of their pics and text. Its a chamaleonic adaptation, an enhanced form of deception, that allows bigposts to live undetected even at a skeptics' forum! However, disturbances in EM fields along cable and phone lines (fiber optics can be affected also), created by ley lines, solar flares or hovering UFOs, can create some interference with their changeling skills. But they can compensate quickly.

Originally Posted by Diogenes

The big toe doesn't twist in, but that could have been changed in the making of the mold or the print.. We have to keep in mind the disparity in the prints of a single trackway when made by a real Bigfoot. Fake tracks made by a flexible foot, would show the same variation..

In fact, a flexible fake foot makes a lot more sense, than a midtarsal break in a bipedal foot.. Right, Correa ?

Nowdays, with so many different types of rubber, resin and plastic compounds avaliable, making a pair of flexible bigfeet would not be that hard, but still more expensive (and traceable, since these compounds are not that common) than carving from a plank. Using a hoaxer´s approach, I think that sticking to the KISS principle perhaps would be better. Two wood planks, a bit of carving skills and you´ll have a pair of bigfeet. Back tracking with rigid bigfeet can create the "break", for example, and also would be usefull for some hoaxing purposes ("look, no human footprints near the bigfoot footprints").

Aniway, one must also keep in mind that, besides the obvious anatomic mismatch between bigfeet´s "mid-tarsal breaks" and real "mid-tarsal breaks", there´s another important issue. A "mid-tarsal break" in a bipedal adapted for long distance walks, such as bigfeet are supposed to be, is inneficient, causing waste of energy. Such feature would most likely disappear as the species evolves and adapts.

The options left for footers, assuming that the creature is real (something I think is quite unlikely) are:
(1) Krantz was wrong and Bigfeet have no "mid-tarsal breaks";
(2) Bigfeet have "mid-tarsal breaks" but are not animals adapted for long-distance walks, they do not have great territories. In this case, Krantz et al. are wrong again. And two additional questions appear: (a) If their territories are smaller, shouldn´t they be tracked, shot, captured or filmed? (b) "Mid-tarsal breaks" are an adaptation for climbing trees. Can anyone imagine a 3-m tall ape dangling over tree branches?

Whatever are people´s ideas on bigfeet, I think the above reasoning shows that the works from Krantz et al. are not the masterpieces claimed by LAL. They have serious holes. Holes that are easily fixed when one considers that a basic conclusion of theirs was wrong. They were wrong when claimed that bigfeet are real.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What was the matter with my 3.5 miles quote just a few posts ago?

I wasn't getting my topic reply notifications and probably didn't skim back far enough. I don't remember seeing that.

Quote:

Lu may not have found it, but she certainly knew about it long ago since we have discussed these discrepancies in P/G's account many times over. It's just that when we tell her these things, she dismisses them, even with the quotes. That's why she conveniently forgets things despite arguing about them here previously.

Sometimes Roger falls off the horse, sometimes he doesn't....
Sometimes it's 1:30, sometimes it's 3:30....
Sometimes they tracked Patty for miles, sometimes they didn't....
Sometimes Patty stopped and looked at them, sometimes Patty didn't....

Oh, f'r Pete's sake. I didn't ignore it, I just wasn't able to find a source with a precise distance. Coleman says three miles. In fact, how would they know how far it was, precisely, and was it on foot or on horseback? I'm not finding that either. They did get to Hodson's store after closing.

None of this adds up to hoax in the first place. Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of an unexpected event are normal and memories bleed over time. Reporting errors happen, frequently. If that's dismissing them, okay. I'm interested in getting the most accurate account possible. Knights has done extensive work on the timeline. Did you find that thread on BFF?

Right now, I'm interested in finding out more about the pictures. Titmus found evidence four tracks were cast. The photo with Roger shows four but they aren't identified and Coleman says he cast several, but I've read he said he only cast two, the best left and right. I'm also trying to find more on the casting photo. If it was a demo and not done the same day, the shadows don't matter.

Why don't you go back to Googling instead of trying to denigrate me? If you come up with anything important, you might even convince me.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Bigposts are transdimensional critters that can morph the size of their pics and text. Its a chamaleonic adaptation, an enhanced form of deception, that allows bigposts to live undetected even at a skeptics' forum! However, disturbances in EM fields along cable and phone lines (fiber optics can be affected also), created by ley lines, solar flares or hovering UFOs, can create some interference with their changeling skills. But they can compensate quickly.

If that's not a joke, send it to Erik Beckjord. He'll eat it up.

