Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by drapier

....................
(Maybe when a Hollywood studio creates a gorilla or a bigfoot costume the purposes are different than achieving scientific accuracy.)

Just some thoughts.

I have observed more than once, that there is no intent to deceive in Hollywood movies. Their purpose is not to make you believe you are looking at a real gorilla or whatever . The viewer is looking at a role, and the costume defines the character ..

Patterson had the luxury of not having to compete with any kind of standard set by past hoaxers; and subsequent wanna' be's have the disadvantage of being held to the standard he set, whether you believe it is good or bad..


Why would you assume it is any easier to make a good copy of a bad suit than of a good one ?

[drapier]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I have observed more than once, that there is no intent to deceive in Hollywood movies. There purpose is not to make you believe you are looking at a real gorilla or whatever . The viewer is looking at a role, and the costume defines the character ..

Yes, so when we see pictures of Harry or Andre the giant as bigfoot and are asked about whether they are adequate stand-ins for Patty, the question misses the point.

In my opinion, if I knew nothing of gorillas, this fellow:



would seem much more like a real animal than would Patty (regardless of the dramatic intent of the filmmakers).

[William Parcher]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Luminous

What in the world are you talking about? Who said I don't want to be confronted or questioned about believing that P/G is the real deal? I have never said anything the even closely resembles that statement.

(The funny thing is you know it. You're intentions are obvious.)

You find true debate boring, and you want a more heated argument so you're stirring the pot. Only children play such games. Right now, your a child in my eyes, and nothing more Diogenes. And on top of that, you haven't even managed to stir my anger. I look at you with pity because you don't even recognize how much your behavior makes you look like a fool.

So, you think Patty is a real Bigfoot .... because ?

[RayG]

Originally Posted by carcharodon

Oh absolute codswallop. Where are you getting this stuff from???

.
Coleman perhaps? (The same info I pointed out to you back in June 2006 on the BFF if you recall).

Coleman describes some distinct variations in his book, including 'Napes' -- long, swinging arms, humanlike ears, hog-like eyes, and a footprint complete with an opposed big toe. (page 56)

The 'Nuk-luk' is described as a, "rather small, dark, upright, hominid creature covered with black hair on its head, upper body, and legs. It had a black head, slightly pointed at the back, and a light brown face with a small black nose. Though it, too, had a very long, brown beard that went down to its waist, the creature wore some kind of ankle-high boots and a piece of moose skin around its waist, and it carried a stone club." (page 52)

The 12' Pitt Lake Giant (British Columbia) has only 4 toes, its arms reached below the knees, and its yellow hands were the shape and size of canoe paddles. (page 44)

Not a Coleman fan? How about the internet? Here's some reports that seem to differ from the broad and bulky Patty.

RayG

[mangler]

a few reply's for carcharodon


"Honestly, what is the big problem in Patty coming along the hard road on the right side of the creek, crossing the creek by the downfall log to rest and probably drink water sheltered by the fallen tree pile then retreating back on the left side of the creek after she encountered Patterson and Gimlin???? She couldn't cross back over to the creek onto the hard road again the way she likely came because P and G were on that side so she retreated via the left side of the creek."

So are you saying that it's intent was to go back (retreat) to where it came from? Because if this is so, flags and rockets would go off for me. A few thoughts would instantly pop into my mind, backtracking, transition area and food source, in that order. Animals backtrack, they do this quite frequently. I'm not going to go into much detail but one example would be transiting from one feeding area to another. Now if said animal gets nervous for any reason it will often head back the same direction it came from, it will usually hook back into it's original path (if not the original path at least very close, half mile give or take). If it does not do this when it becomes nervous it will go to it's pushdown (the quickest route to cover, escape route), it obviously did not go to it's pushdown. Bluff Creek is a classic example of a transition zone, a transition zone is basically going from cover to the open and often associated with finding food/feeding, if an animal uses/crosses it once, odds are in favor that it (or others) will use it again. Last but certainly not least is food source. There is abundant bear sign as well as cougar and bobcat throughout the entire Bluff Creek drainage, all you have to do is follow the food-chain down and you know that this area (the basin) has now, as well as always, sustainable food sources.

Under the circumstances laid out in the PG story why would this particular animal react like no other animal on earth? It's hard for me to accept your rest and drink water theory because there are several water sources close by so it wouldn't have had to leave the cover of the forest. Why didn't it go to it's pushdown, maybe it's as simple as it did not feel threatened (maybe not), I don't know. Was it transiting from one feeding area to another, the answer to this would have to be on Titmus and how far upstream he traveled and/or how closely he truly surveyed the basin in that area, I do not have much faith in Bobs tracking ability at this point so again I guess we will never know for sure. Had it been hunting the cover of the transition zone, gave that up, got a drink, and well . . . So now lets read a statement Titmus made and think about it in the terminology of, how do we see bigfoot again? "This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns." 1.)Heavily timbered, remember that this is mostly old growth forest and possibly recent clearcut, believe it or not old growth is not good habitat to find animals, be it larger herbivores, carnivores or omnivores (unless there is a zone transiting game trail, remember, where herbivores go carnivores and omnivores go) on a regular basis. Why is old-growth not good habitat? Well because there is only 2.) some underbrush, herbivores live in habitats of thick undergrowth they also prefer a healthy variety of vegetation as there food source. So, it's beginning to look like the surrounding forests may not be large animal habitat but we really don't have enough information at this point 3.) deep carpet of ferns, if a bear eats a fern it's certainly at the bottom of it's list, I have never seen evidence of bear eating ferns. Deer also do not eat ferns, maybe it's because of the thiaminase in them, thou both deer and bear eat horsetail and it also contains thiaminase so I'm not sure what's up with them not eating ferns, all I know is that it is not a primary food source. What does all of this mean? Well apparently nothing to the bigfoot community, but, the fact remains, proper employment of these clues are what separate failure from success in the real world when searching for game.

