Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johne1618
  • Start date Start date
a 'few inches taller' than McClarin, placing Patty at a minimum of 6'7".
Can you talk a bit about how this was determined? I am dubious that it can be done, using the imagery that we have. But my personal incredulity is not evidence any more than is anybody else's; it is possible I missed a bit that makes it all make sense...
 
They don't have to - he took casts, as did at least one other, and there were photographs taken too. From all that, size and depth can be eyeballed reasonably well.

What *caused them*, however, cannot.
If I understand it, the location of the footprints was a deposited gravel bar beside the stream. Is that correct? If so, those places are notoriously unstable, with layers of sand, gravel, and mud. I have had the experience of walking on a firm gravel surface by a stream, only to take one more step and sink to my ankle in mud on a surface that didn't look any different from the solid portion. (I had a heck of a time retrieving my shoe ...and then had to go back to work all muddy because my lunchtime was over.) In other words, if it was indeed on a flood-prone surface, the apparent depth of the prints may not be at all diagnostic of weight.
 
If you are making a claim post a reference that backs it up. See the Posting Guidelines for reference .
 
“It is as if the agent or intelligence here at work is parodying, daubing, hoaxing;
(and tricking investigators, providing them with just enough physical evidence to
convince those willing to believe in the reality of the phenomenon, but not enough
to persuade the skeptics)”
Or, as in UFOlogy, things that are just in the Low Information Zone, the LIZ.

Not enough data to actually make a determination, but enough for the more hopeful to see things that are probably not really there. Perhaps fiddly, expensive, and tedious to reproduce with a human in a suit, there's really nothing else to prevent it being reproduced. But the lack of exact reproduction allows speculative arguments.
 
They don't have to - he took casts, as did at least one other, and there were photographs taken too. From all that, size and depth can be eyeballed reasonably well.

What *caused them*, however, cannot.
Why did he have the stuff for making casts?
Unless theres snow, 99.99999% of the time I'm walking in the Woods, I'm not leaving distinctive footprints.

Sure was a lucky bigfoot hunting expedition, capturing him on film and also getting some nice plaster casts.
Not to mention, why they hell has bigfoot leaving footprints like s/hes been wearing shoes her whole life.
If you're gonna fake it you don't just copy your foot and then scale it up
19811.jpg

I just googled early human footprints, these in the below photo are in the USA. Notice how wide they are at the toes
Do the same with (non shoe wearing) ape footprints.
Our feet look the way they do because we constrain them in shoes, for the non-squemish look up footbinding in china to see how much we can actually deform feet.
This is just an elemental mistake they made when they faked the footprints
SPAOAKC3L5AEXAH7T63H22WFVY.jpg





Not to mention a big piece of evidence that casts doubt on the whole thing is the Timeline, doing all this stuff and then driving back in that truck on that windy road to arrive in town at X o'clock. Someone outlined the timeline in an earlier post in this thread, just stretches incredulity
 
Why did he have the stuff for making casts?
Unless theres snow, 99.99999% of the time I'm walking in the Woods, I'm not leaving distinctive footprints.

Sure was a lucky bigfoot hunting expedition, capturing him on film and also getting some nice plaster casts.
It's already been pointed out in this thread that he chose the Bluff Creek area amongst other things because there had been earlier reports of footprints.
 
A couple of days ago I googled some of the articles from experts who argue for or against the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film based on such things as proportions of the body, mechanics of gait, etc, and found that you can pick and choose whatever you like from the many competing opinions. Then today I got Benjamin Radford's essay ("Bigfoot bluffin': curious credentials in cryptozoology") asking just who the "experts" ARE. It's an interesting read. It concludes:

External Quote:
Psychologists have expertise in some aspects of Bigfoot sightings, insofar as they are experienced and reported—albeit imprecisely— by humans and their limited sensory and perceptual equipment. Folklorists and anthropologists, as well, have expertise in legends and stories about Sasquatch. Zoologists and trackers also have expertise in examining possible tracks left behind, and so on. But it’s important to be clear about what exactly it is that’s being studied—and what credentials are required for competent analysis. Until and unless Bigfoot are proven to exist, there cannot be any true experts on the entities themselves, nor a clearly relevant field of research.
(bolding mine)
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/bigfoot-bluffin-curious-credentials-in-cryptozoology/
 
Why did he have the stuff for making casts?
serious bigfoot hunters always have plaster on them. I think footprints is primarily what they are actually hunting FOR, most of them don't actually expect to see a bigfoot. So the real question is why didnt they have the plaster ON them...they had to go all the way back to camp to get the plaster despite having 3 horses.
 
my main point was that the trackway is somewhat tight-rope ; if an imaginary line was put between the right and left prints it appears the right print would be just to the right of the line and the left to the left.

I'm not getting this obsession with the "walking a tight rope argument. It's boarding on a Gish Gallop. As we discuss one aspect of the film you jump to something new, like suggesting we look at Racewalkers to see how efficient a tightrope walking method is. You don't offer any insight into Racewalking or any evidence to support your claim, you simply opine.

It's up to us to research Racewalking, note that it is a set of silly rules governing how some people choose to race each other and is in fact highly inefficient.

When this is pointed out, you change to "it's somewhat tight rope".

Walking in a straight line with your feet landing on either side of an imaginary centerline, IS how people walk. If it's a relic bi-pedal hominin, it's going to walk very similar to a non-relic bi-pedal hominin, like anatomically modern humans.

