Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

[NorCal Dave]

I've never understood this argument. The timeline doesn't seem all that tight to me. Listen to Bob Gimlin describe the events and tell me if anything sounds amiss to you.

A few thoughts. This is from 2015, so Gimlin was recalling an event from 47 years ago.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PleldH41YUs&t=1243s

I've tried to quote him accurately at the time stamps, but he does ramble a bit about useless details like the type of plaster they had, but ignores important things like time and locations. So, I may have slightly paraphrased to get the important point, but you can go back and check me.

To start with, in reference as to why they did not bring along material to gather evidence when the encounter happened:

22:00 "We had rode so hard...we were totally exhausted"

So these guys are tired when this starts, and they're going to be doing a lot of stuff before bedtime. Presumably they're young and the adrenaline kicked in.

After encountering Bigfoot and making the film, they have to find Patterson's horse, that had run off. Then they try to track it for a bit.

26:00 After finding Rogers horse "we went looking for where the creature went in the gravel"

They film Bigfoot at 1:30 lets say?

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

Patterson's horse runs off and the have to collect it. Then they track Bigfoot for a mile or so before heading back to their camp, 3 miles away to get plaster:

Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards (270 m) away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes.

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

Which Gimlin mentions in the video:

26:00 We went back to camp to get the material to make casts.

He says they also did other things at the site, including Gimlin jumping off a stump to test his foot print depth but they lost the photos of this:

27:20 "We did some things, but the pictures mysteriously disappeared"


So, if the filming happens at the site around 1:30. They then round up Patterson's horse that ran off and then trail Bigfoot for a mile or so. Being conservative, let's say they head to camp around 2:00. It's 3 miles away and:

On average, a horse walks at a speed of four miles per hour. That’s not very fast at all!

Content from External Source

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

And remember, they've been riding hard all day, so I doubt they're trotting or galloping the horses back through the woods to camp. It's 6 miles round trip from site to camp and back to site, so were back at the site at 3:30?

Then they find and take plaster casts, plus other stuff Gimlin mentions, like jumping off stumps. I think 30 minutes sounds reasonable, although it could have taken much longer, but let's say they head back to camp around 4:00, that puts them in camp around 4:40.

Now the time can be a little confusing here, as Gimlin mentions that it gets dark early in the mountains and that either they got back to camp in the evening or that it became evening after they got back, it's a little unclear.

29:10 "That evening after we got back into camp"

It's late October and the sun is getting low on the horizon, but sunset isn't until around 6:30:


And yes, it would have been DST:

As a result, the Uniform Time Act of 1966 was established. While granting US states the ability to opt out of DST, the law provided a framework for a nation-wide, synchronized DST schedule, starting on the last Sunday of April and ending on the last Sunday of October.

Content from External Source

www.timeanddate.com/time/us/daylight-saving-usa.html


So if they're back in camp and it feels like evening time when they decide to head for Willow Creek, does 5:00-5:30 sound like a reasonable time for them to hit the road?

First of all, what are they driving? Wiki says they have pick-up with 3 horses:

Driving a truck with three horses, and allowing for occasional stops, it would have taken 13 hours to get home Saturday evening, at an average speed of 45 mph (72 km/h); it would have taken 14.5 hours at a 40 mph (64 km/h) average speed

Content from External Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

And Gimlin makes two interesting comments in the video. He's talking about them sleeping back at camp later that night/next morning and it began to rain. Gimlin had collected empty boxes in Willow Creek to cover the tracks with and had tossed them out of the truck to sleep. He mentions Roger sleeping in the "overshot" and then he opens the door to see the boxes all wet.

This implies they have some sort of cab-over camper on the truck. Something like this 1964 Ford:



32:17 After mentioning that Roger was sleeping in the "overshot" Gimlin says "I opened the door and all the boxes I had thrown out were wet" (there is a lot of talk of rain and waking Roger up between the "overshot" comment and the door opening comment)

So there heading to Willow Creek in a '60s era pick-up with a camper on it:

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

This is a modern route on Google maps from the site to CA299 and Willow Creek. It's just under 2 hours:


However, this modern route shows us turning off CA 96 onto Forest Service Road 15 in Orleans, which is ~35 miles from Willow Creek. It's unclear if FSR 15 even existed in 1967 and we're told that they turned off CA 96 onto Bluff Creek Road, 25 miles from Willow Creek. This gives us 2 possibilities on our modern map. Bluff Creek Trail takes off CA 96 ~27 miles from Willow Creek



The actual Bluff Creek Road is another mile or so up CA 96 and looks to be a torturous set of switchbacks that connects one to Bluff Creek Trail. It's unclear what these roads were called in 1967, I haven't located an old map.