ANIMALS ARE HABITUAL

I have to believe that sasquatch is not so much unlike other animals. Sure it could be the smartest, but it's not as smart as man, if it were, we'd be living in the forest and it would be living in houses. It's going to use major trails to transit, it's going to have runs like all other animals and it's going go pushdown when it wants out. About the only thing I can accept it would not have on a regular basis would be a recognized pushdown (pushdown used more than once), thou I'm certain the bigfoot club experts would never check for this, they always seem to be running the other-way.

"I'm beginning to think you trully believe tracks should be left in all and every kind of substrate and all and every kind of terrain. It doesn't quite work like that."

It does work like that, that is exaclly how it works. Nothing personal but by implying this you are simply stating to what degree your lack of knowledge with this subject is. You ever hear the terms compression sign, side-heading, entrance point, displacement, slide spoor, do you know why one of the most important tools for daytime tracking is a flashlight? Again, just because you don't think it can be done doesn't mean it can't.

"If Patty had come down the hard road on the right of the creek as Titmus thought then it most likely would have taken more than a 'little' effort to discover the tracks."

You've got to be ***** kiddin with this one. Hot on the trail of one of the greatest discoveries of mankind and the guy can't put forth more than a "little effort". That's just plain lazy ass BU(( S#!T !!!! The fact is you will learn more about everyday/common behavior following tracks backwards (in) after an animal has been spooked than you will cutting it's sign out.

"He was on his own. We are lucky he got what he did. He was more concerned with examining and casting what was in front of him and probably not thinking that 40 years later some scoftic on the JREF forum was pulling his hair out complaining that he didn't pull out all stops to examine every minute bit of ground (including the hard road) on the right hand side of the creek to try and find where Patty came from."

"We are lucky he got what he did". Says you, whatever. Titmus did what has become typical of the clown shows, he is one of the forefathers of the bigfoot SNAFU teams. There are only two possible explanations why these guys can never seem to achieve their goal. They either suck at it, or their chasing a ghost.

In Closing;

So again, what does all this mean? Patterson got one on film didn't he? I guess Roger understood animal behavior and the fact that all the animals in that area would eventually use the basins to feed, that all the old growth was simply used to transit from one basin or meadow to the other. He new the basins contained the variety of vegetation that all animals in the area would prefer and that there is good thick cover between the creek and timber, but mostly he seemed to know that unlike all other animal this one did/does not fear man and would chose the longest distance on its journey to cover.

When someone uses the argument that they have been that close to a bear or any of a number of other large animal then say it just sauntered off, I call BS. You don't spook large animals, make eye contact, cause a great deal of commotion (horse rearing or man falling off horse, man and horse crossing creek toward said animal, man chasing after large animal) and not see that animal stand it's ground in a very threatening manner, charge you, or didi mau the F out of there, it just don't happen that way in the real world.

But the film looks so fluid, I see muscle movement, you know what, I see/saw that also, so what I did was took out every interlaced frame and then rebuilt it, then I rendered it without interlacing or compression. You know what, I got something not quite so fluid and it seems to have lost a bit of that muscle movement and definition. I would strongly suggest for anyone seriously interested in this to find the highest resolution copy of MKs work and do that little experiment (it's a shame that more people were not allowed access to Nolls original work, but I guess it's all about self promotion with them). Make it an AVI no interlace and no compression, it will come out between 400-600 Meg's depending on what filtering you use (the large file size does not mean you are gaining information it simply guarantees you will not lose any, there is not much to start with). I think some might find it quite amazing, you can begin to see how a computer interprets then interpolates data, even crappy data. You may also begin to understand why some believe that they can see finger/thumb movement . . . To be quite honest if this is the best MK got out of Nolls work then they didn't get much and/or there wasn't much there to start with.

Basically all there is, is a blurry mess. If there was anything in MKs work that could truly validate claims, they would be hawking this clip big-time. Patricia Patterson would be dangling it in front of the highest bidder and many, many respected PHd's would be stepping-up for a look-see. Of course someone would probably have to come up with the original to verify that no major manipulation was incorporated, damed those scientists from the real world.