Packham in the BBC documentary (fervent believer in hoax for those not familiar) showed the overlay, and concluded a 'few inches taller' than McClarin, placing Patty at a minimum of 6'7"

If he's off by an inch or so, it puts the creature at 6'4"-6'6". Well within the realm of a 6'-6'2" person in a suite with an exaggerated head piece containing a fake sagittal crest.

I am not sure how trying to equate a horse to a person and trying to justify a weight to make the prints is possible. It would seem to be an apples to oranges comparison. Packham says 4x the weight of McClarin, which would be 600-700 pounds. Out of human range by quite a bit.

Were just going around in circles now. I don't care what Packham estimates, he's not considering the hoof prints as a gauge, something I've explained twice now. And if he is saying it's for sure a hoax, but the person in the suite weighs 600-700# than he's just flat out wrong or confused.

Aside from a few YouTube videos that your friend collects, you have made repeated assertions without any sourcing or evidence leaving others to provide the sources and often the corrections to the claims. For example this repeated claim which you made multiple times:

One of the first viewers of the film, a Russian bio-mechanics expert, concluded that the walk is more efficient than a human walk

The assertion that the walk is "more efficient than a human walk" can't be evaluated because there is no source. There is no mention of who made this claim, when it was made and what backs it up. Nevertheless, you repeatedly offered it as evidence. Further research would have clarified the matter. The Russian expert WAS NOT one of the first viewers of the film, on the contrary the film was brought to Europe by Dahinden in 1971, so 3-4 years later and after Patterson and his brother-in-law had been 4 walling it:

External Quote:
Christopher Murphy wrote, "Dahinden traveled to Europe [with the film] in 1971. He visited England, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Russia. Although scientists in these countries were somewhat more open-minded than those in North America, their findings were basically the same . ... A real glimmer of hope, however, emerged [in Russia, where he met Bayanov, Bourtsev, and their associates].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#cite_note-254

More searching would have revealed the source, a 1 page report by a Dr. Donskoy after he saw copy of the film. He does NOT "conclude that the walk is more efficient than a human walk". This is as close as he gets (bold by me):

External Quote:
"As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of the two-footed creature in the Patterson film and detailed examination of the successive stills from it, one is left with the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion, with all the particular movements combined in an integral whole that presents a smoothly operating and coherent system.
External Quote:
Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

Considering he was seeing whatever copy Dahinden had been dragging around Europe and it was long before zoomed and 4K scans had been made, I would argue that Donskoy's report is a bit of a word salad about a fuzzy creature filmed from 80' away. Possibly it's due to translation, but I think he's making a lot of assumptions considering what he was seeing.

Since that is my take on it, I will include the whole text of the report below so that others can make their own observations and challenge me as they see fit. That's how we try to do it here. As I said before, it's not Reddit, it's not about polls and up votes. More up votes doesn't make something true.
External Quote:

Bigfoot Encounters

A Qualitative Bio mechanical Analysis of the Locomotive Movement of the Subject of the 1967 Film Footage

Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy, Chief of the Dept. of Bio mechanics at the former USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow, Russia 1973

Recently Roger Knights searched for Donskoy's very positive analysis of the Patterson film, as he wished to quote it in a discussion. He searched Google, but found only one version, on the www.cryptozoology.com site. But that version omitted 50% of the text (in the middle). They may not be aware of this, as the text breaks and resumes in the middle of sentences that don't fit together. Someone may have inadvertently deleted a block of text at some point. Anyway, Roger Knights went to the two books that have Donskoy's piece (Byrne's & Hunter/Dahinden's) and scanned them in. He then took the best from both versions, and added some improvements of his own. (Fixing some awkward-sounding translations.) The results of Roger's work follows. This document is also published in Peter Byrne's book, "The Search for Bigfoot, Monster, Myth or Man." Published in 1975 and 1976 on pg 152. ...Bobbie Short, January 5, 2004
"As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of the two-footed creature in the Patterson film and detailed examination of the successive stills from it, one is left with the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion, with all the particular movements combined in an integral whole that presents a smoothly operating and coherent system.
In all the strides the movement of the arms and of the legs are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by that of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is a must for man, and is natural in many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds (in walking and trotting, for instance).
The strides are energetic and big, with the leg swung far forward. When man extends the leg that far he walks very fast and thus overcomes by momentum the "braking effect" of the virtual prop that is provided by the forward leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed, so the more massive the biped the less speed (and vice versa) is needed to overcome the braking effect of the leading leg in striding.
The arms move in swinging motions, which means the muscles are exerted at the beginning of each cycle, after which they relax and the movement continues by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong.
After each heel strike the creature's leg bends, taking on the full weight of the body and smoothing over the impact of the step, acting as a shock-absorber. During this phase certain muscles of the leg are extended and become tense in preparation for the subsequent toe-off.
In a normal human walk such considerable knee flexion as is exhibited by the film creature is not observed; it is practiced only in cross-country skiing. This characteristic makes one think that the creature is very heavy and its toe-off is powerful, which would contribute to rapid progression.
In the swinging of the leg, considerable flexion is observed in the joints, with different parts of the limb lagging behind each other: the foot's movement is behind the shank's, which is behind the hip's. This kind of movement is peculiar to massive limbs with well-relaxed muscles. In such a case the movements of the limbs look fluid and easy, with no breaks or jerks in the extreme points of each cycle. The creature uses to great advantage the effect of muscle resilience, which is hardly used by modern man in the usual conditions of life.
The gait of the creature is confident, the strides are regular, and with no signs of loss of balance, of wavering or any redundant movements. In the two strides during which the creature makes a turn to the right, in the direction of the camera, the movement is accomplished with the turn of the torso. This reveals alertness and, possibly, a somewhat limited mobility of the head. (True, in some critical situations man also turns his whole torso and not just head alone.) During the turn the creature spreads its arms widely to increase stability.
In the toe-off phase the sole of the creature's foot is visible. By human standards it is large for the height of the creature. No longitudinal arch typical of the human foot is in view. The hind part of the foot formed by the heel bone protrudes considerably back. Such proportions and anatomy facilitate the work of the muscles, which make standing postures possible and increase the force of propulsion in walking. Lack of an arch may be caused by the great weight of the creature. **

