Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

jamesrav

Member
While I agree with the general principal of a "jury of one's peers" we should note that the "wisdom of the crowd" also gives us things like, oh maybe, lynchings and the Holocaust.

The fact that a group of Bigfoot believers comment positively in what amounts to a giant feedback loop on YouTube is hardly a form of compelling evidence.
that's a misuse of Wisdom of the Crowd, there are 4 conditions that need to be met. You're referring to mob mentality, etc. Very different things although they appear similar. Many of the comments I read seem to be (and they say so) from unbiased people , people with no strong feelings about Bigfoot's existence or lack thereof. They are commenting on Gimlin talking about it for 10 minutes and drawing a conclusion about his character and if what he says happened, happened. I can weed out the gung-ho Bigfooters, they make themselves very apparent right off.
------------
i think it's time to use the Nuclear Option, time to Release the Kraken. Here is Patty vs. a recreation Bob H. did in 2005. If you can say ' Nailed it ! ' then good for you. I've read that they had footage of him walking, but opted not to release it. This photo is the only thing I've seen. I wonder why they wouldn't release the full walk ? I've included some other Nailed it ! examples, the 2nd one is a very serious story, the person really botched the touch-up.

patty.jpg
bob h..jpg
 

Attachments

  • ni1.jpg
    ni1.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 32
  • na2.jpg
    na2.jpg
    66.2 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Here is Patty vs. a recreation Bob H. did in 2005. If you can say ' Nailed it ! ' then good for you.
it's not nailed it. its a different suit, different lighting, different body position, different camera zoom, different blur factor etc and a guy who is 40 years older.

it would be more like this (i suck at color correction so i cant personally make the lighting similar..not sure anyone can with the bob h background and lighting)
1659544382270.png
 

jamesrav

Member
well whats happening in the blue area? looks like a crease or attachment problem. I say its a fake!

They had 40 years of suit advancement (and just flat out 40 years) to get it right, to create something as impressive as the original, and failed. It has none of the visceral impact of the filmed subject. My request to all would be to play the Mr. Luci 36 second clip in a loop at 0.5 speed in full-screen , no sound, for 3 minutes. Watch the muscle movement (thats not costume bunching up), watch for the inhuman gait (now that you know what to look for) , Watch for frame 352 and the subsequent couple seconds. If you go 'ho hum, a big nothing burger', then we just see things differently.

crease.jpg
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
"Assertions that the kinematics of the film subject cannot be duplicated by human agents are thus demonstrably false.". So they caught Krantz in a slight exaggeration regarding 'impossible to duplicate'.
Krantz isn't the only one clinging to this "slight exaggeration"
The attach shows the knee-bend, foot raise situation that occurs. Do you see this configuration when people are walking? I dont.
But the walk - its right there in front of your eyes.

But beyond that, it has a brief segment with Grover Krantz, the first academic to get on the side of Bigfoot being possible. He demonstrates the complexity of the walk, and in his typical direct language calls it "inhuman". Yet the second after a noted anthropologist/primatologist says the walk is inhuman (to carry on for a distance), the host says he just demonstrated it, so it is possible and therefore its a man in a sui
"gait cant be duplicated by a human" to conclude it was not a hoax
As to the gait, did you watch Grover recreate the walk? Have you seen the athlete try to re-create it in Legend Meets Science? Its all on YT, anyone can be a Bigfoot gait expert in a few clicks lol. I'm just saying that when a top expert (like Krantz) says the walk is "inhuman" , explains why in a clear manner, then the skeptic has to counter that.

He concluded "inhuman". You watched it, did it look like he was walking naturally? Clearly not. Yet the filmed subject is doing it with complete ease.
did his "inhuman" gait walk to perfection.

(same as saying that Roger told him to "walk like a gorilla", with the resulting walk being judged too human by the first viewing experts and "more efficient than a human" by the Russian bio-mechanics experts

to be a walk completely in line with an animal weighing hundreds of pounds and could not be matched in all respects by a person being given verbal instructions by two experts on gait kinematics?
Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus. It's not suitable for people, which is why he has great difficulty doing it (as he states).