There is a saying in editing/publishing/printing . . . Garbage in, Garbage out, folks this is what I believe we have here, Garbage! And I'm sorry if any of you find this offending but I have to state that anyone who claims they have anything more than simply an educated guess (pro or con) about what is on this film needs to start explaining it in an intelligent scientifically (provable) manner. This would involve arguments a little stronger than the half baked theories of Krantz, Meldrum, Green, Long, Glickman, Murphy . . . Certainly something stronger than some IM basically pulled out of thin air, not the measurements taken on scene without an instrument for measuring, or a camera (oh, wait a minute they had a stick they could use), no way to positively calibrate anything, exact camera angle/position in relationship to the subject, there's no way to validate the films fps. So far we have a hotbed for probable errors. It's no wonder some of these guys came to the same conclusions, they made S#!t up from start to finish when calculations didn't jive. They estimate this, they estimate that, but they don't prove anything. They assume this, will satisfy that, error analysis is not provided to verify accuracy or should I say inaccuracy. They write down a bunch of analytical jargon but sometimes I think they forget what the word analytical means. WTF. Come on, is this truly the best there is?


All these inaccuracies are making me thirsty, I must go, but don't get me wrong, I still entertain the possibility.


m

[carcharodon]

Originally Posted by RayG

.
Coleman perhaps? (The same info I pointed out to you back in June 2006 on the BFF if you recall).

Geez Gavel, I've had his book for a lot longer than that. I don't particularly care for it. You didn't have to 'point' anything out to me. I knew about it already. I've talked about his book on BFF years ago.

Not many (any?) researchers agree with him on all these different types. I'm not even sure he was being all that serious in his book. Coleman cites a different sub type for an animal based on just one report in most of these cases.

Are you aware that he even makes a sub type for a supposed 20ft hairy biped supposedly seen on Scotland's Ben MacDhui mountain many many years ago? Nothing like that was ever reported again. He makes another sub type for the Minnesota Ice-Man. Another one for Momo. It goes on and on.

Yellowtop is only given it's own sub type in it's book because of a supposed yellowish head. In all other aspects it doesn't really differ from sasquatch.

Quote:

Coleman describes some distinct variations in his book, including 'Napes' -- long, swinging arms, humanlike ears, hog-like eyes, and a footprint complete with an opposed big toe. (page 56)

Er, what's that got to do with sasquatch? I am talking about sasquatch/bigfoot....you know, the animal reported in the PNW and into British Columbia. I don't believe in my discussion and debates here I have been promoting Napes, or the Skunk Ape or whatnot.

I stick to sasquatch/bigoot. There is a remarkable persuasive consistency about the reports from the PNW and western Canada, which are backed up by a persuasive amount of evidence. The P/G footage being the evidence specifically talked about in this thread.

Quote:

The 'Nuk-luk' is described as a, "rather small, dark, upright, hominid creature covered with black hair on its head, upper body, and legs. It had a black head, slightly pointed at the back, and a light brown face with a small black nose. Though it, too, had a very long, brown beard that went down to its waist, the creature wore some kind of ankle-high boots and a piece of moose skin around its waist, and it carried a stone club." (page 52)

Again, that's one creature. If there was another creature, or series of creatures, reported like that then that would be diferent. This was in June 1964 at Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories. Sounds more like some hairy feral Indian than a bigfoot type animal to me.

Quote:

The 12' Pitt Lake Giant (British Columbia) has only 4 toes, its arms reached below the knees, and its yellow hands were the shape and size of canoe paddles. (page 44)

Again, that's one report. One report only.

Quote:

Not a Coleman fan? How about the internet? Here's some reports that seem to differ from the broad and bulky Patty.

They are still essentially the same. They are hair covered, bipedal, upright, long arms etc etc.

You ever seen footage of skinny or scrawny bears ? I have. Just becuase they are skinny and scrawny looking doesn't mean they are not bears. They still are. Just because the bulk of sasquatch reports describe them as heavy set doesn't mean individuals can't be scrawny and/or in ill health.

Stop clutching at straws. You aren't going to 'win' against me by doing that.

These reports of skinny sasquatches don't also report them as being green with cloven hoofs and with vampire fangs do they? LOL.

[carcharodon]

Originally Posted by drapier

Has Hollywood ever produced a convincing gorilla suit? (By "convincing" I mean that viewers would likely believe that an actor in a gorilla suit was a real animal if that actor was captured on a shaky 16mm camera at a distance of 80-190 feet.)

If so, can anyone present an example? (Maybe even from the samples that Corea Neto have directed our attention to.)

I think the gorillas or gorilla like suits I have seen in Greystoke:The Legend Of Tarzan and Congo were pretty good though not completely lifelike. I 'think', though not sure offhand, that some gorilla suits might have been used in Gorillas In The Mist.

Quote:

If so, why do you think Hollywood has been successful at portraying gorillas but not bigfeet?

Personally I feel it's because there is not too much movement needed to be employed when pretending to be a gorilla. It's basically just all head and arms. The actors are basically on all fours or sitting and just 'hanging around' most of the time. They aren't really seen moving all that much and when they are then it's looks a bit suspicious and it often doesn't look natural and fluid.

Quote:

Is there something special about bigfoot morphology that makes the task particularly difficult? What is that difference (say, compared to gorillas)? (It would seem to me that gorillas are more unlike humans than supposed bigfeet are unlike humans.)