So if we use Bluff Creek Rd to get to the site it is ~ 60 miles and more matches what is said on the Wiki page concerning the route. Note however, it's a 2.5+ hour drive, with a chunk of it being on unpaved logging roads and they're not driving a modern Jeep or Landrover. They're in a '60s tuck with a heavy camper on the back. I think 2.5 hours would be pushing it.



So, to arrive in Willow Creek by 6:30, they would have had to leave their camp by 4:00, if not earlier. If filming occurred around 1:30, then they had to round up Patterson's horse and then tracked Bigfoot for a mile or so before heading back to camp, they can't be returning anytime before 2:00.

That leaves them 2 hours to go from SITE to CAMP to SITE and back to CAMP, or 9 miles and 2+ hours just in travel time. Plus make plaster casts and perform other things they took, now missing, photos of.

It starts to get really tight.

Next, they leave Willow Creek around 6:30(?), at the earliest as that's when they arrived, and head for Eureka, over on the coast. That's just about 1 hour on modern day CA 299, so they get there sometime between 7:30 and 8:00. Again, driving an '60s era truck with a camper on twisty CA 299, it's got to be closer to 8:00 if not after:


Once in Eureka, Gimlin takes Patterson somewhere, he doesn't elaborate and Wiki makes no mention, to ship the film to Patterson's brother in law Al DeAtley:

30:00 "I waited outside while Roger airmailed the film to Al DeAtley"

Patterson intended to drive on to Eureka to ship his film. Either at that time, or when he arrived in the Eureka/Arcata area, he called Al DeAtley (his brother-in-law in Yakima) and told him to expect the film he was shipping.

Content from External Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

I've always wondered where they went at 7:30 or later on a Friday night, to ship the film out? I guess Patterson could have had previously weighed the film and had the correct postage on the package, so he just dropped it at the post office. And why send it to his brother-in-law? Why not have it processed first? I thought I've seen other places he had it shipped via private plane, which implies he had already arranged with someone to be ready.

Gimlin says they then headed back to their camp, though the Wiki mentions them stopping at the Lower Trinity Ranger station back in Willow Creek at 9:00, which is 2.5 hours after they left. It's a minimum 2 hour round trip in modern times, so again, very tight, but maybe doable.

30:59 "We went back to our campsite"

On their way they "stopped at the Lower Trinity Ranger Station, as planned, arriving about 9:00 p.m. Here they met with Syl McCoy [another friend] and Al Hodgson."[69]

Content from External Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

After arriving back at their camp around midnight, the rain forces them to leave the next day and multiple washouts forced them to take an alternate route:

When he returned to the camp he and Patterson aborted their plan to remain looking for more evidence and departed for home, fearing the rain would wash out their exit. After attempting to go out along "the low road"—Bluff Creek Road—and finding it blocked by a mudslide,[74] they went instead up the steep Onion Mountain Road, off whose shoulder their truck slipped; extracting it required the (unauthorized) borrowing of a nearby front-end loader.

Content from External Source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

33:15 "It took me all day to get from our camp to Willow Creek"

Interesting to note, Eureka only recorded drizzle and light rain for the 20th and 21st, but the rain could have become more intense as it headed into the mountains. I couldn't find historical data for anyplace closer to the site:




/weatherspark.com/h/m/145167/1967/10/Historical-Weather-in-October-1967-at-Arcata-Eureka-Airport-California-United-States

 

[NorCal Dave]

or upholsterer, saddle maker, tailor. i only say that because your wording makes it sound like Patterson could not have made the suit himself.

ps. from his 1966 book. amazing similarity since ive never heard anyone describe bigfoot with such a big butt (or breasts actually, in more modern stories). and looking back...maybe that's why the breasts are in the wrong place, he was trying (badly) to imitate saggy breasts?

I've always found it interesting that he sorta drew what he later filmed, having never seen a Bigfoot before.

