Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

[FatPhil]

a top expert (like Krantz)

That would be appeal to authority were it not for the fact that ...

Outside of Krantz's formal studies in evolutionary anthropology and primatology, his cryptozoological research on Bigfoot drew heavy criticism and accusations of "fringe science" from his colleagues, costing him research grants and promotions, and delaying his tenure at the university.[1][6] Further, his articles on the subject were rejected by peer-reviewed scholarly journals.[6]

Content from External Source

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Krantz

... it sounds like he wasn't even an authority.

 

[Easy Muffin]

no, it actually isn't. not to the extent that you can actually SEE what is being claimed.

So we can't actually see what we're talking about? Then how can it be brought up as an argument for it being a person?

but non-suit believers can use "the walk" (and the look) to determine it can't be a man, when they don't know what a Bigfoot walks like or a man pretending to walk like an ape over a sandy hilly surface in a heavily padded suit can walk like?

No, of course they can not. I never said that. Let me repeat myself once more just to be clear: I'm not convinced this is a person in a suit. I'm also not convinced it is a real animal. I don't have enough evidence to swing me either way, so all I can say is that I don't know what I'm looking at.

that sounds like a double standard.

So does but non-suit believers can use "the walk" (and the look) to determine it can't be a manBigfoot, when they don't know what a Bigfoot walks like. Unfortunately I can see a lot of that here, too.

more absurd than a wild animal turning her back to unknown threat running at HER and just casually walking away?
We think it's absurd she would act that way under the circumstances. That's why we brought it up. You aren't obligated to agree.
I'm much less familiar with giraffes, than i am with animals in the woods of North America..so i'm not sure how absurd it would be to see a giraffe on a tightrope. don't bears walk tightropes in the circus? are giraffes incapable of putting one foot in front of the other? maybe they are. i don't know.

We've been over this before. She does look back, nobody is running at her, her pace is quick enough to get her away from the people. Maybe someone can shed a light after all on how, if they truly were running at her, a supposed person in a suit could still outrun them whilst wearing said suit and making it look like they were walking at a 'casual' pace?

I don't understand the difference you appear to be arguing about.

I suppose the difference is in the word 'try'. If we try but don't come to a definite conclusion, we need to say that we have no definite answer. I.e. 'We don't know what the creature in the film is.' If someone can provide this kind of evidence then I'd love to see it. Your (incorrectly) supposing people ran at her and basing assumptions off of that or invoking giraffes on tightropes doesn't sound very convincing so far though.

is the Patterson film a hoax?
is this blob in the sky an extraterrestrial UFO?
is this contrail a chemtrail?
is Justin Beiber a lizard person because his eyes flutter weird?


and the only answer to every OP is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" ? that would make for a pretty boring forum.

We can match the blob to known aircraft movements, we can compare the chemtrail to a wide array of contrail images, we can come up with examples for video compression artifacts that lead to person's eyes looking odd. We cannot do any of these things with the PGF because we've got nothing to compare it to. You don't see a difference there?

sure you could. knock yourself out.

Nah, I'm not too hot on that one myself. Ideally Patterson would have got a tad closer. I only brought it up because it is by far the best piece of evidence in the Bigfoot world, and has been for over fifty years, and many people do see it as a great piece of evidence.

TO me, it's just a blurry film. extraordinary evidence would be clear footage that doesnt look like the Blair Witch film makers made it.
or a strand of hair they found on the trees she brushed past as she disappeared into the woods..i mean they saw where she disappeared, hard to believe she wouldn't leave a strand of hair.
or a film of a creature whose breasts are in the right spot, whose face doesn't look exactly like my friend Johnny in a gorilla hair hat and fake beard.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like needless hyperbole.

We are allowed to agree to disagree, you know. (and i like the idea of Bigfoot. i appreciate you and james trying to defend her honor.. i just dont agree with yall in this particular case)

Oh sure, it's not like a have a problem with anyone in this thread. I just reckon I'd appreciate it if some of you looked at this from a more neutral point. Well, what I feel is a neutral point anyway.

Why would I do that when I can simply film real cow tracks?
AFTER I have already filmed the cow, if I get that right?

Why would you trust a cow track faker? simply because nobody has produced a believable cow suit?

That wasn't your original question, you asked 'You mean there's a chance Patterson faked the footprints, but the Bigfoot was real?'
And you'll have to construct an argument that faking footprints somehow comes with the ability to make things you film not real. Which will be a hard one to make because these things are not logically connected. There is always a chance it's real, someone faking footprints around it or not.
Patterson could have spent a whole year in those woods doing nothing but faking footprints, that doesn't factor in. A fraudster with a winning lottery ticket still has a winning lottery ticket. Our trust level plays no role here. Scrutinise the ticket all you want but don't call it a fake because you don't trust the guy that holds it.

because we have Patterson's sketch and footage (here in the thread), and I've seen elephants.

I assume you're referring to the picture that @deirdre posted? I'm not so sure that's even the correct image. There's other sources (http://www.cryptozoonews.com/roe-bf/) that claim that this is not Patterson's drawing but a sketch made by one Morton Kunstler for a 1961 book, based on the account of an alleged encounter in the 50's (the Roe encounter up in BC). Below is what others say is Patterson's work. That one is much more detailed and features a decidedly leaner looking creature. That one's female too, but I wouldn't exactly say it has 'amazing similarity', to quote deirdre.
As for your medieval drawings, it's not like the appearance of a Bigfoot was a complete mystery at the time. It had been well known before that a large, hairy, bipedal and humanlike creature was said to live in the area, so there's only so much variety you could expect from a sketch. Patterson had a pretty good idea of what it would look like, in contrast to the Europeans from your example who were hearing stories from faraway lands behind the horizon. I guess for it to be more convincing to you, Patterson would have had to draw a comically different version of the accepted Bigfoot look? He would then have had to decide that it would be a brilliant idea to put this absurd looking picture in his book so as to convince his readers?