It's the whole bipedal movements. Actors in bigfoot suits have to walk around on fake feet. More importantly to walk fluidly and naturally bipedally and pretending to be a bigfoot you do not want to be restricted by a bulky costume. When the suit makers dispense with this bulkness (a la Harry and the Hendersons) to enable the actor to move around more freely, they then have to come up with another way to 'suggest' bulk and this is where their extra long shaggy hair comes into play to try and give the impression the subject is bigger and bulkier than it actualy is. This just looks fake right off the bat.

Quote:

If not, why not? Are Hollywood special effects artists so unskilled that they can't even create a convincing gorilla? (Maybe when a Hollywood studio creates a gorilla or a bigfoot costume the purposes are different than achieving scientific accuracy.)

Rick Baker is supposedly one of the top FX men around. His two famous attemps at making bipedal hair covered ape like creatures (King Kong 1976 and Bigfoot and The Hendersons 1987), face apart, were not very convincing at all.

Hollywood really does seem to have less trouble making realistic gorilla suits than bipedal hairy upright ape like creatures. In essence, the morphology of the gorilla and it's movements (of lack of movements) means you can hide more. Put that gorilla into an upright stance and then have it walking around..........and that's where the problems begin.

I'm sure somebody can make a great sasquatch mask that would fool me. The masks seem to be the easy things to make. It's the body and then making that body move in a fluid and natural looking manner that isn't.

[carcharodon]

Originally Posted by mangler

So are you saying that it's intent was to go back (retreat) to where it came from? Because if this is so, flags and rockets would go off for me. A few thoughts would instantly pop into my mind, backtracking, transition area and food source, in that order. Animals backtrack, they do this quite frequently. I'm not going to go into much detail but one example would be transiting from one feeding area to another. Now if said animal gets nervous for any reason it will often head back the same direction it came from, it will usually hook back into it's original path (if not the original path at least very close, half mile give or take).

So where does this differ from what Patty did? In the opinion of Bob Titmus Patty did head back in the direction she came from. She came that way (on the hard road) then when startled by Patterson and Gimlin she retreated that way, only on the other side of the creek this time because that is where she was when startled. Patterson and Gimlin were on the side of the creek where she came from (according to Titmus).

Quote:

If it does not do this when it becomes nervous it will go to it's pushdown (the quickest route to cover, escape route), it obviously did not go to it's pushdown.

No, she employed your first option.

Quote:

Bluff Creek is a classic example of a transition zone, a transition zone is basically going from cover to the open and often associated with finding food/feeding, if an animal uses/crosses it once, odds are in favor that it (or others) will use it again.

Who is to say others didn't beforehand? She might well have used the hard road before as the main trail then crossed the creek at the point of the downfall tree pile to provide cover while she stopped to rest and drink,(the left side of the creek provided the most cover) and then after drinking would move back onto the hard road to continue her onwards journey.

No biggie.

After the P and G activity, and then Laverty and then Titmus, Patty and co might have abandoned using that trail as there was too much human activity going on.

Quote:

Last but certainly not least is food source. There is abundant bear sign as well as cougar and bobcat throughout the entire Bluff Creek drainage, all you have to do is follow the food-chain down and you know that this area (the basin) has now, as well as always, sustainable food sources.

Under the circumstances laid out in the PG story why would this particular animal react like no other animal on earth?

How did it react like no animal on earth? It retreated the way it came and wanted nothing to do with P and G. Have you not watched tigers just walk away slowly and with a look back? I have. Patty retreated exactly as a number of witnesses describe them retreating.

By the way, the sasquatch would be like no other animal on earth wouldn't it?

Quote:

It's hard for me to accept your rest and drink water theory because there are several water sources close by so it wouldn't have had to leave the cover of the forest.

If it was making a particular journey for some reason it makes perfect sense. Going from a to c with d (the downfall tree pile as cover right by the stream) somewhere in between would make PERFECT sense. This seems to be the only place along the stream there where there is sufficient cover to stop and drink undetected. Animals often make beelines. They often go the direct route, unless there is danger. They don't swan around making huge detours finding the easiest possible routes like humans do. Patty was probably making a beeline for somewhere and the downfall tree pile was along the way of that beeline and she chose to stop and drink right where there was cover (the tree pile).

It would be interesting to see what the layout was beyond where P and G came from and beyond the tree pile to see where she might have been heading when she decided to stop off there at the tree pile along the way.

Quote:

Why didn't it go to it's pushdown, maybe it's as simple as it did not feel threatened (maybe not), I don't know. Was it transiting from one feeding area to another,

Most likely....via the most direct route.

Quote:

the answer to this would have to be on Titmus and how far upstream he traveled and/or how closely he truly surveyed the basin in that area,

Bob's main purpose in going to Bluff Creek was to get consecutive casts and to study the film site more than anything else. Roger Patterson was told the casts he got were too good and didn't show evidence of being made by a living foot. Of course, we know that Patterson simply chose to cast the tracks he thought 'looked' the best and showed off the shape of the foot more than any others.