**The above emphasis was Rene Dahinden's...compare this statement with the findings of anthropologists Grover Krantz and of the two Russians, Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev in Chapter 9 of Dahinden's book, "Sasquatch" in the 1993 revised edition. Each of these three sources arrived at the same conclusion totally independent of the others.

The movements are harmonious and repeated uniformly from step to step; harmony is provided by synergy (the combined operation of a whole group of muscles).
Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.
Lastly, we can note a characteristic of the creature's walk that defies exact description: expressiveness of movement. In man this quality is sometimes manifest in goal-oriented sporting or labor activities, and leaves the impression of the economy and accuracy of movement. An experienced observer can note this characteristic, even if he does not know the specifics of given activity. “What need be done is neatly done” is another way of describing expressiveness of movement, which indicates that the motor system characterized by this quality is well adapted to the task it is called upon to perform. In other words, neat perfection is typical of those movements, which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.
On the whole the most important thing is the consistency of all the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only simply occur, but interact in many ways. And all these factors taken together allow us to evaluate the walk of the creature as a natural movement, without any signs of artfulness that would appear in intentional imitations.
At the same time, despite the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as is demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man."

It is important to remember that Dr. Donskoy is neither a Sasquatch hunter nor an anthropologist. He was an "expert" in biomechanics and his analysis of the Patterson film was made purely from the principles of that discipline.
The above text was taken from the book titled: "Sasquatch" by Don Hunter & Rene Dahinden, revised edition published in 1993 on pages 201 - 204.


Back to Biology, Scientific Papers and Field Reports

Back to What's New?
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Home/Main
 
Sure was a lucky bigfoot hunting expedition, capturing him on film and also getting some nice plaster casts.

Yet he never returned to the area ever again in his entire life. He chose instead to try to capture a Bigfoot at various locations all over the world instead of the one place on the planet he knew Bigfoot could be found.

Makes perfect sense.
 
Even so, Krantz and others have been able to replicate the walk. If they could, the person in the costume could.

Jeff Meldrum proved the walk could easily be replicated by humans in Legend Meets Science, though that wasn't his intention. In fact, at the end of the show he misrepresented the results of the test.
 
Or, as in UFOlogy, things that are just in the Low Information Zone, the LIZ.

Not enough data to actually make a determination, but enough for the more hopeful to see things that are probably not really there. Perhaps fiddly, expensive, and tedious to reproduce with a human in a suit, there's really nothing else to prevent it being reproduced. But the lack of exact reproduction allows speculative arguments.
Many feel its not that low. Probably not an exaggeration when proponents say it's the second most analyzed film after the Zapruder film. Is it a case of analyzing 'garbage in' and getting garbage out? But even skeptics cannot argue against the fact that the film was the highest quality at the time, and by the late 60's I assume film was quite good. I believe Norcal Dave posted the commonly known fact that resolution of the film is perhaps down to the 1" level. Quite amazing considering it was shot at a distance of 80' and the 'creature' would have occupied a very small portion of the frame. There was a startling claim years ago that an 'object' was clearly discerned on the suit that was likely a clasp or related to a zipper. If so, that would have been a major advance to the 'person in a suit' theory. However, the indisputable film grain calculations showed the person analyzing overlooked the limitation that nothing below 1" could be discerned, so a small clasp was just a case of seeing 'noise'.

There really have only been a couple attempts at reproduction. The BBC version is widely derided, since the suit and figure have almost nothing in common with what is shown in the PG film. A guy named Blevins had tried for years to make a comparable suit, his attempts (and I give him credit, he put in a lot of effort) never measured up - even the hoax proponents couldn't point to him as the person who matched the film. Now I will admit that I saw a very convincing YT video (out of the now hundreds) a couple years ago (so we're talking 50+ years of advancement in suit technology) that was very PG-like. The suit (I am concluding hoax for reasons not worth going into) was tight, the hair short, the underlying substantial musculature was very convincing. But unlike PG, no size estimate was determined, even though some trees were passed by the 'creature'. Impossible to know if the subject was 5'9" or 7" tall - and unlike PG, the hoaxer didnt tackle the issue of breasts. Maybe they didn't want to press their luck.
 
I'm not getting this obsession with the "walking a tight rope argument. It's boarding on a Gish Gallop. As we discuss one aspect of the film you jump to something new, like suggesting we look at Racewalkers to see how efficient a tightrope walking method is. You don't offer any insight into Racewalking or any evidence to support your claim, you simply opine.

It's up to us to research Racewalking, note that it is a set of silly rules governing how some people choose to race each other and is in fact highly inefficient.

When this is pointed out, you change to "it's somewhat tight rope".

Walking in a straight line with your feet landing on either side of an imaginary centerline, IS how people walk. If it's a relic bi-pedal hominin, it's going to walk very similar to a non-relic bi-pedal hominin, like anatomically modern humans.



If he's off by an inch or so, it puts the creature at 6'4"-6'6". Well within the realm of a 6'-6'2" person in a suite with an exaggerated head piece containing a fake sagittal crest.



