Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

JMartJr

Senior Member
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...
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Simple question - why are folks taking Patterson's word about those 'footprints' size & depth?

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.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
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.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
If you are making a claim post a reference that backs it up. See the Posting Guidelines for reference .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
“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.
 

captancourgette

Active Member
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

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





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
 

Easy Muffin

Senior Member
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.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
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:

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)
Content from External Source
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/bigfoot-bluffin-curious-credentials-in-cryptozoology/
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
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:

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].
Content from External Source
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):

"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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
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.

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
Content from External Source
 

Murray

Member
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.
 

Murray

Member
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.
 
Top