 

[Nick E]

I'm not aware of any Bigfoot hair and scat samples that have ever held up to scrutiny. Just because a sample may be classified as "unknown" it doesn't make it a Bigfoot. Enthusiasts and reality TV producers like to take the term "unknown", which in this context often means there simply was not enough recoverable DNA to say what the sample came from, and turn it into an "unknown" genome. Unknown genome means "Bigfoot" or "alien/human" hybrid, depending the context.

I’m not sure what you’re expecting with a DNA analysis. The only way to positively identify something with DNA is to compare it to a known standard—we don’t have that. Therefore “Unknown” is exactly what one would expect from Bigfoot, an alien, the Loch Ness monster, or anything else. There are clues that can be gained, however—if Bigfoot is related to a primate than that would likely be something you could identify via DNA analysis. It’s certainly not going to have many genes in common with a lizard or an octopus.

 

[deirdre]

This implies they have some sort of cab-over camper on the truck. Something like this 1964 Ford:

Article:

They drove in Gimlin's truck, carrying his provisions and three horses, positioned sideways.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film

 

[RTM]

If Bigfoot is an ape type creature then there must be a common ancestor with humans at some point.
The study below that looks at humans and chimpanzees is quite old, but from looking at the abstract there is an estimation that both species diverged around 5 to 6 million years ago (if I'm understanding the term "speciation" correctly). So if unknown DNA is found, shouldn't there be at least indications that it belongs in the primate family tree?

Reconstruction of the common ancestral Y chromosome reflects the dynamic changes in our genomes in the 5–6 million years since speciation

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1729

 

[NorCal Dave]

Article:

They drove in Gimlin's truck, carrying his provisions and three horses, positioned sideways.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film

Yes, there is a discrepancy here. I was responding to the video of Gimlin and used his description, which as I said, "implies" the camper. But then there is this from Wiki.

Honestly, I can't imagine a '60s pick-up with all their supplies AND 3 full grown horses standing sideways in the back making a 500+ mile trip from Yakima WA to the camp site.

This guy managed 2 and I'm betting he is just ferrying them a few miles at most as they're still saddled:



There is just something not right in the telling.

 

[deirdre]

This guy managed 2

and look at the white horse telling the other horse "i don't think this is safe"

yea mostly i'm noting that i was wondering where the horses went in your timeline post. esp. if there was a cab, it seems to me that would be a really big truck..so driving might be a bit slower. although im confused by the phrase "riding hard" because one horse they were leashing just to carry stuff.

kinda hard to see so ill embed vid too




Source: https://youtu.be/RSeWAWyxJtk?t=908




oh and in that vid there is a drawing another guy had his daughter help him draw and he drew the breast sin the right place.


and i was skimming the book "When Roger met Patty, because its free with Kindle unlimited...looking for truck pics and see that Patterson did actually make saddles! i ddint clip the last sentence so as not to misrepresent the book...but the professional costume maker writing the book is wrong on this account. i wont go into why, as i feel it is obvious.

 

[deirdre]

Yes, there is a discrepancy here. I was responding to the video of Gimlin and used his description, which as I said, "implies" the camper

maybe something like this. with a tarp over the top.



add:

 

[Mendel]

First of all, what are they driving? Wiki says they have pick-up with 3 horses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

The word "pick-up" is not used on that page.

If I was going camping with horses, I'd prefer a big truck like this:

Article:

Source: https://krismarhorsetrucks.eu/en/horse-trucks/kr-professional/4-horses/

Note that it carries 4 horses sideways.

But then I wouldn't drive 2 hours to get back to "camp" if I had one of these.

 

[captancourgette]

I’m not sure what you’re expecting with a DNA analysis. The only way to positively identify something with DNA is to compare it to a known standard—we don’t have that. Therefore “Unknown” is exactly what one would expect from Bigfoot, an alien, the Loch Ness monster, or anything else

I don't think you're understanding what hes saying, Unknown means they can't determine what its from because the sample didnt contain enough relative data.
eg they could take a sample from me & it could come back with unknown (I'm human btw)

https://www.theguardian.com/science...lysis-yeti-sasquatch-bigfoot-zoology-primates

A newly-published genetic analysis of hair samples suspected as being from a cryptic primate known by various names such as "bigfoot" or "yeti", has revealed they actually originated from dogs, horses, bears or other well known mammals. The analysis was conducted by an international group of scientists on a small fragment of mitochondrial DNA isolated from "bigfoot" hair samples collected during the previous 50 years by hikers, naturalists and hunters. However, two samples were found to be most similar to the Palaeolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus, found on Svalbard.