Titmus' purpose was to cast and to study the tracks that were allegedly being made during the time Patterson shot his movie because "I felt the tracks could very well prove or disprove the authenticity of the pictures". Bot Titmus was more concerned with investigating the precise area of the filming to either corroborate or question Patterson's film, rather than trying to track bigfoot to it's mud hut.

Quote:

It does work like that, that is exaclly how it works. Nothing personal but by implying this you are simply stating to what degree your lack of knowledge with this subject is.

Nothing personal but I believe you are being too simplistic, generic and perhaps a little naive on this matter.

Hunters and trackers often 'lose' tracks and can't find them anymore. They do end and cannot be picked up again. It's no mystery. Stop trying to make it into one. It happens. You sound like you are superman "I am great white hunter. I track anything, anywhere, anyplace. I am never defeated"

Oh pulease!!!

Maybe if Jim Corbett had done what he was 'supposed to have done' and tracked the Rudraprayag Leopard all the way to it's lair the first time he came across it's tracks then he would have saved months and dozens of lives.

I guess he f-cuked up as well, according to you. Nope, he simply came to a point where he couldn't track the leopard anymore.

Quote:

You ever hear the terms compression sign, side-heading, entrance point, displacement, slide spoor, do you know why one of the most important tools for daytime tracking is a flashlight? Again, just because you don't think it can be done doesn't mean it can't.

Oh yes it does. There are plenty of times when it can't be done and isn't done. Stop pretending otherwise.

Quote:

You've got to be ***** kiddin with this one. Hot on the trail of one of the greatest discoveries of mankind and the guy can't put forth more than a "little effort"

Hot on the trail? It was nine F-cking days later. How is that 'hot on the trail'? Titmus was more concerned with corroborating the film site than trying to find where she came from. See above.

How much ***** time do you think he had? It took him hours and hours to examine and cast what he did and the first day he found nothing after walking 14-16 miles up the creek. And you think he should have gone over the entire area with a fine toothed comb to try and find evidence of tracks on a hard road, despite the fact that it had rained heavily after Patty came that way.

Well I'm glad he didn't waste time doing that and instead got us a very very fine series of ten consecutive prints which are most compelling.

Quote:

That's just plain lazy ass BU(( S#!T !!!! The fact is you will learn more about everyday/common behavior following tracks backwards (in) after an animal has been spooked than you will cutting it's sign out.

"Lazy ass bullsh*t?? And how far do you get of your arse out of your truck then?? Titmus came 1,000 miles and walked on foot ALONE and camped ALONE for days in that area. Lazy assed? Geez. Typical armchair rant.

Again, how much time do you think he had??? The fact is the tracks where Patty WAS were THERE in front of him and he wanted to examine these and get casts of these at the film site. These were far far more important and were the object of the excercise. The trail where she came from would have been on the hard road. What do you think Titmus was, a ***** magician finding tracks on a hard road 9 or 10 days after a heavy rain had come?

Quote:

Titmus did what has become typical of the clown shows, he is one of the forefathers of the bigfoot SNAFU teams. There are only two possible explanations why these guys can never seem to achieve their goal. They either suck at it, or their chasing a ghost.

Says you. Whatever. You're a nobody. No big deal.

Quote:

When someone uses the argument that they have been that close to a bear or any of a number of other large animal then say it just sauntered off, I call BS.

Really? Then I say you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I've had a tiger in India just saunter off in front of me when we came across it around a bend in the road. It didn't run. It didn't stand it's ground. It was lying there on the road and just got up and calmly walked away.......complete with a little look back.

How about that???

You are guilty of having a naive and unrealistic thought process that all and every animal does exactly the same thing and does not deviate from those things. This is plainly incorrect and silly. Why, even in specific species there are certain individuals that display different behaviour patterns than others of their kin.

It's called NATURE, mate. You ought to try studying it sometime.

Quote:

You don't spook large animals, make eye contact, cause a great deal of commotion (horse rearing or man falling off horse, man and horse crossing creek toward said animal, man chasing after large animal) and not see that animal stand it's ground in a very threatening manner, charge you, or didi mau the F out of there, it just don't happen that way in the real world.

You have personal experience with sasquatch to say what they will or won't do huh??

Riiiiiight.

[mangler]

More reply's for the master


"So where does this differ from what Patty did? In the opinion of Bob Titmus Patty did head back in the direction she came from. She came that way (on the hard road) then when startled by Patterson and Gimlin she retreated that way, only on the other side of the creek this time because that is where she was when startled. Patterson and Gimlin were on the side of the creek where she came from (according to Titmus)."

The point is nobody knows because nobody ever made the time to look where she came from, der.


"Who is to say others didn't beforehand? She might well have used the hard road before as the main trail then crossed the creek at the point of the downfall tree pile to provide cover while she stopped to rest and drink,(the left side of the creek provided the most cover) and then after drinking would move back onto the hard road to continue her onwards journey."

Again nobody knows because nobody ever looked, double der.


"Obviously, you don't really know too much about this. Maybe you should read up more??"

What exactly leads you to believe that Bob Titmus was ever anything more than an unsuccessful taxidermist who wandered the hills?