Were just going around in circles now. I don't care what Packham estimates, he's not considering the hoof prints as a gauge, something I've explained twice now. And if he is saying it's for sure a hoax, but the person in the suite weighs 600-700# than he's just flat out wrong or confused.

Aside from a few YouTube videos that your friend collects, you have made repeated assertions without any sourcing or evidence leaving others to provide the sources and often the corrections to the claims. For example this repeated claim which you made multiple times:



The assertion that the walk is "more efficient than a human walk" can't be evaluated because there is no source. There is no mention of who made this claim, when it was made and what backs it up. Nevertheless, you repeatedly offered it as evidence. Further research would have clarified the matter. The Russian expert WAS NOT one of the first viewers of the film, on the contrary the film was brought to Europe by Dahinden in 1971, so 3-4 years later and after Patterson and his brother-in-law had been 4 walling it:

External Quote:
Christopher Murphy wrote, "Dahinden traveled to Europe [with the film] in 1971. He visited England, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Russia. Although scientists in these countries were somewhat more open-minded than those in North America, their findings were basically the same . ... A real glimmer of hope, however, emerged [in Russia, where he met Bayanov, Bourtsev, and their associates].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#cite_note-254

More searching would have revealed the source, a 1 page report by a Dr. Donskoy after he saw copy of the film. He does NOT "conclude that the walk is more efficient than a human walk". This is as close as he gets (bold by me):

External Quote:
"As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of the two-footed creature in the Patterson film and detailed examination of the successive stills from it, one is left with the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion, with all the particular movements combined in an integral whole that presents a smoothly operating and coherent system.
External Quote:
Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

Considering he was seeing whatever copy Dahinden had been dragging around Europe and it was long before zoomed and 4K scans had been made, I would argue that Donskoy's report is a bit of a word salad about a fuzzy creature filmed from 80' away. Possibly it's due to translation, but I think he's making a lot of assumptions considering what he was seeing.

Since that is my take on it, I will include the whole text of the report below so that others can make their own observations and challenge me as they see fit. That's how we try to do it here. As I said before, it's not Reddit, it's not about polls and up votes. More up votes doesn't make something true.
External Quote:

Bigfoot Encounters

A Qualitative Bio mechanical Analysis of the Locomotive Movement of the Subject of the 1967 Film Footage

Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy, Chief of the Dept. of Bio mechanics at the former USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow, Russia 1973

Recently Roger Knights searched for Donskoy's very positive analysis of the Patterson film, as he wished to quote it in a discussion. He searched Google, but found only one version, on the www.cryptozoology.com site. But that version omitted 50% of the text (in the middle). They may not be aware of this, as the text breaks and resumes in the middle of sentences that don't fit together. Someone may have inadvertently deleted a block of text at some point. Anyway, Roger Knights went to the two books that have Donskoy's piece (Byrne's & Hunter/Dahinden's) and scanned them in. He then took the best from both versions, and added some improvements of his own. (Fixing some awkward-sounding translations.) The results of Roger's work follows. This document is also published in Peter Byrne's book, "The Search for Bigfoot, Monster, Myth or Man." Published in 1975 and 1976 on pg 152. ...Bobbie Short, January 5, 2004
"As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of the two-footed creature in the Patterson film and detailed examination of the successive stills from it, one is left with the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion, with all the particular movements combined in an integral whole that presents a smoothly operating and coherent system.
In all the strides the movement of the arms and of the legs are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by that of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is a must for man, and is natural in many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds (in walking and trotting, for instance).
The strides are energetic and big, with the leg swung far forward. When man extends the leg that far he walks very fast and thus overcomes by momentum the "braking effect" of the virtual prop that is provided by the forward leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed, so the more massive the biped the less speed (and vice versa) is needed to overcome the braking effect of the leading leg in striding.
The arms move in swinging motions, which means the muscles are exerted at the beginning of each cycle, after which they relax and the movement continues by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong.
After each heel strike the creature's leg bends, taking on the full weight of the body and smoothing over the impact of the step, acting as a shock-absorber. During this phase certain muscles of the leg are extended and become tense in preparation for the subsequent toe-off.
In a normal human walk such considerable knee flexion as is exhibited by the film creature is not observed; it is practiced only in cross-country skiing. This characteristic makes one think that the creature is very heavy and its toe-off is powerful, which would contribute to rapid progression.
In the swinging of the leg, considerable flexion is observed in the joints, with different parts of the limb lagging behind each other: the foot's movement is behind the shank's, which is behind the hip's. This kind of movement is peculiar to massive limbs with well-relaxed muscles. In such a case the movements of the limbs look fluid and easy, with no breaks or jerks in the extreme points of each cycle. The creature uses to great advantage the effect of muscle resilience, which is hardly used by modern man in the usual conditions of life.
The gait of the creature is confident, the strides are regular, and with no signs of loss of balance, of wavering or any redundant movements. In the two strides during which the creature makes a turn to the right, in the direction of the camera, the movement is accomplished with the turn of the torso. This reveals alertness and, possibly, a somewhat limited mobility of the head. (True, in some critical situations man also turns his whole torso and not just head alone.) During the turn the creature spreads its arms widely to increase stability.
In the toe-off phase the sole of the creature's foot is visible. By human standards it is large for the height of the creature. No longitudinal arch typical of the human foot is in view. The hind part of the foot formed by the heel bone protrudes considerably back. Such proportions and anatomy facilitate the work of the muscles, which make standing postures possible and increase the force of propulsion in walking. Lack of an arch may be caused by the great weight of the creature. **

**The above emphasis was Rene Dahinden's...compare this statement with the findings of anthropologists Grover Krantz and of the two Russians, Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev in Chapter 9 of Dahinden's book, "Sasquatch" in the 1993 revised edition. Each of these three sources arrived at the same conclusion totally independent of the others.