I'd like it explained because I like to understand the world around me. That's why I prefer explanations to no explanations, and true explanations to false ones.

I think we can all agree on that.

Yes I would, unless it looked like a zoo or an African creek.

I figured it goes without saying that it would be of a giraffe in its natural habitat, like the PGF shows a creature said to roam the forests of the PNW in the forests of the PNW. It's quite a reach to illustrate this point with a scene from 12 Monkeys and not simply any of hundreds of nature documentaries. I'm pretty sure you'll know this yourself.

This Bigfoot. We're talking about the film, not Bigfoots in general, remember?

Okay. Who says noone ever saw this Bigfoot again?

Do we have evidence of this? Who saw them?

This is from page 74 of Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.573.3942&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

A further example of the half-track was identified in a trackway found in northern California on the Blue Creek Mountain Road. In 1967, shortly before the Patterson-Gimlin filming incident, a long line of tracks was found along a logging road and investigated extensively (Green, 1978). Don Abott, an archeologist from the Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C., took a series of color photographs of examples of the footprints (Green, personal communication). One photograph shows a distinct half-track, which, when superimposed on a complete track, can be seen to terminate at the inferred position of the midtarsal joint.

This PDF has pictures and some more info, but I don't know if the source is biased (the first paragraph doesn't fill me with hope it's not but that shouldn't matter as far as the photographs are concerned) - https://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/blue_creek_mountain_pdf.pdf

Great. Experts say it's male, boobs say it's female, therefore it's a fake, case closed?

That illustrates my slight disappointment with this thread quite nicely actually. You oversimplify one point (the 'experts' you refer to don't outright say it's male, they say its gait shows characteristics of a male walk, which is a curious angle to further investigate but no definite conclusion for or against the creature being real), then use that argument to dismiss the entire subject matter. I guess I would have preferred it if instead it was something like 'Experts have found signs of it being male, the breasts strongly suggest it is female, that calls for more study to hopefully find an answer, amongst many other areas to look at. In the meantime we'll have to file the film as unsolved.' Also on a personal note I'd quite like to see the version of the film that the experts were looking at as they apparently completely missed out on the breasts, and if this is an indication they were looking at low-quality footage from way before the high-res scans etc were available. The entire 'Patty is a female' thing is a relatively recent development after all. If they were working with that kind of material I wonder what they would say if they took a look at the clearer images.

To me this seems an admission that discussion of whether or not Bigfoot exists is, in fact, on topic for this thread. So I'll fold that into my summation of my own thinking:

[...]

I agree entirely with most of what you said, but I'm not willing to make the jump from there to 'the PGF's a fake too' - I simply do not think that the evidence we have warrants that.

Your mileage may, of course, vary, but to my mind the chances of bigfoot existing, sadly, are close to zero and getting closer with each day that passes without proof being brought to light.

I fully agree. The people running through the woods and setting up trail cams and the like aiming to prove Bigfoot exists are probably taking some of the most convincing arguments for it actually not being real.

 

[Mendel]

That illustrates my slight disappointment with this thread quite nicely actually. You oversimplify one point (the 'experts' you refer to don't outright say it's male, they say its gait shows characteristics of a male walk, which is a curious angle to further investigate but no definite conclusion for or against the creature being real), then use that argument to dismiss the entire subject matter.

No. I'm dismissing your claim that this is "hard evidence"—successfully, since you're now walking that claim back. (It should be clear what I'm doing if you re-read my post.)

We cannot do any of these things with the PGF because we've got nothing to compare it to.

This is another type of argument that shuts down critical thinking and keeps people in their rabbit holes. Its use is most obvious when it comes to aliens: if something's physically impossible, we hear "but it's alien #BreakthroughPhysics", as if aliens inhabited a different universe from us. Bigfoot is a primate (unless you want to contend she's a bear?), so the existing knowledge about primates applies (e.g. when it comes to boobs).

It's designed to cut the believers off from reliable knowledge.

Flat Earthers do it by attacking scientific method (and sometimes by using Einstein to discredit Newton).

If you want to claim a metaphysical Bigfoot not bound by earthly chains (feel free), you might as well go ghost hunting. What we're discussing, though, is the idea of Bigfoot as an actual animal.

 

[Easy Muffin]

No. I'm dismissing your claim that this is "hard evidence"—successfully, since you're now walking that claim back. (It should be clear what I'm doing if you re-read my post.)

If you re-read the posts you should find it's not me that made that claim. In fact I was kinda surprised you'd even bring it up. I never made any claims whatsoever by the way, on the contrary I keep saying that I don't see enough evidence for claims to be made either way. Other than that I'm pointing out inaccuracies and adding missing information to your and other posts, which has kept me busy enough to be honest.

This is another type of argument that shuts down critical thinking and keeps people in their rabbit holes. Its use is most obvious when it comes to aliens: if something's physically impossible, we hear "but it's alien #BreakthroughPhysics", as if aliens inhabited a different universe from us. Bigfoot is a primate (unless you want to contend she's a bear?), so the existing knowledge about primates applies (e.g. when it comes to boobs).

It's designed to cut the believers off from reliable knowledge.

Flat Earthers do it by attacking scientific method (and sometimes by using Einstein to discredit Newton).