"Nothing personal but I believe you are being too simplistic, generic and perhaps a little naive on this matter.

Hunters and trackers often 'lose' tracks and can't find them anymore. They do end and cannot be picked up again. It's no mystery. Stop trying to make it into one. It happens. You sound like you are superman "I am great white hunter. I track anything, anywhere, anyplace. I am never defeated"

Oh pulease!!!

I guess he f-cuked up as well, according to you. Nope, he simply came to a point where he couldn't track the leopard anymore."

Even the great ones make mistakes once in a while. Bigfooters just seem to make the same mistakes all the time.


"Oh yes it does. There are plenty of times when it can't be done and isn't done. Stop pretending otherwise."

Maybe you should take a couple kiddie classes at Wildwood Tracking or TTOS then get back to me.


"How much ***** time do you think he had? It took him hours and hours to examine and cast what he did and the first day he found nothing after walking 14-16 miles up the creek. And you think he should have gone over the entire area with a fine toothed comb to try and find evidence of tracks on a hard road, despite the fact that it had rained heavily after Patty came that way."

That is exactly what he should have done.


"The trail where she came from would have been on the hard road. What do you think Titmus was, a ***** magician finding tracks on a hard road 9 or 10 days after a heavy rain had come?"

There you go again, why do you believe it walked the road, how does anyone know this. Do you have super secret Titmus documents, or, do you just, most probably believe that?


Bob Titmus "I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar."


"Says you. Whatever. You're a nobody. No big deal."

Can't disagree with that one.


"Really? Then I say you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I've had a tiger in India just saunter off in front of me when we came across it around a bend in the road. It didn't run. It didn't stand it's ground. It was lying there on the road and just got up and calmly walked away.......complete with a little look back."

And then you chased after it, right?


"You have personal experience with sasquatch to say what they will or won't do huh??"

Nop, 30+ years and I never found nothing that wasn't human related or a bear overstep. Met a lot of interesting people thou.


m

[Luminous]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

So, you think Patty is a real Bigfoot .... because ?

So you use childish behaviors...because? Oh yeah, because it matches your avatar quite nicely.

Grow up.

Do you really think after the last few posts that I should even pay attention to you? You know most of the reasons why I believe Patty is real. I've already stated them in this thread. If you want to read it all again, there is something called a search feature...

Do your own homework.

[kitakaze]

Wow... Look at this thing go, man.

Originally Posted by Luminous

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Luminous, from a former ardent proponent to a current one, let's expand a little for the sake of productive discussion. Let's set the PGF aside for a moment. Or let's even assume that it's not a man in a suit. Where does that leave us with the phenomenom? How do we examine this idea that bigfoot really, truly does exist? Let's try a little Q&A on it. I give you one question, you answer and add your own question. We keep it organized to that established format. Again, we leave the PGF aside.

My first question:

Where are these sasquatches?

No one knows for sure.

Quite true. Next question:

Do you think sasquatches are as widespread as they're reported?

Also, by all means, ask me any question you like. Especially one that highlights what you think might be a flaw in being skeptical of bigfoot.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Luminous

So you use childish behaviors...because? Oh yeah, because it matches your avatar quite nicely.

Grow up.

Do you really think after the last few posts that I should even pay attention to you? You know most of the reasons why I believe Patty is real. I've already stated them in this thread. If you want to read it all again, there is something called a search feature...

Do your own homework.

I only heard you say it looks real to you, in so may words .

Again, this ties in to my references to religion .. People just believe ..

If there are no Bigfeet, she can't be real ...


What do you think about the information on how real animal fur looks and behaves ?

Let me guess? Patty is different from all other animals examined so far ...


Do you know anything about evolution ?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Look!

Bigfoot has a puppy!

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by carcharodon

Various people? Like who? Do you have a list of various people? Who were they? Names???

We know that at the minimum there was Patterson, Gimlin & Laverty. It's not clear that Laverty was alone when he examined and photographed the tracks. He may have had a small crew with him. Kathy Strain now tells the BFF that Walt Kurshman was on the scene after Laverty was there. If it was a hoax, then there might be other unknown person(s) involved at the scene when P&G were there.

There could have been as many as 9 people walking around on that sandbar before Titmus arrived. If it was a hoax, the potential number could be even higher.

Quote:

Patterson was a wee itsy bitsy little man wasn't he, or did you forget that? I suspect it was a fairly obvious deduction that the smallest human tracks on the scene belonged to Roger Patterson and nobody else and you don't have to be Columbo to figure that one out.

We know Patterson was short, but I don't think we have been told of his foot size. I guess we can't know, and Titmus could only presume that Patterson's tracks were the smallest. There were other people walking around in addition to Roger. But that still doesn't rebut my amazement. Even if Titmus always could know which tracks belong to Patterson, he still has to somehow decide which ones were laid during the filming. If Roger did everything he says he did, then his trackways would have been all over that sandbar. Titmus took the task of isolating the Patterson filming trackway from all of his other trackways. Maybe that doesn't impress you, but it does me.

Quote:

Can you quote Bob Titmus' exact words here?? Ta.