The movements are harmonious and repeated uniformly from step to step; harmony is provided by synergy (the combined operation of a whole group of muscles).
Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.
Lastly, we can note a characteristic of the creature's walk that defies exact description: expressiveness of movement. In man this quality is sometimes manifest in goal-oriented sporting or labor activities, and leaves the impression of the economy and accuracy of movement. An experienced observer can note this characteristic, even if he does not know the specifics of given activity. “What need be done is neatly done” is another way of describing expressiveness of movement, which indicates that the motor system characterized by this quality is well adapted to the task it is called upon to perform. In other words, neat perfection is typical of those movements, which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.
On the whole the most important thing is the consistency of all the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only simply occur, but interact in many ways. And all these factors taken together allow us to evaluate the walk of the creature as a natural movement, without any signs of artfulness that would appear in intentional imitations.
At the same time, despite the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as is demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man."

It is important to remember that Dr. Donskoy is neither a Sasquatch hunter nor an anthropologist. He was an "expert" in biomechanics and his analysis of the Patterson film was made purely from the principles of that discipline.
The above text was taken from the book titled: "Sasquatch" by Don Hunter & Rene Dahinden, revised edition published in 1993 on pages 201 - 204.


Back to Biology, Scientific Papers and Field Reports

Back to What's New?
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Home/Main
greatly appreciate this post, reading the analysis at the end almost makes me misty-eyed lol. If this was included as a skeptical argument, I'm not sure how to respond since it's the most anti-hoax argument possible. As for tight-rope walk, your statement of 'center-line' was what I was aiming for. What I think you are missing is that if the size analysis is correct, and something weighting 600 pounds made the tracks, how nimble that creature must be to walk that way. The hips must be extremely broad (female pelvis, even broader??) yet it somehow adjusts its hips in an effortless manner to achieve the center-line trackway.
 
What I think you are missing is that if the size analysis is correct, and something weighting 600 pounds made the tracks, how nimble that creature must be to walk that way. The hips must be extremely broad (female pelvis, even broader??) yet it somehow adjusts its hips in an effortless manner to achieve the center-line trackway.
What I think you are missing is that any bipedal animal, whatever its weight, whether human or not, has a lot of practice walking at that weight ...and we do not even know if the tracks were made while the creature was in the film, or if they were faked afterwards. As I recall, they didn't take casts of the track at the time, but returned later.
 
What I think you are missing is that if the size analysis is correct, and something weighting 600 pounds made the tracks, how nimble that creature must be to walk that way. The hips must be extremely broad (female pelvis, even broader??) yet it somehow adjusts its hips in an effortless manner to achieve the center-line trackway

But you keep going back to Packham suggesting that it weighed 600#. I'll use CC here to show exactly what Packham said.

He says is that the creature is a bit taller than McClaren (6'5"):

1676484659350.png


But that the foot prints indicated it was 4 times heavier:

1676484602345.png


So closer to 800#. Even at 600-800#, Packham isn't saying this is what the creature weighed. He saying there is a problem with it weighing this much. As I pointed out numerous times, the footprints were deeper than that of the horse, Chico:

1676485155260.png

1676485201320.png

1676485251562.png

1676485336262.png


1676485366421.png


He doesn't conclude that Bigfoot weighs substantially more than a mountain gorilla, rather that the depth of the footprints is a red flag. Something he noted earlier in the video:

1676485552580.png


1676485610189.png


1676485685107.png

1676485737566.png

1676485771379.png


He's saying what I said. The fact that the footprints are so deep isn't an indication of the creature's immense weight, it's a sign that the footprints were faked.
 
But you keep going back to Packham suggesting that it weighed 600#. I'll use CC here to show exactly what Packham said.

He says is that the creature is a bit taller than McClaren (6'5"):

But that the foot prints indicated it was 4 times heavier:

So closer to 800#. Even at 600-800#, Packham isn't saying this is what the creature weighed. He saying there is a problem with it weighing this much. As I pointed out numerous times, the footprints were deeper than that of the horse, Chico:

[He doesn't conclude that Bigfoot weighs substantially more than a mountain gorilla, rather that the depth of the footprints is a red flag. Something he noted earlier in the video:

He's saying what I said. The fact that the footprints are so deep isn't an indication of the creature's immense weight, it's a sign that the footprints were faked.
your final line is an interesting interpretation, an extra deep print indicates hoax rather than a heavy animal. We haven't really discussed how these 'fake' prints were made. Machine? or hang dug? are you stating Patterson hand dug the track way? used some type of stomper (ala Wallace) to create an outline, and then like a master sculptor, dug out prints with a hand shovel? And he apparently 'goofed' , since he dug them too deep. And that solution is simpler than what we observed having made the tracks? As for Ann's comment, isn't the standard narrative that Gimlin went back to get the plaster and more film, and the plaster casts were made that afternoon? I can see why Packham is contemplating like Rodin's The Thinker, because it is a puzzle (and distressing if you have to stick with a hoax agenda)

(forgot to add that the NASI (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm ) report assumes a height of 7'3" and an admittedly absurd weight of like 1900 pounds (based on estimated chest perimeter). So 600-800 is a very 'light' weight in their view. I've mentioned Andre the Giant several times, around 7' and a top weight of 500 pounds. Angus MacAskill had a height of 7'9" and an 'early adult weight' of 510 pounds. And these two examples are humans, not animals. Density of flesh, muscle mass - is it higher for a Sasquatch? )
 