But "impossible to duplicate" is now just an exaggeration.

As for the Nuclear Option, deirdre summed it up pretty well:
it's not nailed it. its a different suit, different lighting, different body position, different camera zoom, different blur factor etc and a guy who is 40 years older.
The most notable difference, and most disingenuous, is the Bob photo is much sharper. Note that the pine needles in the background are discernable, while the foliage in the Patty picture is not. I have to assume that the Bob picture was taken within 10-15' of the subject and presented as is. Not from 60-80', then zoomed in like the original.

I say "assume" because, again, except for a few YouTube videos, you provide NO SOURCING. We don't know where it came from, who took it, how they took it or why. We don't know if this is Bob H. or somebody else. Like most of your posts, it's just more of "I read this somewhere..." or "this guy says this" or "a Russian bio-mech expert said 'more efficient than a human'". I found the Donskoy paper and linked to it.

To be fair, the posting guidelines can be a bit confusing, I think. Mick is a programmer and a coder, "brackets, backslashes and commands" are a second language to him. A dullard like me had a learning curve understanding how to use all the tools. But if that's the case, please ask, either here or in a PM. I, or others will show you how to use the EX tool and other things.

This not Reddit, it's not about just slinging opinions and referring to something we read. I've read that John Green and others watched the film on Sunday the 22nd at DeAtley's house in Yakima. That's less than 72 hours after the encounter. If it's shot on Kodachrome, as Munns contends, there is a real problem there. BUT, I can't find a suitable source for this part of the story online, so for now, I've left it out.

Nevertheless, we can try to work with the photos. Instead of trying to adjust the color, I just striped the color out, so they are both B&W. I then applied the "FILM" filter from the standard Microsoft photo editor, once then saved it, then applied it to saved image once again and saved that. So, 2 successive passes of the "FILM" filter. This helped to muddy it up somewhat in an attempt to get closer to the graininess of the Patty photo. Even with that, pine needles are still discernable and therefore more details of the costume are discernable. I'm sure somebody skilled with Photoshop could do a lot better, this was just a quick attempt to get the Bob photo looking more like the Patty photo.

What can't be rectified, is that Bob is much closer to the camera and it's possible/likely the camera creates higher quality images than Patterson's equipment.

One can move the slider bar in the middle of the photos to compare them.

If this was just a quick try at reproducing something similar, it's OK. If it was more serious, the photo should have been taken with something that has the resolution of '60s era 16mm film from a distance with a handheld camera. Then one can make a zoomed in version from that picture. That's what the Patty photo is.

 

jamesrav

Member
the PG film is in color, it was not colorized at a later date. So the manipulation (in a negative sense) to revert to B&W seems unnecessary. I do agree on the provenance problem with the picture, and will try to find a primary source. I saw it elsewhere long before it made it to Reddit. There were discussions at the time of the book about doing the walk, doing some type of re-creation. That makes sense since Bob H. wanted to finally cash in. A TV show would be the only way possible. So having some stills to 'bolster' a potential project makes sense, but I cant say for sure that's Bob H. in the Teletubbies suit. But you'd think there'd be a strong denial out there if it was not. And then if it turned out it was (via the photographer), Bob H. would be caught in a lie. You analyze it as if you think it is (otherwise why take the time), so maybe it is.

Whoever released that photo (if its Bob H. in the suit) did so on the assumption it helped his/their cause, not hurt it. Yet the reaction from hoax proponents is always 'that's an unfair comparison'. I just wish there was walking footage. What is does show is that adding a big fluffy suit to a human body leads to unexpected complications. The guy in the 1998 BBC docu says he coould have done it by attaching a musculature to the person. Only problem is, no such option in 1967. The Bob H. pic shows what results when a quick attempt by non-experts was attempted. They shot themselves in their not so Bigfeet (those booties ; not much effort applied there)
 

jamesrav

Member
you dont neeed suit advancement, you need a younger man in the suit and proper cameras.

or you need Patterson to modify the suit.