What do you mean by that?

[Locknar]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

This forum does not deserve to see this bickering. Stop it now.

I agree. It makes it awfully tough to have a dicussion amid all the bickering and name calling; there is simply no need for it.

Folks can disagree, and remain civil.

BTW - Get pics you posted (I missed them the first time, Huntsman reposted them) with "Bigfoot" and his puppy.

[Teresa.Hall]

How big is that track on the right in the picture? The big toe looks to be approximately the size of the man's palm. The cast is the size of the man's torso. What other animal has a foot that size?

[William Parcher]

T, that's Patterson with a Patty track cast. It's about 14" long.

The cast is not the size of his torso, it only looks that way because it (along with his foot) is much closer to the camera than is his body. I suspect his leg is fully outstretched in that shot.

We could possibly estimate Roger's shoe size from this image.

[William Parcher]

BTW, Roger Patterson is wearing some pretty fancy duds in that photo. It was taken after the filming and probably during his promotion tour. Greg Long's research on Patterson in Yakima turned up a historical and continuing pattern of defrauding. It didn't seem to stop even after he captured this elusive creature on film. He may not have ever paid for those fancy clothes.

Originally Posted by Greg Long

Patterson conned thousands of dollars from Glen Koelling by charging new clothes against Koelling’s business account.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bf-beast/

Bigfoot: A Beast on The Run

More promises designed to cash in on the believers...

[LTC8K6]

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

How big is that track on the right in the picture? The big toe looks to be approximately the size of the man's palm. The cast is the size of the man's torso. What other animal has a foot that size?

How much would it have to weigh to sink into the soil a lot deeper than Roger or Bob or their horses? 3.5 inches in some cases...

[LTC8K6]

Here's ole' Rog for comparison, casting Patty's tracks supposedly, and barely making a dent in the soil. Yet 9 days later after heavy rains and floods, Titmus is able to tell all about what Roger did.

We don't know if this is the actual event, or the rehearsals Roger also filmed.

[Locknar]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

How much would it have to weigh to sink into the soil a lot deeper than Roger or Bob or their horses? 3.5 inches in some cases...

That is a mighty big foot...lots-o-surface area (surface area:weight ratio) to consider in terms of causing a 3.5" depression.

Are there any similar pictures that show the depth of depression that say a man causes in the same setting (as a Bigfoot track)?

[Teresa.Hall]

Thanks William, I've heard of large tracks but that one appeared to be enormous. I didn't notice the casts are closer to the camera. So in essence this is the same sort of optical illusion created with the "monster hog" photos.

[William Parcher]

The cast photo that LTC just posted is even bigger. That one shows a 17" track with a size 14 shoe next to it. That is almost certainly not Patterson's shoe.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Locknar

That is a mighty big foot...lots-o-surface area (surface area:weight ratio) to consider in terms of causing a 3.5" depression.
Are there any similar pictures that show the depth of depression that say a man causes in the same setting (as a Bigfoot track)?

Heh heh. Maybe 1,957 pounds (NASI estimate) is correct after all.

I saw something in the video of a Meldrum lecture that I had never before. At 3:07 he shows an uncropped version of the "famous Laverty photo". In the lower right it appears to show a boot print. This is presumably that of Laverty or one of his crew. It's very shallow. Apparently, Meldrum has access to the full image, but in print we only see a tight crop of the Patty mid-tarsal-break track.

Look

[Correa Neto]

I just read (again) one of the silliest arguments that sometimes are exposed by those who claim Patty is a real bigfoot. The "its easy for an actor to perform as a gorilla but not as a bigfoot".

Whoever claims this is deeply misinformed or dishonest. Once again I ask everyone interested in PGF to take a look at http://www.gorillamen.com/. Its basically related to vintage gorilla suits and performers.

Those guys spent days observing gorillas at zoos. It was not (and still is not) just a matter of walking on all fours.
Here's an example of the reality:
http://www.gorillamen.com/index.php?...D-GORILLA.html

Quote:

Calvert studied simians in zoos and on film for six months, aping the apes, basing his characterization on Gargantua, Ringling Brothers' showpiece. He also used those six months to get in top shape to handle the Kong- sized costume, which weighed 85 pounds.

I suggest anyone who really belives that its easy to perform as a gorilla to rent the "Movie Magic" DVDs with the episodes related to "Congo", "Greystoke" and "Gorillas in the Mist". The actors that performed the gorillas obseved real animals and trained for a long time with and without the suits, aided by experts in primate behavior.

To perform as an upright-walking ape, apeman, man-beast, whatever, is easier than to perform as a knuckle-walking gorilla.
Check these, for example, as evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIv5WfpTojs
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=sku8_fkFQyc

So, want to defend the "Patty is a bigfoot" position? OK, you are entitled to do so, but try using arguments that can withstand a minimal ammount of examination.

[Locknar]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Heh heh. Maybe 1,957 pounds (NASI estimate) is correct after all.

Well...if you round that to say 2K lbs....