 

[Hougenai]

I don't remember seeing the fuller version of the film previously and as a naturalist with some experience of domestic horses there seems to be something a little odd about it.

Considering there is an unknown large mammal in the tree line, the horses show no sign of awareness or alarm, not even a head raise.
Then we see this 'elusive animal' come out for a confident stroll, look in the direction of the cameraman and continue.

Ok if the wind direction precluded the horses sensitive sense of smell, then the 'animal' would've had a nosefull of cameraman , an awareness of his presence, prior to emerging from the trees. So would an unknown crypto hominid , known for it's 'shy' behaviour, expose itself when having a nosefull of horse and human?

I've found no research by an academic animal behaviourist, in itself telling.
In a more general search online, there are observations of another naturalist, Chris Packham, for the BBC documentary 'Shooting bigfoot'. At the Bluff Creek site, he observed the film 'gives the impression of a larger area' and questions the animals behaviour as 'unlikely such a reclusive animal in close proximity would be so unconcerned', but does not reference the behaviour of the horses.

" Some things have to be believed to be seen" and some beliefs make us blind to things.

 

[NorCal Dave]

yea mostly i'm noting that i was wondering where the horses went in your timeline post. esp. if there was a cab

As my dad tried to do the horse thing when I was younger and there're plenty of horse people around my neighborhood now, I just assumed they had a horse trailer.

However, these contraptions you found seem to fit the various descriptions. I'll have to listen again when I have time, but I think Gimlin mentions a "tarp" in relation to the truck. They would carry the horses and the have an "overshot" or cab-over for Patterson to sleep in.


However, it's still not something like this:


I would still put them at a minimum 2.5-hour ride from camp to the Willow Creek store, making the timeline as described, exceedingly difficult.

The word "pick-up" is not used on that page.

True, but in American speak, one's personal "truck", as opposed to some sort of commercial big rig or work vehicle, often means a pick-up truck. And, the trucks deirdre found above, are in fact modified pick-up trucks.

If I was going camping with horses, I'd prefer a big truck like this:

That, my friend, is what we call an RV, and a very nice one! Fortunately a quick glance at the Krismar website shows that they make other units that dispense with all that horse nonsense. I never got the horse thing.

This unit appears to be what we call a "toy hauler" and it has a garage on the back I can put my RZR in. As they seem to be unavailable here in the States, I'll have come check out your neighborhood in one of these. I'll just park it in front of your house!

 

[NorCal Dave]

I don't think you're understanding what hes saying, Unknown means they can't determine what its from because the sample didnt contain enough relative data.
eg they could take a sample from me & it could come back with unknown (I'm human btw)

Exactly. Especially when dealing the fringe, true believers and The Discovery Networks, it's very important to understand exactly what is said and how it's interpreted.

 

[Ann K]

This unit appears to be what we call a "toy hauler" and it has a garage on the back I can put my RZR in. As they seem to be unavailable here in the States, I'll have come check out your neighborhood in one of these. I'll just park it in front of your house!

They certainly weren't driving THAT monster with such a low ground clearance on a rough road!

 

[Linx]

I'm not aware of any Bigfoot hair and scat samples that have ever held up to scrutiny. Just because a sample may be classified as "unknown" it doesn't make it a Bigfoot. Enthusiasts and reality TV producers like to take the term "unknown", which in this context often means there simply was not enough recoverable DNA to say what the sample came from, and turn it into an "unknown" genome. Unknown genome means "Bigfoot" or "alien/human" hybrid, depending the context.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said. It's not helpful.

If I read her comments correctly, it appears she is saying she found Chimp (pan) and maybe other non-human primates DNA traces in the sample from the dirt in Kentucky. I think before concluding that chimps and other non-human primates are running around rural Kentucky, we would want a little more peer-review of the data and some more confirmation.

Well it's unlikely to be peer-reviewed because there's really nothing to peer review. It's just an interesting finding, that's all. The question is not whether it proves anything, but rather whether it's sufficient to justify taking a closer look. That's a matter of opinion.