1659567930229.png
I cant thank you enough for that, you're doing my research for me :D what can one say? so much wrong there. Film was taken to be developed on the 20th and was first shown on the 22nd , not the 20th as Bob H. says. And Roger gave Bob H. the film too ?, not just the suit. Handed a 26 yr old the most valuable thing in the world (to Roger anyway) for safe-keeping. o_O The several week prior thing also makes no sense in relation to the PG film ... but makes good sense if there was a prior shoot of (admittedly) hoaxing/nefarious footage done. It may not be a popular opinion among the Bigfooters and PG cognoscenti, but I can buy into there being a suit and a plan to get some footage of something to justify all the time and effort. I dont think Bob H. is making something up from scratch, he's not smart enough. And to those who counter with "and after shooting this fake footage, he just happens to get a real Bigfoot on film .. geesh" I counter with "would a simulation with a sense of humor have it any other way?" Jacquees Vallee and John Mack both concluded that whatever agent/intelligence might be responsible for UFO's (and by easy extension, Bigfoot) had a great sense of humor. This thread may last a bit longer, but I think your find here really puts the cherry on top. I'd be happy to start a thread on the UFO analog, the famous Socorro case. It's a very similar situation, with a few twists.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
So the manipulation (in a negative sense) to revert to B&W seems unnecessary
Because the color was so glaringly wrong, if they are both in B&W we are at least getting a little closer to apples to apples.
I do agree on the provenance problem with the picture, and will try to find a primary source. I saw it elsewhere long before it made it to Reddit.
Which is not what you said when you first posted it:
. Here is Patty vs. a recreation Bob H. did in 2005.
And you justify it with complete speculation:
That makes sense since Bob H. wanted to finally cash in. A TV show would be the only way possible. So having some stills to 'bolster' a potential project makes sense, but I cant say for sure that's Bob H. in the Teletubbies suit.
But you'd think there'd be a strong denial out there if it was not.
Assuming Bob reads Reddit and cares at all about what it is currently getting up votes. I know some Reddit people have a hard time understanding that not everybody gets all their info from Reddit, but it's true.
You analyze it as if you think it is (otherwise why take the time), so maybe it is
I gave it a go because you claimed it was Bob when you posted it. Now it seems it's just a picture from Reddit, so that explains the lack of sourcing. Actually, it looks a lot like the time Morris tried a suit out. This looks like the suite and face and it's not Bob H. wearing it:

1659572438699.png
Yet the reaction from hoax proponents is always 'that's an unfair comparison'.
Because it is. It is taken much closer to the subject and has higher resolution. Patty was shot from 80' away and this is what it looked like, as previously noted:

1659571808237.png

The classic picture you posted is blown up from this. If you want to make version of the film, then film the guy in the suit from 80' away with similar resolution, then blow that up. That's at least trying to be consistent.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I cant thank you enough for that, you're doing my research for me :D
not really, didnt find the original source. i found other pics (because i was thinking it was the costume designer in the suit) add: Philip Morris.
images (1).jpg

they must have done a show or interview together at some point?
BODYSUIT.jpg
 

jamesrav

Member
yea it seems like Morris is saying in this interview with slides that it is Bob in suit (the second suit shown above)
1659574533814.png
at least Morris is wearing the same shirt and tie in all the pics with Heironomous.



Source: https://youtu.be/l1N-gTaAEok?t=98
more !! I cant take any more, this is amazing. To say that's not Bob in the 1st suit pic is saying there's another poor sap with a really fed up expression on his face who volunteered to do that. I dont think so. I need to study these frame by frame like the PG aficionados do to see if I can uncover anything. But him claiming the film was 1st viewed on the 20th contradicts everything I've read, namely that it was 1st shown on the 22nd. Which makes sense if it was sent off on the 20th and came back some time late on the 21st or early on the 22nd.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
i think that's Bob. no?
I stand corrected.

However, even though I'm having a hard time getting the pictures to line up, IF the Morris suit shot is degraded to the point that the Patty photo is, it gets close. I still went with B&W to reduce the number of variables we're looking at. It seems Morris screwed himself by letting anything be filmed or photographed at a closer and higher resolution, before conducting a proper attempt at the film.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
And Roger gave Bob H. the film too ?, not just the suit. Handed a 26 yr old the most valuable thing in the world (to Roger anyway) for safe-keeping. o_O
another insight into your value system, where 26-year-old men are untrustworthy somehow?