Gorillias ae typically between 5'5" and 5'9" tall, 310 - 440lbs in weight
Humans (adult male) on average are 5'9" and weigh 190lbs
Andre the Giant was about 7' tall and weighed between 309 - 550lbs

(Wikipedia is the source for all)

Bigfoot is typically given to be between 7' - 10' tall, assuming this...about the same size as Andre the Giant yet roughly 4 times the weight/body mass?

Whlie hardly conclusive...something here just does not jive.

[LTC8K6]

Many of these prints are just flat. There's no driving in the heel, roll forward, and push off with the toes. Just flat.

[LTC8K6]

http://members.home.nl/david.vlietst...og/bigfoot.jpg

A panoramic shot of the scene created by lining up stills. Interesting.

[Luminous]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Wow... Look at this thing go, man.
Quite true. Next question:

Do you think sasquatches are as widespread as they're reported?

Also, by all means, ask me any question you like. Especially one that highlights what you think might be a flaw in being skeptical of bigfoot.

I believe that there are some hoaxes, many misidentification's, and a percentage encounters that are the real thing. What that percentage might be, I dare not guess. I'm sure there are "staticans" out there that may be able study the sightings data and come close approximation.

Now, my question. How many sightings locations and witnesses have you personally investigated?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-h...pg-film-roll1/

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/real-bf-6/

[LTC8K6]

Laverty pic with boot print lower right.

[LTC8K6]

Other Wallace works.

[Luminous]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Let me guess? Patty is different from all other animals examined so far ...

No, you are different from most people so far. And not for the best either. Twice you blatantly lie and make up things that I did not say in order to put me in a negative light, and you go on talking to me as if you've done nothing wrong??? Sorry that BS won't fly around here.

How about an honest admission and apology? Or is that beneath you?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...pic=10262&st=0

BFF thread on Laverty, his skepticism, and the fact that a bunch of people went to the site with Laverty, and before Titmus.

Laverty was all over the area frequently during the time period and never saw Patty or any tracks, until after the PGF was filmed.

[LTC8K6]

http://americanbigfootsocietyclearin...0_archive.html

Quote:

Recently, when browsing through my files on the PG Film, I happened to notice that Forest Service timber-cruiser crew-chief Lyle Laverty was quoted as saying that he had been up Bluff Creek and gone past the filmsite just "days" before he had discovered the tracks, at which time they had not been there. An hour after I'd read that fact, I got a nudge from the back of my noggin that this quote had great significance, if it was accurate. I therefore e-mailed Mr. Laverty, who is currently the State Director for the Colorado State Parks system, and asked him:

"I recently read (but have mislaid my printout) that you said that you had come past the Patterson film site only days before you discovered the tracks there on Oct. 21 [see note below], and that there were no tracks there then. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would confirm (or disconfirm) that you said that, and give me an estimate of how many days prior to Oct. 21 that might have been."

(I now know that Laverty actually photographed the tracks on Monday Oct. 23--the next workday--based on his statement to that effect to Jeff Meldrum, quoted in Bigfoot Times, June/July 2005, p. 4, col. 2.)

On July 6, 2006 he responded, "As near as I can recall, I passed by the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th [presumably before 1:30]. I was part of a timber sale preparation crew working in Bluff Creek the entire summer. We operated out of a portable camp at Notice Creek during the week and returned to Orleans on the weekends."

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Luminous

I believe that there are some hoaxes, many misidentification's, and a percentage encounters that are the real thing. What that percentage might be, I dare not guess. I'm sure there are "staticans" out there that may be able study the sightings data and come close approximation.

Thanks for addressing the question. Maybe I should have worded my question more clearly but when I asked 'do you think sasquatches are as widespread as reported?' I didn't mean it as 'what's your take on sightings as a collective body of evidence?' What I mean to ask is that sasquatch encounters are reported all across the NA continent from Alaska to Iowa to New York to Florida. Great White North to Deep South. Rainforest, arctic, desert, swamp, farmland, etc. Do you think that bigfoot inhabits ranges all across the continent?

Quote:

Now, my question. How many sightings locations and witnesses have you personally investigated?

Aha! You're going to like this. I was a witness to what I at the time was convinced was a close personal encounter with at least one sasquatch. I'm not going to go into great detail but several years ago while camping with a couple friends in a very remote part of the west coast of Vancouver Island where I grew up I found what appeared to be the clear tracks of a parent and infant sasquatch in the mud by a pond next to a river in the deep forest. Later that night while the three of us were in our tent we heard a cry from across the valley that was then answered very close to our tent. We then had an audio encounter in our immediate proximity with what at the time I could only attribute to a sasquatch. It was an intensely visceral experience to say the least. Nevertheless, in hindsight there are a number of factors that I must consider that make me unable to hold that experience as a genuine encounter. If I had stuck my head out of the tent maybe my feelings would be different. Maybe I wouldn't have a head, maybe I would have seen a large bear, maybe a sasquatch, maybe a bat$#!% crazy potgrower trying to scare us out of the area. Who knows. The point is that it was not reliable evidence for sasquatch. I couldn't reliably exclude a source other than an 8ft hairy bipedal primate. So I'm left to examine the same body of evidence you are and like it or no, not in one case is there a claim where something mundane can reliably be excluded.