Quote:

Nowdays, with so many different types of rubber, resin and plastic compounds avaliable, making a pair of flexible bigfeet would not be that hard, but still more expensive (and traceable, since these compounds are not that common) than carving from a plank. Using a hoaxer´s approach, I think that sticking to the KISS principle perhaps would be better. Two wood planks, a bit of carving skills and you´ll have a pair of bigfeet. Back tracking with rigid bigfeet can create the "break", for example, and also would be usefull for some hoaxing purposes ("look, no human footprints near the bigfoot footprints").

You might want to examine actual fake feet from the era, e.g., Wallace's and Mullens'. Several investigators, Meldrum and Krantz included, have made carved feet and experimented with them to see what kind of tracks they leave. Krantz has photos and diagrams in his book. Are you sure you read it? You might want to examine some actual evidence, too, instead of relying on photos on the Internet and "logic".

Quote:

Aniway, one must also keep in mind that, besides the obvious anatomic mismatch between bigfeet´s "mid-tarsal breaks" and real "mid-tarsal breaks", there´s another important issue. A "mid-tarsal break" in a bipedal adapted for long distance walks, such as bigfeet are supposed to be, is inneficient, causing waste of energy. Such feature would most likely disappear as the species evolves and adapts.

Like the appendix and wisdom teeth? Why are you comparing the feet of knuckle walkers with those of hominids? They're not habitually upright. They have fangs as well. Does that mean we have to have them too?

Bipedalism is efficient compared to knuckle-walking. Read Tattersal.

Quote:

The options left for footers, assuming that the creature is real (something I think is quite unlikely) are:
(1) Krantz was wrong and Bigfeet have no "mid-tarsal breaks";
(2) Bigfeet have "mid-tarsal breaks" but are not animals adapted for long-distance walks, they do not have great territories. In this case, Krantz et al. are wrong again. And two additional questions appear: (a) If their territories are smaller, shouldn´t they be tracked, shot, captured or filmed? (b) "Mid-tarsal breaks" are an adaptation for climbing trees. Can anyone imagine a 3-m tall ape dangling over tree branches?

Homo is descended from an arboreal ancestor too. All the apes are.

Quote:

Whatever are people´s ideas on bigfeet, I think the above reasoning shows that the works from Krantz et al. are not the masterpieces claimed by LAL.

I think the reasoning is faulty to begin with. (Lu's to do list: Take Physics. Take Logic 101.)

I've never claimed the works are masterpieces, but they are the result of serious investigation and research as opposed to armchair speculation.

Quote:

They have serious holes. Holes that are easily fixed when one considers that a basic conclusion of theirs was wrong. They were wrong when claimed that bigfeet are real.

I believe it was Meldrum who proposed midtarsal flexibility, not Krantz. Krantz gave them only a 10% chance of being real before he examined the Bossburg track casts, incidently.

Instead of wasting your time on this board, why don't you and Pat Kelley co-author a paper (with footnotes by Bearfoot Bill, perhaps) and submit it to the Society For Scientific Exploration where it would probably be sent to Meldrum for review? I suspect he would tear it to pieces in his mild-mannered way, but, what the heck, that's Peer Review.

Speaking of Meldrum, I just read he had an article on the Skookum Cast published in New Scientist. I'll try to find this after work.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Several investigators, Meldrum and Krantz included, have made carved feet and experimented with them to see what kind of tracks they leave.

"We couldn't duplicate it, so no one else could."

Same old silly argument.... we have to have an esoteric explanation since we were unable to do what someone else might have done. This seems to be universal among woos.

Hey Jeff, this is what kind of tracks wooden bigfeet leave:

[LTC8K6]

At this point, I would like to reference Rebecca Bradley from the pyramids thread.

Quote:

You appear to be not just invincibly, but willfully ignorant.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by LAL

I didn't ignore it, I just wasn't able to find a source with a precise distance.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php

Three and a half miles according to Patterson.(in February 1968)

Quote:

Coleman says three miles.

Coleman says three miles? Why would Coleman, who wasn't there, be more accurate than Patterson?

Quote:

In fact, how would they know how far it was, precisely, and was it on foot or on horseback?

If it was on horseback Patterson could probably give very accurate estimates of distance. Apparently he spent a great deal of time in the saddle, and would be familiar with how far his horse would travel based on time spent and speed of horse. However, whether it's three or three and a half, on foot or on horseback, it still eats into the timeline of events. If they tracked on foot it would take them even longer to traverse the six (or seven) miles before attempting to plaster cast tracks.