If you want to claim a metaphysical Bigfoot not bound by earthly chains (feel free), you might as well go ghost hunting. What we're discussing, though, is the idea of Bigfoot as an actual animal.

Excuse me, but I think it's quite preposterous to insinuate I'm in any way campaigning for a mythical beast that's not part of our reality.

What we're discussing, though, is the idea of Bigfoot as an actual animal.

I've been saying this several times now - I'm exclusively talking about the validity of the PGF. I'm not discussing whether or not Bigfoot is real (I very much doubt it for what it's worth). I suggest you take a step back and reevaluate my point of view before you keep making these comments.

 

[deirdre]

We've been over this before. She does look back, nobody is running at her,

Patterson was.

Maybe someone can shed a light after all on how, if they truly were running at her, a supposed person in a suit could still outrun them whilst wearing said suit and making it look like they were walking at a 'casual' pace?

that parallax thing that happens with planes and birds. He also stopped completely a few times to try to get clear footage.

note: i'm not saying he actually ran, but he claimed he did.

I suppose the difference is in the word 'try'. If we try but don't come to a definite conclusion, we need to say that we have no definite answer. I.e. 'We don't know what the creature in the film is.' If someone can provide this kind of evidence then I'd love to see it.

i cant speak for others, but as a MB old school debunker i am always responding to the CLAIM. and the claim is that Patterson's footage shows a real bigfoot. I agree, noone can know 100% until the suit shows up in someone's attic. but the claim is false.. as you seem to agree with. If we don't know what it shows, then one can't claim it shows a real bigfoot.

We can match the blob to known aircraft movements, we can compare the chemtrail to a wide array of contrail images, we can come up with examples for video compression artifacts that lead to person's eyes looking odd. We cannot do any of these things with the PGF because we've got nothing to compare it to. You don't see a difference there?

no. we can compare it (especially breast placement and behavior) to all other animals on the planet.

I just reckon I'd appreciate it if some of you looked at this from a more neutral point.

fair enough, but most of us on this thread aren't anywhere near our teenage years where we might be looking at this film as a newbie. I was neutral decades ago, but now i've looked at enough stuff and expert opinions etc to confidently state my opinion it is a man in a suit. we are only answering the question of "WHY do you think it's a man in a suit".

 

[deirdre]

I assume you're referring to the picture that @deirdre posted? I'm not so sure that's even the correct image.

not that it matters, but if i mention a patterson sketch im always referring to this one

 

[Easy Muffin]

that parallax thing that happens with planes and birds. He also stopped completely a few times to try to get clear footage.

Parallax doesn't account for the creature getting smaller. That can only be explained by it physically moving further away from the camera. So nobody was running, that's just not what happened. Well to be clearer, nobody was running at the creature, because then the creature would get smaller. On the contrary, the creature is moving faster.

If we don't know what it shows, then one can't claim it shows a real bigfoot.

If we don't know what it shows then one also can't claim it shows a person in a suit. That's really all I'm arguing.

not that it matters, but if i mention a patterson sketch im always referring to this one

Yep, that's the one. I've no idea who's right here. To make matters even more confusing, there's yet another drawing which is also claimed to be the Kunstler one:

 

[deirdre]

To make matters even more confusing, there's yet another drawing which is also claimed to be the Kunstler one:

the one (i posted) in Patterson's book is claimed to be by Kunstler?

 

[Easy Muffin]

Yeah, I can't find the site right now but it said that one was by Kunstler. Then the one I posted further up has the sketch in the middle that says is the one by Patterson. And then there's some other site that says the one I posted just now is the Kunstler one (which the text in the image before says is what Patterson based his on - which would make sense given how similar it is). And finally that large black drawing in my first image is some entirely different thing made by the Roe encounter daughter, or maybe it's a reproduction by someone else, because apparently there's some copyright issue going on with the daughter's original.
So yeah. I think quite early on I said that the waters get murky real fast once you step away from the PGF itself, this is one of the things I had in mind

 

[deirdre]

And finally that large black drawing in my first image is some entirely different thing made by the Roe encounter daughter, or maybe it's a reproduction by someone else, because apparently there's some copyright issue going on with the daughter's original.

yea i posted an interview with her earlier on and she had her drawing hanging on the wall.

 

[jamesrav]

That would be appeal to authority were it not for the fact that ...

Outside of Krantz's formal studies in evolutionary anthropology and primatology, his cryptozoological research on Bigfoot drew heavy criticism and accusations of "fringe science" from his colleagues, costing him research grants and promotions, and delaying his tenure at the university.[1][6] Further, his articles on the subject were rejected by peer-reviewed scholarly journals.[6]

Content from External Source

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Krantz

... it sounds like he wasn't even an authority.

"Outside of Krantz's formal studies in evolutionary anthropology and primatology, .."

That's unfair of you to conclude "not even an authority". You're dismissing his format studies, in which he was clearly qualified and an expert. So he is qualified to analyze the gait and make a conclusion based on his formal studies. He concluded "inhuman". You watched it, did it look like he was walking naturally? Clearly not. Yet the filmed subject is doing it with complete ease.

 

[Mendel]

I've been saying this several times now - I'm exclusively talking about the validity of the PGF. I'm not discussing whether or not Bigfoot is real (I very much doubt it for what it's worth).

cheap shot (the same one again) to evade my point
it doesnt matter which bigfoot we are discussing
if it's a real animal, then our knowledge of real animals (mammals/primates) applies

I'm out

 

[Mendel]

If you re-read the posts you should find it's not me that made that claim.