It's also very likely that she is simply being miss-quoted by the producers to hype the show. We are talking about the Discovery Networks.

That's entirely possible. Likely, even, given those types of channels' penchant for horse hockey.

 

[Linx]

I don't think it was that well done. Right from the start I thought the fur looked fake. Put on a suit made with raglan sleeves, have someone else brush down the fur over the seams, and it would serve for that film, wouldn't it, considering the distance and the film quality? The requirements of a suit made for viewing at large size on a movie screen can't really be compared. As for the shockwaves on the thighs, I've seen a good many heavy people whose thighs can ripple with the impact of walking, so I don't find that detail particularly compelling either.

In 1967 you would have been absolutely correct. However, in 2022 all five of the known 1st generation copies that were made from the camera original have been scanned in at 4k and compared to identify and remove artifacts from the copy process, and there were also high-quality transparencies made by Kodak from the camera original. The film has passed every analysis that has been done in the finest detail. Roger Patterson never could have envisioned the technology with which it would be studied today, and it still passes. Nobody has yet identified any indications of a suit.

To resolve this discrepancy, a physical examination of the sharpest and most highly detailed frame copy from the PGF is needed. This image is a 4x5in color transparency made by Kodak labs for Roger Patterson in 1967. Given this transparency is so much larger than the source original, the film grain of the transparency was sufficient to actually copy perfectly the grain pattern of the camera original, and thus may be considered of equal detail as the Kodachrome II camera original. It is the current benchmark of image quality for all PGF image references (Fig. 5A)...But it is also the combined analysis potential of them all that provides the basis to determine what was, and what was not, on the camera original. Something on the camera original would be transferred to all copies. If not present on all, it is a copy artifact and not camera original content. [link]

Content from External Source

Patterson's film is neither grainy nor blurry. It's just shaky because it was a handheld camera. Contrary to the way it's often portrayed in these conversations, 16mm is a very high-quality format that captures a lot of detail. It was the standard film format for television broadcasters like the BBC in the 1960s and 70s.

16 mm, using light cameras, was extensively used for television production in many countries before portable video cameras appeared. In Britain, the BBC's Ealing-based film department made significant use of 16mm film and, during its peak, employed over 50 film crews. [link]

Content from External Source

Moreover, the Kodachrome II film stock that Patterson was using was some of the best available at the time.

In the short documentary The End of an Era, a National Geographic film crew follows Steve McCurry as he shoots and processes the final roll of Kodachrome to roll off the assembly line. A man who’s possibly shot more Kodachrome than anyone else (by his own estimation, over 800,000 images) calls it a legendary film, adding, “Probably the best film ever made.”[link]

Content from External Source

 

[Linx]

There has been a lot of discussion about "who made the suit", but (apart from the fact that a known costumer claimed to have made it) there is the fact that any competent home seamstress could have done one, with the addition of a mask. Faux fur has been available in fabric stores for ages, and one could also use things like fur rugs to do it. The patterns of light and dark in the film resemble what one would see if the long fur were unkempt and brushed sideways. Real animals can raise and lower their fur (think of the hairs on your arm when it's cold) but artificial fur goes whichever way it's brushed and stays that way, which would explain why there's marking where the hands swing against the legs.

That's awfully easy to say. Care to provide something to back that up? There have been several well-funded attempts to recreate the suit using materials that were available in 1967, all of which have failed miserably. Here is the BBC's attempt. NationalGeographic also tried it, but the result was so embarrassing that they never aired it.

 

[Linx]

The only point I'm trying to make re: the film is that if it's a fake, it's amazingly well-done. To dismiss it as "obviously a man in a suit" or "the worst fake ever" or "anybody could have done it" is a real disservice to the skeptical community. Skepticism is a process, not a conclusion. Give credit where credit is due. To suggest that two broke rodeo cowboys with no experience made a suit that was better than today's state-of-the-art - and light years ahead of gorilla suits in 1967 - is almost as strained as the idea of Bigfoot itself. Simply reasoning that "Bigfoot can't exist, therefore the film must be a fake" and dismissing it outright isn't intellectually honest and it isn't skepticism. We don't have to have all the answers, and it's OK to say "we just don't know." What we do have to do is be honest and acknowledge the qualities that still make the film compelling even 50 years later.