Last edited:
your final line is an interesting interpretation, an extra deep print indicates hoax rather than a heavy animal. We haven't really discussed how these 'fake' prints were made. Machine? or hang dug? are you stating Patterson hand dug the track way? used some type of stomper (ala Wallace) to create an outline, and then like a master sculptor, dug out prints with a hand shovel? And he apparently 'goofed' , since he dug them too deep. And that solution is simpler than what we observed having made the tracks? As for Ann's comment, isn't the standard narrative that Gimlin went back to get the plaster and more film, and the plaster casts were made that afternoon? I can see why Packham is contemplating like Rodin's The Thinker, because it is a puzzle (and distressing if you have to stick with a hoax agenda)
If you are going to reply to Ann's comment then include it. Don't paraphrase or leaveit out entirely.
 
there's no call for that



the density of flesh is the density of water, to within a small percentage, no matter the species.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Densities-of-Different-Types-of-Meats_fig1_277165155
View attachment 57835

Densities of Different Types of Meats.​


You have the Internet at your fingertips, you don't really need to speculate on these questions.
thanks, and actually the density is not really relevant since the chest circumference gives a volume which then gives a weight estimate. So it doesn't matter if a Sasquatch is denser or more muscular, the chest measurement determines the weight.
 
even though I would never try to argue the case for a 'paranormal' Bigfoot, I do want to at least suggest it as a solution. The solution space for the PG film is not just Hoax or Real Animal. It should also include Neither of Those. In the same way a flipped nickel does not have an outcome space of Heads or Tails.
[off topic video removed].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
this article about the infamous Piltdown Man hoax brings up some interesting points that are perhaps relevant to the PG case.

the author states: "Dawson was able to fool the experts of the day by employing the same trick used by successful con artists since time immemorial: He showed them what they wanted to see."

so does the PG case follow the same 'trick' ? Hardly, in fact the opposite. Patterson's film was ignored if not outright derided by the scientific community. They did not want to "see" this. And he acknowledged that the film was certainly not proof. Its interesting that he even attempted to sway them - if his goal was to simply make money, why take on the experts in the field? Just go directly to the public.

as to accomplices (Gimlin in the case of PG) the article states:

"... says the study adds scientific certainty to his and others' conclusions that Dawson alone committed the hoax. "Having an accomplice in this … would have been extremely dangerous, opening the forger up to potential blackmail, or worse, exposure and ridicule," he says. "The new report confirms the likelihood that the forger, who we can now no longer doubt was Dawson, acted alone."

so accomplices are dangerous to a hoaxer due to blackmail and exposure. If Gimlin was in on the hoax (as Bob H. says) then Patterson was always in danger of blackmail or exposure. Yet he chose to cut Gimlin out of any financial benefit when taking the film on the road for viewings (although Gimlin admits he had little interest in promoting the film along with Patterson). That would seem to violate the rule of offending an accomplice. The only 'accomplice' apparently upset enough to expose the hoax was Bob H. So while Patterson was off making money via the film during the 3 year period before his death, Bob H. , the 'star' of the film, was watching this and getting nothing. How risky for Patterson to be thumbing his nose at the two 'accomplices'.

https://www.science.org/content/art...piltdown-man-one-science-s-most-famous-hoaxes
 
even though I would never try to argue the case for a 'paranormal' Bigfoot,
yes you would, because you're doing it
I do want to at least suggest it as a solution. The solution space for the PG film is not just Hoax or Real Animal. It should also include Neither of Those. In the same way a flipped nickel does not have an outcome space of Heads or Tails.
that's a false analogy.

A nickel flipping to heads, tails, or edge is physical honest flip, corresponding to Bigfoot being an actual creature (big foot would be the "edge flip" among mammals, a very rare species). A fake nickel flip, via CGI or magnetism or whatever other trickery, corresponds to Bigfoot being a hoax. A nickel being flipped by a poltergeist corresponds to your supernatural bigfoot, there's no precedent or evidence suggesting that the possibility for this to happen outside of fiction even exists.
 
Patterson's film was ignored if not outright derided by the scientific community. They did not want to "see" this. And he acknowledged that the film was certainly not proof. Its interesting that he even attempted to sway them - if his goal was to simply make money, why take on the experts in the field? Just go directly to the public.

https://www.science.org/content/art...piltdown-man-one-science-s-most-famous-hoaxes
Are you arguing that the fact that the "scientific community" saw the film as a fake
is actually evidence for it being real?

Further, are you actually saying that Patterson would not have loved to have had that real
"scientific community" say his film was real, undoubtedly making it much, much more valuable. (??)

I may be reading you wrong, but it almost seems as though you're trying to use
facts that obviously point to the film being fake, as evidence that the film is real...
 
Are you arguing that the fact that the "scientific community" saw the film as a fake
is actually evidence for it being real?

Further, are you actually saying that Patterson would not have loved to have had that real
"scientific community" say his film was real, undoubtedly making it much, much more valuable. (??)

I may be reading you wrong, but it almost seems as though you're trying to use
facts that obviously point to the film being fake, as evidence that the film is real...
my point was that the author of the Piltdown article brings up an aspect he considers important: people are more inclined to believe something if it's what they want to 'see'. In the case of Piltdown, British scientific feelings of 'inferiority' (his word) predisposed them to want to believe in this major discovery in Sussex. But in the case of PG, there was no desire to have this unknown, gigantic, fully bi-pedal 'ape man' enter the discussion. It did not 'fit in' in so many ways. So Patterson was facing a lost cause before he started, yet he submitted the film for viewing and examination. Therefore he hardly followed the rule of giving people what they wanted to see. That's my point.