The gait is one of the few hard data points we got

 

[FatPhil]

"Outside of Krantz's formal studies in evolutionary anthropology and primatology, .."

That's unfair of you to conclude "not even an authority". You're dismissing his format studies, in which he was clearly qualified and an expert. So he is qualified to analyze the gait and make a conclusion based on his formal studies. He concluded "inhuman". You watched it, did it look like he was walking naturally? Clearly not. Yet the filmed subject is doing it with complete ease.

I used to have a party trick at university of identifying people far in the distance just from their gait, as to me so many people had different quirks. Won lots of beer on bets, noone could match me. I've known humans with an absurd range of gaits, some of them actually tecnically wrong - not a human gait.

That bigfoot was not even an an outlier.

 

[jamesrav]

I used to have a party trick at university of identifying people far in the distance just from their gait, as to me so many people had different quirks. Won lots of beer on bets, noone could match me. I've known humans with an absurd range of gaits, some of them actually tecnically wrong - not a human gait.

That bigfoot was not even an an outlier.

your demographic area must be different than mine. I watch people get off our Trolley system here in San Diego, I watch hundreds of people walk and never see anyone trudge (beautifully though) like the subject does. Even people in a hurry just take faster , choppy steps, they dont strive for a 43" stride. And they certainly dont raise their foot vertically like the subject, nor bend their knees in the same way. The only video I've seen matching the subject was a guy in huge clown shoes, but they were way out of scale compared to his height and leg length. The PG subject is at least 6'5" based on the McClarin overlay, and if closer to 7' then a 14.5" foot is perfectly acceptable. Shaq's foot is 18", and he walks just like we all do, locked leg and short steps. Running is a different story but the PG subject is clearly walking.

 

[FatPhil]

your demographic area must be different than mine. I watch people get off our Trolley system here in San Diego, I watch hundreds of people walk and never see anyone trudge (beautifully though) like the subject does. Even people in a hurry just take faster , choppy steps, they dont strive for a 43" stride. And they certainly dont raise their foot vertically like the subject, nor bend their knees in the same way. The only video I've seen matching the subject was a guy in huge clown shoes, but they were way out of scale compared to his height and leg length. The PG subject is at least 6'5" based on the McClarin overlay, and if closer to 7' then a 14.5" foot is perfectly acceptable. Shaq's foot is 18", and he walks just like we all do, locked leg and short steps. Running is a different story but the PG subject is clearly walking.

Maybe none of the people you see in San Diego are wearing body-suits or footwear that impinge on or exagerate their normal movements?

 

[Easy Muffin]

If you re-read the posts you should find it's not me that made that claim.

The gait is one of the few hard data points we got

No. I'm dismissing your claim that this is "hard evidence"

Once again you bend my words to fit your arguments. I'll just point out that a data point doesn't equal evidence, and that my entire quote includes 'so it affords us an opportunity for objective analysis' - obviously if we can't reach a definite answer then we will have to conclude that we tried and failed to gather evidence to make a claim. I'd have some more to say about the quality of the arguments that you seemingly see fit to arrive at a definite point but this probably isn't going anywhere anymore. I reckon it's best to agree to disagree.

 

[deirdre]

Maybe none of the people you see in San Diego are wearing body-suits or footwear that impinge on or exagerate their normal movements?

and they likely aren't trying to walk like Patterson's book photo so they don't look like a man walking.

lol i was just watching jumanji last night and when watching Karen Gillan thought: "how the heck is she moving like that?"

@time 1:06 "that's not it"

Source: https://youtu.be/uzU66_dSVW0?t=54

 

[JMartJr]

Maybe none of the people you see in San Diego are wearing body-suits or footwear that impinge on or exagerate their normal movements?

Indeed.

 

[FatPhil]

and they likely aren't trying to walk like Patterson's book photo so they don't look like a man walking.

Totally aside, and I didn't want to include this as something that would support my argument, so let's not consider it that, whilst writing all of the above I couldn't help but think of Bridget Christie's first attempt at a solution to the "pedometer" task in Taskmaster (UK) Series 13 Episode 6. (Torrents are available, and the IP owners of Taskmaster are pretty cool about it being shared with overseas viewers.) It made such an impression to the other participants that callbacks were made to it several times later in the series, including right at the climax of the series finale. (Taskmaster did hit the US briefly - Ron Funches was wonderful - but apart from that the panel selection was terrible and it flopped after 1 series, most other countries in the world that have tried it are making it work very well.) Anyway - there's no point in analysing human gates once you've seen that episode. However, my recommendation would be to start watching from S01E01 rather than skipping straight to S13E06, as it might not make much sense out of context. Unless the only thing you are interested in is human gaits.

Anyway, must run - gotta watch Taskmaster NZ S03E03 ...

 

[FatPhil]

Indeed.

As an expert, I can assure you that's not a feline gait.

 

[Ann K]

Indeed.

Surely no such discussion could be complete without the Ministry of Silly Walks.

 

[NorCal Dave]

when watching Karen Gillan thought: "how the heck is she moving like that?

I would say that is not a human gait!

Surely no such discussion could be complete without the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Was waiting for that one.

 

[deirdre]

However, my recommendation would be to start watching from S01E01 rather than skipping straight to S13E06, as it might not make much sense out of context.

you think people need to watch 12 and a half seasons of taskmaster to get the "context"? i hope that was just a joke way to let people know it's a fun show to watch.