 

[deirdre]

Care to provide something to back that up?

add: probably more appropo:

 

[deirdre]

To suggest that two broke rodeo cowboys with no experience made a suit that was better than today's state-of-the-art - and light years ahead of gorilla suits in 1967 - is almost as strained as the idea of Bigfoot itself.

it wasnt light years ahead. space odyssey 2001 was filmed before the Patterson film and except for their lake lack of foam padding, they look pretty good.

to suggest that two broke rodeo cowboys with no experience could not make that suit, is almost as strained as the idea of Bigfoot itself.

 

[deirdre]

Simply reasoning that "Bigfoot can't exist, therefore the film must be a fake" and dismissing it outright isn't intellectually honest and it isn't skepticism.

I think Bigfoot could exist. and it looks like a guy in a suit.

 

[JMartJr]

Patterson's film is neither grainy nor blurry.

Sorry, every copy I have ever seen is blurry and grainy. I am intrigued that a better version exists that I have not seen. Do you know where it us possible to view it?

 

[Easy Muffin]

I saw, what I believe was an attempt in recreating the scene in some History channel kind of tv show at least 10 years back. I be damned to remember what show it was though. But it was, I think, not very similar as in the PGF.

Interesting, and it would lend some credence to the authenticity of the PGF if nobody could come up with a comparable video themselves, assuming they made an honest effort.

Sorry, every copy I have ever seen is blurry and grainy. I am intrigued that a better version exists that I have not seen. Do you know where it us possible to view it?

The best images are probably the frames scanned by Bill Munns - http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_v2_design_005.htm

 

[Ravi]

Interesting, and it would lend some credence to the authenticity of the PGF if nobody could come up with a comparable video themselves, assuming they made an honest effort.

The latter I am not convinced about.

I am not convinced either that the PFG is a real animal. I just don't think BF can hide in this day and age. Yes the US is large, but there are also 330 million people living everywhere.

 

[JMartJr]

The best images are probably the frames scanned by Bill Munns - http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_v2_design_005.htm

I'm sorry, but do you mean these?
These and a similar set of leg closeups are what I can find on the site linked. If I'm missing what you are referring to, could you post the images (or a couple of them, if there are zillions) here?

Thanks!

 

[FatPhil]

I'm sorry, but do you mean these?
These and a similar set of leg closeups are what I can find on the site linked. If I'm missing what you are referring to, could you post the images (or a couple of them, if there are zillions) here?

I get the feeling that this might be an interesting, and highly appropriate, job for deep learning. Train it on 100 frames of 32x32 video of various nearby primates, and demand a 256x256 output. I know one objection is that you're only getting out is something that you've previously put in, but to be honest as long as you view the results (yes, plural - you can train it on different subsets of the full input set, and verify that it's doing a good job by testing it on the ones you don't train it on, so you can get thousands of possible answers out if you want) as merely expressing the face with the highest probability (given that particular training), you're not going wrong. Anyone know anyone in a university AI lab who might like this as a challenge?

 

[Mendel]

I know one objection is that you're only getting out is something that you've previously put in,

precisely. train it on video of people in gorilla suits as control.

you might even find the face of a bearded man wearing a hood

pareidolia is wonderful, and AIs are not immune

 

[Murray]

made a suit that was better than today's state-of-the-art

Talk about straining things.

 

[Murray]

There have been several well-funded attempts to recreate the suit

Prove it. You named 2. Technically only 1.

Here is the BBC's attempt.

We can see how much effort they put into it. They didn't even try to get the color right. That was the easiest part.

The Patterson bf isn't a bad fake...but it is a fake. That's why Patterson never returned to where he "knew" a bf was, and instead chose to roll the dice to try to capture a bf elsewhere.

 

[Murray]

Interesting, and it would lend some credence to the authenticity of the PGF if nobody could come up with a comparable video themselves, assuming they made an honest effort.

It's the opposite actually. If bf were real, there'd be numerous comparable videos, unless Patty was the last bigfoot, in which case, RIP Patty. We barely knew ya.