And of course he wanted scientific approval, but it clearly was not going to happen. The reactions were uniformly bad.

How about the accomplice aspect? No accomplices is somewhat akin to 'dead men tell no tales' - its 100% safe. Patterson of course needed at least one (the suited person), but certainly didn't 'need' Gimlin. And there's a 3rd and 4th accomplice if you include DeAtley submitting the film for development days or weeks prior to the Oct 20th date, along with the still unknown person who developed it. If a dis-interested skilled individual who developed the film always knew it was developed in the days or weeks prior to the 20th, he has that hanging over Patterson's head forever. Indisputable proof of a hoax. Was he paid off by DeAtley to forever remain silent? If so, why wouldn't Patterson ask DeAtley (clearly in on the hoax too) to pay off Bob H. ? It's starting to become a complicated situation in terms of a hoax, keeping all these accomplices silent forever.
 
my point was that the author of the Piltdown article brings up an aspect he considers important: people are more inclined to believe something if it's what they want to 'see'. In the case of Piltdown, British scientific feelings of 'inferiority' (his word) predisposed them to want to believe in this major discovery in Sussex. But in the case of PG, there was no desire to have this unknown, gigantic, fully bi-pedal 'ape man' enter the discussion. It did not 'fit in' in so many ways. So Patterson was facing a lost cause before he started, yet he submitted the film for viewing and examination. Therefore he hardly followed the rule of giving people what they wanted to see. That's my point.

And of course he wanted scientific approval, but it clearly was not going to happen. The reactions were uniformly bad.

How about the accomplice aspect? No accomplices is somewhat akin to 'dead men tell no tales' - its 100% safe. Patterson of course needed at least one (the suited person), but certainly didn't 'need' Gimlin. And there's a 3rd and 4th accomplice if you include DeAtley submitting the film for development days or weeks prior to the Oct 20th date, along with the still unknown person who developed it. If a dis-interested skilled individual who developed the film always knew it was developed in the days or weeks prior to the 20th, he has that hanging over Patterson's head forever. Indisputable proof of a hoax. Was he paid off by DeAtley to forever remain silent? If so, why wouldn't Patterson ask DeAtley (clearly in on the hoax too) to pay off Bob H. ? It's starting to become a complicated situation in terms of a hoax, keeping all these accomplices silent forever.
There is a lot of speculation. Please focus on facts.
 
eeping all these accomplices silent forever.
he didnt keep his accomplices silent forever.

and your witness liability thing doesnt really work for cryptids or ufos. one person is easily (and usually) dismissed. 2 people have more weight, 4, 5, 6 witnesses even better.

what is your theory for the need of the third horse, if they didnt even use him to carry plaster?
 
Do you have evidence that Gimlin and Hieronymous felt offended? or are you making that up?
Patterson, on his death bed, apologized to Gimlin for essentially erasing him from the situation post-filming. So I think Patterson felt he screwed up. I'm puzzled a bit by your reply: Bob H. is promised $1000 for the filming and Patterson completely ignores paying him back. Gimlin, in on the hoax , is written out of the situation and future money via touring with the film. Are you really trying to imply people might not feel offended by that? People are offended nowadays if you don't refer to them by their desired pronoun.
 
Gimlin, in on the hoax , is written out of the situation and future money via touring with the film
except he was already on record and his wife was mad. He would have had to admit to the world he is a liar (making his wife even more mad).

although i agree with you that both were likely offended.
 
this article about the infamous Piltdown Man hoax brings up some interesting points that are perhaps relevant to the PG case.

First of all a little housekeeping, as I have stated before and on other threads, it is really helpful to use the tools offered on the forum to help others follow along better. It took me awhile to learn them, as I'm not a computer or software guy. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions on how to use the tools. Just click on my name and there should be an option to send a PM. That goes for anybody else reading this, I know I struggled at first.

When using the tools, such as the EX tags, your post (#465) should look something like this:

External Quote:
the author states:
External Quote:
"Dawson was able to fool the experts of the day by employing the same trick used by successful con artists since time immemorial: He showed them what they wanted to see."
so does the PG case follow the same 'trick' ? Hardly, in fact the opposite. Patterson's film was ignored if not outright derided by the scientific community. They did not want to "see" this. And he acknowledged that the film was certainly not proof. Its interesting that he even attempted to sway them - if his goal was to simply make money, why take on the experts in the field? Just go directly to the public.

as to accomplices (Gimlin in the case of PG) the article states:

External Quote:
"... says the study adds scientific certainty to his and others' conclusions that Dawson alone committed the hoax. "Having an accomplice in this … would have been extremely dangerous, opening the forger up to potential blackmail, or worse, exposure and ridicule,

"The new report confirms the likelihood that the forger, who we can now no longer doubt was Dawson, acted alone."
https://www.science.org/content/art...piltdown-man-one-science-s-most-famous-hoaxes
The quotes that are from an external source, like science.org, are clearly offset so we all know it's from an actual source. It also separates the quoted source from the arguments your making based on it. The offset quote boxes are then followed by the source. In addition, you would indicate if the bold was by the original author or added by you to call our attention to a particular line. This keeps things clean and easy to follow.