I've seen at least up to season 9 on Youtube. uk version. i had no idea america did a version.


add: this bit?


or this bit?


yes, her female pelvis isn't doing what female pelvis's do when walking in either of those attempts

 

[captancourgette]

Where can one view the best quality footage of this film?
Theres 4k youtube videos in the first post but its still very low quality. Did they make a 4k video of a low quality print of the film, if so face palm, using 4k or 8k or whatever, isn't going to improve the image if the source material is crap.
One can claim you can't see zippers, but the thing is even if there was zippers you couldn't see them either due to the low quality of this footage.
So wheres the high quality footage?

 

[jamesrav]

Indeed.

Where can one view the best quality footage of this film?
Theres 4k youtube videos in the first post but its still very low quality. Did they make a 4k video of a low quality print of the film, if so face palm, using 4k or 8k or whatever, isn't going to improve the image if the source material is crap.
One can claim you can't see zippers, but the thing is even if there was zippers you couldn't see them either due to the low quality of this footage.
So wheres the high quality footage?

I've seen them all, the version by Mr. Luci that is in this thread is the best. There is a newer 'AI trained' version that might be a bit better, but we are then getting into some serious manipulation. It's come a long way from the original in terms of stabilization and clarity. Calling it 'crap' goes into the analysis with a bad bias in my view. Film experts say it's actually quite good considering the circumstances, in terms of resolution. The macro stuff doesnt really need great clarity: the height and bulk can be pretty well determined with the McClarin overlay ; the gait is perfectly evident. Depending on what one believes, either there's visible muscle movement or a costume bunching up on the thighs. I see the former. What isnt shown much is the end of the film, where the subject is walking towards the woods with its back to the camera. If it's Bob H. then no big deal, if it's a 'real' animal or something else it's kind of sad to think it walked away never to be seen again. And although it will be jumped on as irrelevant, I was watching Patterson describe what took place after the main filming, and he related for several minutes in a perfectly believable manner what happened next: he and Gimlin followed it into the woods for 3 miles, apparently on foot after it got too dense. Ya know, just the type of actions you'd perform after perpetrating a hoax.

 

[jamesrav]

the YT channel Sasquatch Archives posted the famous BBC 'documentary' on Bigfoot (narrator concludes "impossible to exist"), which has the rather comical attempt to recreate the famous walk with a costume that really does look like a costume. But beyond that, it has a brief segment with Grover Krantz, the first academic to get on the side of Bigfoot being possible. He demonstrates the complexity of the walk, and in his typical direct language calls it "inhuman". Yet the second after a noted anthropologist/primatologist says the walk is inhuman (to carry on for a distance), the host says he just demonstrated it, so it is possible and therefore its a man in a suit. Hard to argue with that . I recall the Fox show "Amazing Hoaxes" which was the first attempt to discredit the film, and one guy flat-out claimed it was a guy named Clyde Romney in the suit. He said Romney told him he was the guy in the suit (although he walks nothing like the subject and denied ever saying that). So how many people were in the suit?

getting back to an earlier post, here is clarification (at 3:45) regarding a claim that someone besides Bob H. is in the suit. Which of course leads to a problem for skeptics - you can only have one person in a suit. This 'ear witness' claims the other fellow (Romney) told him he was in the suit. Romney denies it, so someone is lying. Romney has the height (if as stated he is "nearly 7' tall", not verified by Romney in the interview), whereas Bob H. is only 6'1" . So how Bob H. could impersonate a filmed subject that is conservatively estimated at 6'5" confused me.

Source: https://youtu.be/HsnFVI-wgpw

 

[deirdre]

So how Bob H. could impersonate a filmed subject that is conservatively estimated at 6'5" confused me.

i'm not saying it was specifically Bob in the suit, but if McClarin was 6'6 then the bigfoot could be about 6'1. Mcclarin is further back than the bigfoot and yet Mcclarins butt is still above that back structure, where bigfoots is not. granted the camera angle is not right, so i think that might make mcclarin a bit smaller..but still he looks further back to me.

Which of course leads to a problem for skeptics

why would a guy denying he was in the suit cause problems for skeptics?

 

[NorCal Dave]

And although it will be jumped on as irrelevant, I was watching Patterson describe what took place after the main filming, and he related for several minutes in a perfectly believable manner what happened next: he and Gimlin followed it into the woods for 3 miles, apparently on foot after it got too dense. Ya know, just the type of actions you'd perform after perpetrating a hoax.

Do you have a source for this? It could be relevant. If true it makes the timeline for what happened that day more complicated. I know my post (#41) about this got into the weeds somewhat, but to simplify:

The encounter is said to have occurred around 1:30pm and the shadows like close to midday for late October to me.

As their stories went, in the early afternoon of Friday, October 20, 1967, Patterson and Gimlin were riding generally northeast (upstream) on horseback along the east bank of Bluff Creek. At sometime between 1:15 and 1:40 p.m., they "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room".[40][41]

Content from External Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

They arrived at the store in Willow Creek at 6:30

At approximately 6:30 p.m.,[65] Patterson and Gimlin met up with Al Hodgson at his variety store in Willow Creek, approximately 54.3 miles (87.4 km) south by road, about 28.8 miles (46.3 km) by Bluff Creek Road from their camp to the 1967 roadhead by Bluff Creek, and 25.5 miles (41 km) down California State Route 96 to Willow Creek.

Content from External Source

The route that most closly resembles what is described in 1967 takes 2.5 hours in modern times:



Assuming they could do that driving something like this:



Then they had to leave their camp at no latter than 4:00pm.

After they had filmed the creature they had to round up Patterson's horse. Assuming it took 15-20 minutes to round up said horse and then load the camera with another roll of film and film the tracks so they could then start tracking the creature, that leave 2 hours to do what they did before hopping in the truck and heading to Willow Creek. I think 15 minutes is being generous.