I'd say this factoid strongly suggests that Bob did not mutilate the suit, and wasn't about to extort Roger; and that instead they were friends who trusted each other.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
@NorCal Dave in my slogging around the internet i also read that the third horse with Patterson was Hieronimus' horse. i didnt save the link and its super late, so off to bed...but if anyone wants to pursue that.

on a different site a guy said the horses name was Chico. ???

i always wondered why they would need a third horse to go 3 miles and yet even with an xtra pack horse they didnt put the plaster cast material in any of the saddle bags? what were they luggin on 3 horses?
 

jamesrav

Member
another insight into your value system, where 26-year-old men are untrustworthy somehow?

I'd say this factoid strongly suggests that Bob did not mutilate the suit, and wasn't about to extort Roger; and that instead they were friends who trusted each other.
as Rogers's (apparent) friend Bob H. says "Roger was a crook. Roger was a con man and a crook". It's in the video I posted titled 'Bigfoot or Big Phoney' . He also says he kept quiet for 35 years because he promised he would. But apparently he'd had enough and the truth needed to come out. Shows his value system. My age reference was more aimed at there being a slight generational gap in play, Roger was 34 and Gimlin 37, whereas Bob H. was only 26. I think Roger was married at this point, so handing over his 'million dollar baby' to a guy nearly 10 years younger seems odd to me (I just noticed in re-watching that in this interview at least, only mention of Roger and Gimlin giving Bob H. the suit is mentioned, not the film. Could be an omission by the narrator, but it's a big one if so. Or Bob H. didnt mention that in this interview? )

Regarding the Morris 'explanation video' a commenter pointed this out: Morris and his costume business have been around for seemingly forever, probably going on 50 years. The purpose of a costume is to deceive, to be something other than real or true. So does doing that for 50 years creep into other aspects of how you live? Not accusing him of not being truthful, but I hadnt seen the potential analogy till he mentioned it. Roger did ask him how make the suit more realistic (improve the deception) and Morris had several ideas to offer.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
They had 40 years of suit advancement

Please show the history of all the advances that they have been working on over the last 40 years (and please identify who "they" are).

I can do the same with nuclear fusion, it would amount to many thousands of papers, and hundreds of press releases. But that's gone nowhere, so I'm much more interested now in all of this "suit advancement" that you claim has been undergoing constant progress.

What's the next advancement we can look forward to, and when? You've got me really excited now.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The purpose of a costume is to deceive, to be something other than real or true.
yet another weird take

the purpose of a costume is to entertain
you're thinking of a disguise

P.S. 8 years might be a gap between brothers, not a "generational" gap
 
Last edited:

Mauro

Active Member
They had 40 years of suit advancement (and just flat out 40 years) to get it right

You have miscalculated, they had 49 years, from the gorilla suit in Tarzan of the Apes (1918) to the Patterson's film (1967).


Sorry but I have no idea on how to tag a specific time of a video.. gorillas at 1:22.
 

jamesrav

Member
Please show the history of all the advances that they have been working on over the last 40 years (and please identify who "they" are).

I can do the same with nuclear fusion, it would amount to many thousands of papers, and hundreds of press releases. But that's gone nowhere, so I'm much more interested now in all of this "suit advancement" that you claim has been undergoing constant progress.

What's the next advancement we can look forward to, and when? You've got me really excited now.
Are you denying there's been progress in primate suits since the 70's ? Nobody had been using musculature at that time. The special effects guy in the BBC documentary (1998) said that's what he'd use and he could duplicate the appearance. Maybe a Time Traveler costume designer made the suit in 1967. I was just now trying to find a fairly convincing Bigfoot YT video I saw months ago that was clearly designed to mimic the Patty creature. Darn good costume I had to admit, and they clearly made an effort to put musculature underneath. I now cannot find it ... because there's so much Bigfoot garbage on YT now. It's out of control. If I somehow find it among the hundreds of videos I will share it. The short backstory is that it was posted fairly recently as 'new' but in fact had been on another guys channel for years, the other guy being a shady character. People stealing other channels videos, clickbait titles, its a horrible situation. The PG film started it and is unquestionably the best in all respects. Now, anyone can fake anything.

p.s. I agree on the fusion thing, although its been in the news lately that its 'getting closer', just as it has for 50 years.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Are you denying there's been progress in primate suits since the 70's ?