Now then.

your final line is an interesting interpretation, an extra deep print indicates hoax rather than a heavy animal

Correct. Not a heavy animal, an impossibly heavy animal. As Mendel pointed out above, the density and therefore likely weight of any living animal is very similar. Packum came up with 600-800# by comparing the actual cast to Gimlin's claim of it being much deeper than the adjacent horse prints. As the bigfoot track is deeper than the horse prints, it has to weigh more than the horse.

What Packum seems to have missed, as did Patterson, is that the much larger bigfoot foot displaces the weight over a larger area compared to the smaller horse hoof. If bigfoot weighs the same as the horse, the footprint would be shallower due to the larger area of displacement afforded by the size of the foot.

The fact that it is deeper than the smaller hoof print means it weighs far more than the horse and 600-800# is far to lite. That means that the NASI report you mentioned is more in line:
(forgot to add that the NASI (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm ) report assumes a height of 7'3" and an admittedly absurd weight of like 1900 pounds (based on estimated chest perimeter).

However, 1900# is completely nonsensical as you seem to admit. You go on to claim that Andre the Giant:

I've mentioned Andre the Giant several times, around 7' and a top weight of 500 pounds. Angus MacAskill had a height of 7'9" and an 'early adult weight' of 510 pounds

Assuming we doubled Andre's weight and he was morbidly obese, he's still nearly 900# less.

If we compare bigfoot to the largest known primate, the lowland gorilla:

External Quote:
Eastern lowland gorillas are the largest subspecies of gorilla and the largest living primates.[8] Males weigh between 150 and 209 kilograms (331 and 461 lb) .... Males stand between 1.69 to 1.96 metres (5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 5 in),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_lowland_gorilla

We get 6'5", very close to most estimates of the creature in the film, and 461#. No where near the 800# or more needed to create footprints deeper than the hoof prints. It just doesn't add up.

We haven't really discussed how these 'fake' prints were made. Machine? or hang dug? are you stating Patterson hand dug the track way? used some type of stomper (ala Wallace) to create an outline, and then like a master sculptor, dug out prints with a hand shovel?

Yes. It's hardly a complicated task.
  1. Patterson would take out his stomper, likely carved from wood, and place it on the sandy gravel to create the footprint.
  2. Then move the stomper aside and using a small shovel or trowel or likely just his hands, scooped out a bit of the sandy gravel where he had made the print until he had a slight depression.
  3. Once there is a depression shaped like the stomper, he would place the stomper in the bottom and probably stand on it to make the print in the bottom of the depression.
  4. Repeat.
This would seriously take no more than a few minutes per track. Maybe less if he had practiced it. There was something like 10 or so prints? It could have easily been done in 30 minutes or so. I don't know why this sounds so difficult. These are not tracks in lava cap, it's sandy gravel. Conveniently.

And he apparently 'goofed' , since he dug them too deep.

Yes. In his mind, bigfoot is a big heavy animal, so it's prints are deeper than the horse. He failed to take into account the "snowshoe" effect caused by the large foot. As did Packum.
 
actually the density is not really relevant since the chest circumference gives a volume which then gives a weight estimate.
Oh please, James, not without knowing the density. Density (elementary physics) is the factor that you need to know to convert volume to weight. What you are saying is equivalent to saying a grapefruit is the same weight as a grapefruit-sized chunk of granite.
 
what is your theory for the need of the third horse, if they didnt even use him to carry plaster?
An extra horse is a good safety factor to have in any expedition that strays far from civilization. If a horse stumbles and breaks a leg, it's going to be shot, and not available to take a rider to safety.
 
An extra horse is a good safety factor to have in any expedition that strays far from civilization. If a horse stumbles and breaks a leg, it's going to be shot, and not available to take a rider to safety.
possibly but they werent that far from their camp and vehicles. it's not like they were on a 3 day trek into unknown territory.

Untrained walkers can complete a two-hour, 6-mile walk at an easy pace, usually with no ill effects. The evidence for this comes from charity walks and American Volkssport Association's non-competitive 10-kilometer walks.
 
The hips must be extremely broad (female pelvis, even broader??) yet it somehow adjusts its hips in an effortless manner to achieve the center-line trackway.
As others have said: once one is used to their anatomy, it isn't difficult to be effortless, even graceful.

Also, as I'm sure many people with female pelvises can tell you: wider hips don't necessarily mean wider step. It isn't difficult to do, at all. That's how supermodels walk the runway, and they do it in heels. I'm not an apelike cryptid, nor do I have notably wide hips, but I often walk with my feet at center line. It's a style choice.

The difference between when I do it and when Patty the Bigfoot does it is that my hips sway when I walk with my feet centered. That's the whole reason why some women do it: it looks 'sexy'. Mechanically, the act of getting my feet at center while walking causes my hips to tilt and sway as the weight is shifted from leg to leg. Patty's do not. If they did, she'd be walking like a sexy cartoon character. Patty walks like a linebacker, not Jessica Rabbit.

I actually find this fact to be proof that there is a man (with narrower hips) in a suit with built-out hips: he walks normally, with his feet at characteristic distance apart, and they appear close together because he's got an ape suit on that adds the appearance of a bigger hips and butt. If the bigfoot was real, there is no way that it would be naturally walking with its feet at center without a very distinct hip sway.
 
Oh please, James, not without knowing the density. Density (elementary physics) is the factor that you need to know to convert volume to weight. What you are saying is equivalent to saying a grapefruit is the same weight as a grapefruit-sized chunk of granite.
I meant exact density, not that density itself was unimportant in the calculation. As he pointed out, it's all about the same. Water is heavy and we are mostly water.
 
Back
Top