Bearing in mind that:

On average, a horse walks at a speed of four miles per hour.

Content from External Source

www.besthorserider.com/how-fast-do-horses-walk/

They start off tracking the creature for 3 miles from the site, partially on foot you report. Let's say it wasn't a straight 3 miles out and 3 miles back but meandered a bit, so maybe a 3-4 mile round trip that starts at close to 2:00pm and brings them back to the site just a bit before 3:00pm or so.

Next, they make a 6-mile round trip from the site to their camp and back to the site to take plaster casts:

Next, Gimlin and Patterson rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off in the opposite direction, downstream, before the filming began. Patterson got his second roll of film from his saddlebag and filmed the tracks.[54] Then the men tracked "Patty" for either one mile (1.6 km)[51] or three miles (4.8 km),[55] but "lost it in the heavy undergrowth".[56] They went to their campsite three miles (4.8 km) south, picked up plaster, returned to the initial site, measured the creature's step-length, and made two plaster casts, one each of the best-quality right and left prints.

Content from External Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

This round trip takes about 1 1/2 hours so they are back at the site around 4:30pm. Say 4:00 even. Now they take measurements, mix plaster and take casts. Gimlin also claims they did other experiments, including him jumping off a stump to make footprints and that they photographed all this. That's what 15-30 minutes easy.

So somewhere between 4:30 and 5:00, if not later, they start the 3-mile trek back to camp arriving somewhere between 5:00 and 5:30 with 2 1/2 hour drive to Willow Creek ahead of them, showing up at 6:30.

Something doesn't work.

Now maybe this is not "just the type of actions you'd perform after perpetrating a hoax." But it sounds like something you'd claim you did, even if you didn't, because you are perpetrating a hoax.

 

[jamesrav]

here is his interview in 1971, relating to what they did after the filming. Following for 3 miles would certainly take some additional time. But it would appear a problem here is no timepieces involved, I gather that neither Patterson nor Gimlin wear a watch or these times would not be 'estimates' (admittedly some by Patterson) all over the place. So if they got somewhere at 'approximately' 6:30, what is that based on? A recollection? The sun has long since set by then in October, it's dark, so was it 6:30 or 7:00 or later? These seem to be guesstimates by Patterson, so trying to pin down a timeline involves a lot of +/- potential error. Which renders conclusions/opinions (that it could not have happened as stated) somewhat shaky. This isn't quite Columbo in terms of having a key element (the time line) tightly pinned down.

I did check and apparently DST ended on the 29th that year, and sunset was probably around 6:15, so perhaps it was not as dark as I had imagined. Maybe that was the basis for the time estimate, the sun had set within the past 1/2 hour.


Source: https://youtu.be/5gvkll3J6-Q?t=354

 

[NorCal Dave]

here is his interview in 1971, relating to what they did after the filming. Following for 3 miles would certainly take some additional time. But it would appear a problem here is no timepieces involved, I gather that neither Patterson nor Gimlin wear a watch or these times would not be 'estimates' (admittedly some by Patterson) all over the place. So if they got somewhere at 'approximately' 6:30, what is that based on? A recollection? The sun has long since set by then in October, it's dark, so was it 6:30 or 7:00 or later? These seem to be guesstimates by Patterson, so trying to pin down a timeline involves a lot of +/- potential error. Which renders conclusions/opinions (that it could not have happened as stated) somewhat shaky. This isn't quite Columbo in terms of having a key element (the time line) tightly pinned down.

I did check and apparently DST ended on the 29th that year, and sunset was probably around 6:15, so perhaps it was not as dark as I had imagined. Maybe that was the basis for the time estimate, the sun had set within the past 1/2 hour.

As for the times, yes there is some estimating going on. But here are some of the sources from the Wiki about the film. If accurate, we have someone other than Patterson or Gimlin giving the 6:30 arrival time at the Willow Creek store. This time is supposedly from Al Hodges:

65^ McLeod, 79, quoting Hodgson in an interview with him

Michael McLeod (2009). "Part II, Obsession". Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot. University of California Press. pp. 79–141

Content from External Source

As does the Hodges 9:00pm meet up at the Trinity Ranger Station:

69^Murphy, Bigfoot Film Journal, p 35

Christopher Murphy (2008). Bigfoot Film Journal: A Detailed Account & Analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin Film Circumstances. Hancock House.

Content from External Source

McLeod is a skeptic, while the description of Chris Murphy on the Amazon page for the book Bigfoot Film Journal includes the following:

Chris met the noted Sasquatch researcher René Dahinden in 1993, and then worked with René in producing posters from the Patterson/Gimlin film and marketing Sasquatch footprint casts. In 1996, Chris republished Roger Patterson's book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? and Fred Beck's book, I Fought the Apemen of Mt. St. Helens.

Content from External Source

https://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Film-Journal-Christopher-Murphy-ebook/dp/B082QRZZJX

So not a big skeptic.

If these times are right, it sorta makes sense. It's a minimum 2 hour round trip from Willow Creek to Eurika in modern times:


Plus, they are supposedly shipping or air-mailing the film to Yakima from someplace in Eurika on a Friday evening.

The 1:15 to 1:45 time of the filming from the Wiki is footnoted to an out-of-print booklet by Daniel Perez:

40^ Perez, 9, 20
41^ Gimlin, quoted in Perez, 9

Daniel Perez (2003) [1992]. Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. Bigfoot Times.