Top tip - if your response begins "Are you...", then the answer's probably "No." I did not post such a denial, therefore I wasn't denying such a claim.

I was merely drawing attention to the fact that what you seem to consider significant changes are, in the context of evaluating these images - which is what we are doing here, barely significant at all. I'm sure there have been advances in materials, comfort, breathability, durability, washability, weight, cheapness to manufacture, etc. But that's not what we see with our eyes in these images, what we see with our eyes in these images is simply what it looks like.
 

CaptainCourgette

Active Member
I forgot about this, as did Patterson I think. If the creature's foot is as large as this:
1659315968852.png
Growing up in NZ where I didnt wear shoes until I was 13 (which makes buying shoes difficult cause my feet are much wider than normal), you can tell this bigfoot impression is based just on a shoewearing persons dimensions but just scaled larger.
Now this skunkape cast is much more believable



I wonder if over the decades the casts taken of the bigfeet have changed, it would be interesting to see the progression over the decades.
I'm guessing decades ago they were pretty much like normal human feet but larger and then when biologists pointed out thats not how a non shoe wearing walking creatures feet would look like, the footprints changed.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
@NorCal Dave in my slogging around the internet i also read that the third horse with Patterson was Hieronimus' horse. i didnt save the link and its super late, so off to bed...but if anyone wants to pursue that.

on a different site a guy said the horses name was Chico. ???

i always wondered why they would need a third horse to go 3 miles and yet even with an xtra pack horse they didnt put the plaster cast material in any of the saddle bags? what were they luggin on 3 horses?
Yes, as noted above Gimlin was riding Chico, a horse that belonged to Heironimus:

Chris Murphy wrote, "I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony 'Peanuts'. Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of 'Chico' from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use ... Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition."[63] Heironimus stated that Chico (a middle-aged gelding) "wouldn't jump or buck ..."[64]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

In the 2015 talk by Gimlin he says he was on a former roping horse and that he was leading a smaller pack horse that had sleeping bags and equipment, but not the plaster that they needed. I used CC so one can just read it quickly, but still see the timestamp it they wanted to go to the video:

1659630929374.png

Which is consistent with the early part of the film. The pack horse has a lot of stuff on it:
1659631109204.png

What doesn't make sense is to say it had all their equipment, like sleeping bags, inferring they were going out camping, when it seems they were camped at their truck. And if they were planning on going out overnight looking for Bigfoot, why not bring along the plaster? Gimlin says they were too tired and just forgot it. Maybe.

Like everybody involved in this, parts of the stories change over time, sometimes big changes, sometimes little ones. For example, jamesrav says this is a transcript from a Gimlin appearance in NY in 2013. As usual, he did not source this, so I'm taking him at his word, but it fits other parts of the story:

We planned on going and taking the film over to the city next closest. I get Yreka and Eureka mixed up, and forgive me for that. Whatever city, we took it to the airport to send it up to his brother-in-law, a gentleman by the name of Al DeAtley, to get the film developed.
Content from External Source
So here is the part about the unknown and as yet unidentified piolet that was either on stand-by all week in case Patterson found something, or Patterson knew and/or rounded up a piolet on Friday night to send the film to Yakima so it would be ready for viewing on Sunday afternoon. Or something like that?

In 2015, he says "supposedly" and makes sure to alert everyone that he has no idea who this person with the airplane is.

1659631995518.png
1659632127083.png
1659632459189.png
"who inhaled it-or Holly mail it" should be "who handled it-or how he mailed it". Don't ask about the airplane or airmail, he doesn't know.