 

[FatPhil]

precisely. train it on video of people in gorilla suits as control.

you might even find the face of a bearded man wearing a hood

pareidolia is wonderful, and AIs are not immune

AI doesn't really have a formal "control". That's why you do the training on a subset. The non-trained portion is the "control". And as I said, any part of the available data may be used for training, and whatever's outside that is the "control".

Edit: But yes - include panto gorillas too.

 

[Easy Muffin]

I'm sorry, but do you mean these?
These and a similar set of leg closeups are what I can find on the site linked. If I'm missing what you are referring to, could you post the images (or a couple of them, if there are zillions) here?

The page I linked seems to be the one with the most pictures. There's some more in the PDF files on that site (which are quite interesting in a deep dive sort of way) but unfortunately I don't think there's something like a gallery where you could browse every single one.

It's the opposite actually. If bf were real, there'd be numerous comparable videos, unless Patty was the last bigfoot, in which case, RIP Patty. We barely knew ya.

It lends credibility to the claim that the video hasn't been hoaxed though, doesn't it? If there were dozens of examples of people easily duplicating the video with some guy in a fake fur suit then sure, the PGF wouldn't seem particularly special. But if it turns out that others have repeatedly tried and failed to come up with something similar despite more modern techniques, larger teams of experts, bigger funds, then that would make the original footage more compelling, or at least a debunking effort would need to be more substantial than simply going 'it's obviously a suit, nice try'.
You're correct that the likelihood of an as yet unknown creature that just so happens to come shuffling out of the woods at the right time in 1967 and apparently never again since seems quite low to begin with, but that's a whole 'nother question.

 

[deirdre]

more modern techniques, larger teams of experts, bigger funds,

that's likely why they havent been able to duplicate it. i made an art piece [technique] once that my real artist friends were floored by and wanted to know how i did it. they tried to duplicate it. i tried to duplicate it. But since i am not that kind of artist and i have no idea how i did the original piece, ...i was just winging it with whatever materials i had lying around...we never could come close to duplicating it.

obviously patterson knew how he did the suit, so HE could likely duplicate it. ...or maybe not.

 

[JMartJr]

You're correct that the likelihood of an as yet unknown creature that just so happens to come shuffling out of the woods at the right time in 1967 and apparently never again since seems quite low to begin with, but that's a whole 'nother question.

I don't think it's a WHOLE 'nother question... it is one of the things to consider when evaluating the film. I haven't found anything yet on the site you linked that changes my view that the film, at least in the copies that still exist, is of unfortunately poor quality. That makes it much harder to learn as much as we'd like evaluating the film in a vacuum, and makes the circumstances around it's being filmed proportionally more important.

 

[Mendel]

space odyssey 2001 was filmed before the Patterson film and except for their lake lack of foam padding, they look pretty good.

Here's another example for comparison. Except for a spot on the back in the closeup at the start, I don't see how this looks any worse than Patterson's bigfoot.

Source: https://www.imgur.com/gallery/gsMMjdD


Here's Kubrick:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCvMwivrDk

 

[NorCal Dave]

Give credit where credit is due. To suggest that two broke rodeo cowboys with no experience made a suit that was better than today's state-of-the-art - and light years ahead of gorilla suits in 1967 - is almost as strained as the idea of Bigfoot itself

I think people underestimate other people's resourcefulness. They may have been broke, but it is often people that can't outright purchase what they need, that are very creative in making what they need. Patterson was an artist, a leather worker and a saddle maker. Whether he made something or modified someone else's suit, I think he could have done either.

I don't know if it's "state of the art", but it certainly worked for the resolution of what they were working with. From the Mumm's article you quoted earlier (bold by me):

The film resolution is excellent, and has resolution as high as any 16mm film of its time. The detail is reliable and as much as one could expect for 16mm film.

Content from External Source

Considering that a 16mm film image can resolve a branch at about 11 pixels from a source full frame image 10,490 pixels high and the PGF Hominid is at the lookback frame about 1/6th of the frame height, she would be about 1748 pixels high in that source image. Dividing that by the determined 11 pixel lines as the smallest detail, that would mean the film can resolve 158.94 lines for her full height.
Arbitrarily assigning an example height of 6ft 6in (78in), the film would resolve a theoretical approximate 0.5in object on her body. Motion blur and lens influence slightly reduce resolution, putting the resolution of the PGF Hominid body aspects at somewhere between 0.5in and 1.0in.