Do you believe they attempted to follow Patty, and if so for what distance?

Quote:

None of this adds up to hoax in the first place.

No, but the numerous discrepancies in their recollection of events certainly make it hard to determine what actually happened.

Quote:

Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of an unexpected event are normal and memories bleed over time.

That's why I take Patterson's recollections over Coleman's, Patterson was recounting events within four months of it happening. When, and how, did Coleman's come up with his three mile guesstimate?

Quote:

I'm interested in getting the most accurate account possible.

Me too.

Quote:

Knights has done extensive work on the timeline. Did you find that thread on BFF?

Is there a specific link?

Quote:

The photo with Roger shows four but they aren't identified and Coleman says he cast several...

I wasn't aware Coleman was there.

Quote:

If you come up with anything important, you might even convince me.

Exactly how it's supposed to work.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally Posted by LAL

Speaking of Meldrum, I just read he had an article on the Skookum Cast published in New Scientist. I'll try to find this after work.

I wonder whether the article will be compelling or not.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newsletter/01_05.php

Quote:

"I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling." -- Dr. Meldrum

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/IS...s_rel_cast.asp

Quote:

"While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere." -- Dr. Meldrum

RayG

[LTC8K6]

From the original news article 10/21/67:

Quote:

"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up.

Okay, so you have finally, after years and years, managed to creep up on this creature and it is still crouching down by a river, you have a camera with you to get it on film, and you are on horseback so you can follow it, and you are armed for protection.

Everything is perfect.

I think I will now yell out loud to the guy riding near me, spook the creature only 80 feet away from me, scare my horse, and blow the whole thing.

If I were Bob, I would have considered shooting Patterson.

You'd think these guys had never been hunting or tracking in the woods.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Bigposts are transdimensional critters that can morph the size of their pics and text. Its a chamaleonic adaptation, an enhanced form of deception, that allows bigposts to live undetected even at a skeptics' forum! However, disturbances in EM fields along cable and phone lines (fiber optics can be affected also), created by ley lines, solar flares or hovering UFOs, can create some interference with their changeling skills. But they can compensate quickly.

Originally Posted by LAL

If that's not a joke, send it to Erik Beckjord. He'll eat it up.

No, its not a joke. I do belive in bigposts! I even own some footprint casts from a bigpost taken at Crackpot Creek! And some high-quality footage from Lisa, a female bigposter, avaliable only to the few selected believers that know the secret handshake!

Now, on a "serious" side, do you think I can make some money with that sort of stuff?

Originally Posted by LAL

You might want to examine actual fake feet from the era, e.g., Wallace's and Mullens'. Several investigators, Meldrum and Krantz included, have made carved feet and experimented with them to see what kind of tracks they leave. Krantz has photos and diagrams in his book. Are you sure you read it?

I find the conclusions of the "several investigators" quite shaky. LAL, why do you think someone would be convinced that bigfeet are real by reading Krantz?

Originally Posted by LAL

You might want to examine some actual evidence, too, instead of relying on photos on the Internet and "logic".

Are you using anything else than photos and texts on the internet, videos, etc.? Define "actual evidence".

"Logic" is what bigfoot creduloids use to find excuses around many contradictory issues and implausibilities.

Originally Posted by LAL

Like the appendix and wisdom teeth? Why are you comparing the feet of knuckle walkers with those of hominids? They're not habitually upright. They have fangs as well. Does that mean we have to have them too?

LAL, your analogies are not correct. The appendix interferr negatively with the digestive function? The wisdom teeth negatively affects the efficiency of the act of chewing?

Now, an extra articulation in the feet will have a negative effect on the efficiency of the act of walking (see below).

Originally Posted by LAL

Bipedalism is efficient compared to knuckle-walking. Read Tattersal.

Homo is descended from an arboreal ancestor too. All the apes are.

And feet with mid-tarsals breaks render bipedalism inefficient. Remember this pic?

It does not take a specialist in biomechanics to see how ineficient the mechanics of the foot in the left would be...

Originally Posted by LAL

I think the reasoning is faulty to begin with. (Lu's to do list: Take Physics. Take Logic 101.)

Then please provide a better one. Not necessarily yours. Bring on Krantz's or Meldrum's take on the issue, for example.

Originally Posted by LAL

I've never claimed the works are masterpieces, but they are the result of serious investigation and research as opposed to armchair speculation.

So what? All "serious investigations" always result in the correct conclusions? PhDs and experts are always right?