Content from External Source

A reviewer on Amazon quotes the booklet or, at least Perez, this way:

Meanwhile, to all who think the film is obviously and/or has been proven a fake, where is your evidence? To quote Perez "I hereby challenge you to duplicate the film. In fact, that is an open invitation to anyone. More to the point, the many practitioners
from behind the sacred walls of "science" have cried "fake" when seeing the movie. But science is about being able to recreate test results for hypothesis formulation. If the film is in fact a fake, a costumed man or a machine, surely science could duplicate the film with ease. Twenty-five years later, no one has come close."

Content from External Source

https://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Bluff-Creek-Commemorative-BigfooTimes/dp/B003AUD5U4

I can't verify if this is accurate, but my point is that the 1:15-1:45pm, and 9:00pm times are not coming from people like Greg Long or other sceptics, they're coming from people that believe the film is genuine. The 6:30pm arrival in Willow Creek would have to be close to right, for the 9:00pm time to be accurate.

While it's a bit of a rabbit hole, there just seems to be too much stuff to do, by Patterson and Gimilin's own admission, in the time allotted.

Problems with the timeline are NOT proof of a hoax, but it is one more red flag in the whole business.

 

[jamesrav]

If I'm understanding the travel time for the 60.8 miles, the time given is 2 hrs 38 minutes (and as an aside I find it amazing that one can input the Patterson Gimlin film site as a 'From' point into a travel calculator). So that's a long time to cover 61 miles: an average speed of 23 mph. Quite slow. When I'm in a car around a school zone doing 20mph, I wonder if we're even moving . I tend to think Roger would be very motivated to get to the destination considering what apparently just happened. And then the 48 mile drive in about an hour on CA-299, which is a highway. 48mph is reasonable, but boost it to 60 and you cut off 22 minutes in a round trip. So I'm not following you if you feel there's a perceived 'hole' in the timeline that indicates things did not occur 'roughly' as stated in the typical account. Whenever I see crime shows, the timeline problem for the criminal is usually pretty stark and shows they didnt work things out. This all seems to fit ok to me.
Found this video on Bob H. on Sasquatch archives. Some of the comments are quite helpful, including the fact that the supposed owed amount to Bob H. of $1,000 in 1967 was around $7,700 in today's money. Since Patterson never had two nickels to rub together, why he would promise the equivalent of $7,700 for a 10-minute film job seems puzzling. And Bob H. reinforces my earlier statement that there was no practice for this, he donned the suit for the 1st time and did his "inhuman" gait walk to perfection.


Source: https://youtu.be/XKLbaprBqPM

 

[Ravi]

Found this video on Bob H. on Sasquatch archives. Some of the comments are quite helpful, including the fact that the supposed owed amount to Bob H. of $1,000 in 1967 was around $7,700 in today's money. Since Patterson never had two nickels to rub together, why he would promise the equivalent of $7,700 for a 10-minute film job seems puzzling. And Bob H. reinforces my earlier statement that there was no practice for this, he donned the suit for the 1st time and did his "inhuman" gait walk to perfection.

What I get from this video is that it was known that Patterson was a liar, a thief and a manipulator. So why not take this in account?
Also, what makes you think "no practicing" occurred? Practice does not need to be filmed.

 

[jamesrav]

What I get from this video is that it was known that Patterson was a liar, a thief and a manipulator. So why not take this in account?
Also, what makes you think "no practicing" occurred? Practice does not need to be filmed.

his statement that he got into the suit "nervous as hell" afraid he'd be shot makes no sense. They are out in the middle of nowhere, only the 3 of them, and he's worried he will be shot by another hunter in the roughly 1 minute he's walking? I think him adding these little 'details' works against him. There was mention that Patterson did tell/teach him prior to walk "like a gorilla", so I was wrong on the practice issue. But whatever is walking in the film is not walking like a gorilla (which rarely walk of course, and kind of waddle like penguins when they do). We've all seen early sci-fi films, and the actors playing chimps and gorillas do rather exaggerated movements - nothing human-like and nothing like what Patterson filmed. So again Bob H. shoots himself in the foot with the 'admission' about the gorilla walk (had he said "walk just like a person" it'd be more factual) It's also telling that no show was ever made based on the book. Couldn't even get Fox or whatever tabloid shows (like "A Current Affair") were running then to pony up some money.

 

[captancourgette]

So that's a long time to cover 61 miles: an average speed of 23 mph. Quite slow.

dude this is what google maps saiz it takes now in 2022, where its 99% chance with a better road than back then when the film was shot (were some of the roads gravel/dirt).
I made the same mistake some months ago here in the pyrenees, google maps said time from place A to place B ~30km = 1 hour driving, I'm like Im sure it will be quicker after all 30 km in an hour is so so slow. But no my assumptions were wrong, actually driving it took about an hour and this is with a normal car.
If that blue vehicle is what they used, haha good luck in making the time. No chance of bettering the time back then.
NorCal Dave is right, this is a flaw in the story, its somewhat minor but the times don't match

 

[deirdre]

his statement that he got into the suit "nervous as hell" afraid he'd be shot makes no sense. They are out in the middle of nowhere, only the 3 of them, and he's worried he will be shot by another hunter in the roughly 1 minute he's walking?

this sentence concerns me, so i feel obligated to offer a Public Service Announcement. NEVER go out into the woods in a gorilla suit!!! Not even in those places that have outlawed shooting Bigfoots, or places you think are in the middle of no-where. It's a good way to end up shot.