Content from External Source

https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries...-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf

Correct me if I"m not understanding this, but it sounds like the the smallest detail that can be resolved on the creature is somewhere between 1/2"-1". It seems to me that a seam or zipper, or rippling muscle under the fur would be less than 1", thus those things may not show up. They would just be lost in the "fur".

One could almost argue that the 2001 costumes above look a little faker by todays standards, because they were filmed at over 4 times the resolution on very high quality cameras in controlled conditions.

The film was announced in 1965 as a "Cinerama"[59] film and was photographed in Super Panavision 70 (which uses a 65 mm negative combined with spherical lenses to create an aspect ratio of 2.20:1). It would eventually be released in a limited "roadshow" Cinerama version, then in 70 mm and 35 mm versions.[60][61] Colour processing and 35 mm release prints were done using Technicolor's dye transfer process. The 70 mm prints were made by MGM Laboratories, Inc. on Metrocolor.

Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

We don't have to have all the answers, and it's OK to say "we just don't know." What we do have to do is be honest and acknowledge the qualities that still make the film compelling even 50 years later.

Absolutely. I stated earlier in this thread that this film scarred the hell out of me when I saw it in my suburban home and then went up to forest to go fishing. I still think about it that way when I'm in the woods today. I think it's the benchmark for the eerie found footage trope.

I've always thought Patterson just got really lucky. Remember the creature is fairly small in the frame of the original, we are used to seeing a zoomed in section.What ever suit is being used, the combination of the distance, the lighting and the resolution of the film combined to create something that's hard completely explain away today.

 

[Easy Muffin]

I don't think it's a WHOLE 'nother question... it is one of the things to consider when evaluating the film. I haven't found anything yet on the site you linked that changes my view that the film, at least in the copies that still exist, is of unfortunately poor quality. That makes it much harder to learn as much as we'd like evaluating the film in a vacuum, and makes the circumstances around it's being filmed proportionally more important.

The issue I see is that the video is the only piece of hard evidence we've got and that the waters around it get murky real fast. Unless someone drags a dead Bigfoot in front of the world's media that looks like the thing in the video or until someone can prove that the footage is faked I don't think we'll ever get a definite answer here.

 

[jamesrav]

side-stepping all the discussion about timelines and suit quality / film quality , how about the walk itself? There's a beautiful 36 second version of the film, perfectly stabilized on YT (Mr Luci) , and watching it at 0.25 speed leaves me completely impressed that this is no man walking in a suit for the first time. Discussion of the 'peculiar' gait (raising the foot to vertical, 90° knee-bend angle among others) has been going on since the first viewing , and the only retort is "that's how you have to walk if you're wearing oversized clown shoes". But the PG footprint is a 'mere' 14.5". By comparison, Shaq's foot is almost 18" (he wears a size 22). I once posted a pic of Shaq walking, and he walks just like everyone else: locked legs, foot makes about a 45° angle. So even in his size 22 shoes, he does not 'need' to mimic the walk of whatever is in the film. One of the first viewers of the film, a Russian bio-mechanics expert, concluded that the walk is more efficient than a human walk. And watching that footage I can only agree. There is no exaggeration in the stride, it's just a fluid, determined, effort to get out of the clearing as quickly as possible. To think Bob H. could do that on the first take strains credulity.

 

[Mendel]

this is no man walking in a suit for the first time.

What makes you think they didn't rehearse it, if it's a hoax?
What makes you think we know all the footage they shot, and not just the best bits?

 

[jamesrav]

I've seen enough interviews with Bob H. to reach a conclusion that this was a one-shot thing. He claims he put on the suit ("hot as hell" I think he said) and was told to walk across the creek. No mention of doing this multiple times, either at Bluff Creek or back in Yakima. I dont want to run afoul of the rules here, no 'arguing of theories'. There's plenty of YT videos analyzing the gait, I think "Legend Meets Science" devoted a good portion to having an athlete try to mimic the walking pattern. I think after much training, he was able to, but it looked unnatural. Whatever is in the film does it naturally. Remember that the track path is nearly 'tight rope' straight, one foot almost directly in front of the other. Not the way people walk, yet somehow the subject makes it look effortless and efficient. These were huge strides, but not deliberately exaggerated (easily discerned if so).