If I were defending bigfoot as a real creature by say, seeing muscles in Patty, would you complain about my armchair investigation? And, BTW, does it takes anything else than armchair investigation to find such obvious flaws?

Originally Posted by LAL

I believe it was Meldrum who proposed midtarsal flexibility, not Krantz. Krantz gave them only a 10% chance of being real before he examined the Bossburg track casts, incidently.

And so?

Originally Posted by LAL

Instead of wasting your time on this board, why don't you and Pat Kelley co-author a paper (with footnotes by Bearfoot Bill, perhaps) and submit it to the Society For Scientific Exploration where it would probably be sent to Meldrum for review? I suspect he would tear it to pieces in his mild-mannered way, but, what the heck, that's Peer Review.

I have considered writing a paper dealing with these issues even before you joined this forum, LAL. However, prepairing a paper is time-consuming, and spare time is something I don´t have too much in my hands these days, unfortunately.

If I lived in USA, I would use some extra spare time to hoax bigfoot pictures and footprints just for fun. Unfortunately, since I live in Brazil, I will have to keep on having fun with UFO and elementals creduloids. But who knows, its actually far from impossible for me to do some field work in the future in bigfootland... Or maybe to ask a friend or two a favor...

Originally Posted by LAL

Speaking of Meldrum, I just read he had an article on the Skookum Cast published in New Scientist. I'll try to find this after work.

Sounds fun... Do you have any hopes that we will not be able to find flaws?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

I wasn't getting my topic reply notifications and probably didn't skim back far enough. I don't remember seeing that.

That is a poor excuse for someone like yourself who seems to be an amateur researcher of the PGF and has a zillion factoids at your fingertips. The things that P&G said to reporters would seem to be important towards establishing authenticity, or otherwise. It seems that when Heironimus says things, they can be used to damage his credibility. When P&G say things, it is just water rolling off a duck's back. Apparently, their accounts are so meaningless that you don't even pay close attention to them... or care.

Quote:

In fact, how would they know how far it was, precisely, and was it on foot or on horseback? I'm not finding that either. They did get to Hodson's store after closing.

It doesn't matter if it was precise. For whatever reason, they decided to give the distance in a way that suggests some precision, or at least a desire to appear precise. They may have truly gone to Hodson's store on the evening of October 20th, but that doesn't mean they are telling the truth about what happened earlier that day.

Quote:

None of this adds up to hoax in the first place.

It is amazingly supportive of a hoax theory.

Quote:

I'm interested in getting the most accurate account possible. Knights has done extensive work on the timeline. Did you find that thread on BFF?

I found an interesting thread by Knights. I don't know if it is the one you are thinking of. Here Knights tries to outline and reconcile the timeline of the film processing. This is a different bizarre timeline than the actions of P&G at Bluff Creek after encountering Patty, but is still related. It looks like Knights has the suspicion that P&G did not film Patty on October 20. Instead of the stench of a Bigfoot, the whole thing smells like a rat. Look here.

Quote:

Right now, I'm interested in finding out more about the pictures.

Get in line.

Quote:

Titmus found evidence four tracks were cast. The photo with Roger shows four but they aren't identified and Coleman says he cast several, but I've read he said he only cast two, the best left and right.

So Patterson cast four tracks and only presented two. How supportive is that of this not being a hoax?

Quote:

Why don't you go back to Googling instead of trying to denigrate me? If you come up with anything important, you might even convince me.

Googling doesn't help much, because there seems to be a conflict of information coming from the sources themselves. Not to mention that all of the information is coming from Bigfoot believers in the very first place. I have no good reason to think that those types are completely honest and forthcoming.

[William Parcher]

There is another interesting discussion of Patterson's "second reel" over here on BFF. Apparently, the poster "Manzinn" has a video of this that was taken from a 1975 documentary called "Bigfoot Man or Beast". I can't get the link to work that he provided.

Anyway, there does seem to be the question whether it shows Patterson casting Patty's tracks or ones that he created himself for his "documentary". Some are saying that he created a fake trackway at Bluff Creek in the days before the Patty encounter and that is what we are seeing.

There is more to say about this and hardly anything is looking innocent to me.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

"We couldn't duplicate it, so no one else could."

Same old silly argument.... we have to have an esoteric explanation since we were unable to do what someone else might have done. This seems to be universal among woos.

That's not the argument. Rigid feet graphically demonstrate what can and cannot be done. Good researchers experiment. They don't just sit around making stupid comments about the opposition.