 

[NorCal Dave]

(and as an aside I find it amazing that one can input the Patterson Gimlin film site as a 'From' point into a travel calculator)

Right?! I knew the site had been rediscovered, so I looked it up and found some lat/long coordinates in the "degree minute seconds" format, which GoogleMaps doesn't seem to like. So found another site that converts it to decimal, but still used the "W" for west, which again GoogleMaps didn't seem to like, so I got a place in China. Finally realized that putting a "-" in front of the second number is the equivalent of a "W".

All of which was a waste of time, because GoogleMaps already had a label at that coordinate for "Patter-Gimlin Film Site".

If I'm understanding the travel time for the 60.8 miles, the time given is 2 hrs 38 minutes ... So that's a long time to cover 61 miles: an average speed of 23 mph. Quite slow.... I tend to think Roger would be very motivated to get to the destination considering what apparently just happened.

Fair point, but that's what GoogleMaps gives for present day. The wife and I just took a road trip through parts of Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and GoogleMaps was pretty accurate.

CA 96 isn't exactly a straight shot between Willow Creek and the turnoff to Bluff Creek Rd. Like CA 299, it winds along the Trinty River where the Trinty Alps meet the Coastal Range:


After that, they turn off the highway and onto a dirt/gravel logging road which includes stretches like this:


And this:



GoogleMaps estimates the off offroad portion of their trip, present day, at just under 2 hours for 32 miles, so less than 20mph for most of it:


And the vehicle that most likely agrees with the descriptions of what they were driving, Gimlin's truck that carries 3 horses and has an "overshoot", is something like this:


Not exactly a Trophy Truck. By way of comparison, one of the faster offroad vehicles of 1967 was a Myers Manx, a buggy built for desert racing, which one the first Mexican (Baja) 1000 race, averaging only around 30mph out in the wide-open desert.

The first official race started in Tijuana, Baja California, on October 31, 1967, and was named the NORRA Mexican 1000 Rally. The course length that year was 849 miles (1,366 km) and ended in La Paz, with the overall winning time of 27 hours 38 minutes (27:38) set by Vic Wilson and Ted Mangels while driving a Meyers Manx buggy.

Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_1000#1967:_The_Mexican_1000

And then the 48 mile drive in about an hour on CA-299, which is a highway. 48mph is reasonable, but boost it to 60 and you cut off 22 minutes in a round trip

Yes, it's a highway, but even today some of it looks like this between Willow Creek and Eurika:



I assume it looks pretty much the way it did back in '67. They have recently started to straighten out some of the curvier parts of 299, starting with the area further east between Whiskeytown Lake and Weaverville.

I think it's been 8 years or so since I drove over CA 299. It's beautiful, much of it following the Trinty River through the mountains, but IIRC, it seems to take forever. It's mostly 2 lanes and even on the stretches where one can hit 65mph or so in a modern vehicle, that assumes you're the only one on the road. More often than not, you find yourself in que going 45 behind an RV or a big truck or, one time, a beat-up old-school bus full of hippy-dippies who refused to use the turnouts.

They had a lot to do in a compressed amount of time: Stating around 1:30, they film the creature, round up the horses, film the tracks, track the creature for 3 miles or so and return to the site, make the 9 mile round trip from site to camp to site back to camp and arrive in Willow Creek around 6:30 in a horse hauling truck.

Sure, maybe the roads were in better shape back then. Maybe they grossly overestimated the distances between everything, though in the Gimlin video he does say it was "evening" back at camp when they decided to head for Willow Creek.

Like I said, it's not proof of anything, but it reminds me of an old teller of tall tales I know named Tim. We came to call them "Timmy Tales". He was sincere and on rare occasions part of what he told turned out to be trueish, but usually not. They were always full of details and side tangents that helped mask the underlying BS.

his statement that he got into the suit "nervous as hell" afraid he'd be shot makes no sense. They are out in the middle of nowhere, only the 3 of them, and he's worried he will be shot by another hunter in the roughly 1 minute he's walking? I think him adding these little 'details' works against him.

Depends. Gimlin was armed with a rifle and suggested in later years that it may have been possible that Patterson hoaxed him:

Patterson and Gimlin both denied that they had perpetrated a hoax, but in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham for the BBC's The X Creatures, Gimlin said that for some time, "I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."[229]

Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#cite_note-40

If Bob H. is in on the hoax and an armed Gimlin is not, one could get nervous. And Patterson does appear to be the kind of guy that might try to fool his buddy for authenticity. After all of this, he never paid him his share.

And September through December is prime bear hunting time in California, even today. I wouldn't be surprised if the season was longer back in the '60s. Not sure I'd want to be running around the woods looking like a black bear for any length of time.

 

[deirdre]

If Bob H. is in on the hoax and an armed Gimlin is not, one could get nervous. And Patterson does appear to be the kind of guy that might try to fool his buddy for authenticity. After all of this, he never paid him his share.

well not only would Gimlin possibly shoot the bigfoot but if it's a suit and they actually did pursue "it, they would have caught up to Bob.

 

[Murray]

his statement that he got into the suit "nervous as hell" afraid he'd be shot makes no sense. They are out in the middle of nowhere, only the 3 of them, and he's worried he will be shot by another hunter in the roughly 1 minute he's walking? I think him adding these little 'details' works against him.

Yes, it's a well-known fact hunters rarely hunt in the "middle of nowhere" (that actually has a road leading to it). Well, except for bigfoot hunters of course.

Know what really makes no sense? Believing an 8 to 9 ft tall monkey man that no one can ever find(except Patterson on his 1st try)is roaming the forests of North America.

 

[FatPhil]

his statement that he got into the suit "nervous as hell" afraid he'd be shot makes no sense.

Another argument from incredulity.