Also note, that this is a often giving little talk complete with the "I get Yreka and Eurika mixed up" (yuk-yuk) thrown in both times. A quick glance at the map shows that Eurika is close to the encounter, while Yreka is further inland on I-5 and someplace they likely pass through between Yakima:
1659636893311.png
"Rick" is "Yreka".
1659637361682.png

It sounds like a line that keeps up the "aimable old guy telling the truth" schtick.

Edit: (forgot the Gimlin video source) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PleldH41YUs&t=1333s


In addition, concerning the horses, Heironimus loaned Patterson and Gimlin his horse. According to Gimlin, it's a well-trained roping horse, not cheap I would think. The notion that Heironimus needed to steal something from the suit to ensure he got payed, seems silly if he's letting Patterson and Gimlin take his horse 500+ miles down to California for a week or so. He may have thought Patterson a crook later in life, but at the time of the film they all seem to be buds. And, maybe he knew he would be dropping in to check on Chico later in the week.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I just cant envisage this thing running, it doesnt appear 'built' to run. I think it was intended to represent some apex animal, and what would it have to run from?
was reading an argosy article from Feb 1968. according to Gimlin and Roger bigfoot can run (and btw several parts in article describe Roger running at her)

Argosy (1968) page 28
gimlin: "he was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into that real thick bush"

same page : apparently bigfoot can run Roger:"when she got around the corner and into teh real heavy stuff she DID take off running.."

you need to scroll down the page to see the scans of the Argosy article
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/argosy-1968.html
 

jamesrav

Member
was reading an argosy article from Feb 1968. according to Gimlin and Roger bigfoot can run (and btw several parts in article describe Roger running at her)

Argosy (1968) page 28
gimlin: "he was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into that real thick bush"

same page : apparently bigfoot can run Roger:"when she got around the corner and into teh real heavy stuff she DID take off running.."

you need to scroll down the page to see the scans of the Argosy article
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/argosy-1968.html
thanks for the Argosy link, that really started it all in most peoples minds. I would have been 6, so I definitely did not purchase it, but I know I saw it in my teen years at the library. Truly 'first source' material. I think even some experts dont recall all the details in that article. Todd who runs the Sasquatch Archives channel seemed surprised when I mentioned that Roger mentioned in a 1971 interview that they 'chased' the thing for 3 miles. His (and others) belief was that Gimlin went in a short ways (300 yards) and somehow Roger shouted for him to come back and they worked on the casts and drove back to town with the film. End of story, end of chase. But clearly they both went on much longer (as I would have, since the camera was now re-loaded). As for breaking into a sprint in the "real heavy stuff", seems a strange place to start a sprint with a stride 50% longer than the already lengthy walking stride. Forgot she left the iron plugged in? I wonder if the opposite happened, and she slowed down and the strides were now 32" (being half the 65" he mentioned - could they have missed tracks in the "real heavy stuff"?) since she had no pursuers. There is no mention of seeing her run, so it's an open question. The Memorial Day footage shows 'something' running, but thats a whole other case. Maybe I'll watch the "Six Million Dollar Man" episode (yet again lol) to see if Andre the Giant broke into a sprint at any point. He was 7'`1" and weighing close to 500 pounds, so if he could 'sprint' and take long strides, then I'll believe Patty could.

There are so many YT Bigfoot videos of Bigfoot hoaxes and people explaining how they make their own suits (good ones, much better than Morris' off-the-shelf generic gorilla suit), that further statements about suits now, in 1967, in 1998, are just adding more words to a debate, but not clearing anything up. The suit of the click-bait " Massive Sasquatch !! " video that I can no longer find was quite good, and the fellow made a natural-looking attempt to do the 90° heel raise. That to me showed we've attained parity with whatever produced the PG subject 50 years earlier. But to ignore that the time was 1967, and probably only John Chambers (and his team) could have made such a suit. That's even highly debatable , he himself denied doing so, supposedly said "I'm good, but not that good". If I can find the audio of Bobbie Short asking him that in the Hollywood Actors nursing home, that would be my big contribution ; she's now deceased and her site is no longer up - whether Todd has the audio (he has most everything else) is something I will ask.

I take it that nobody has taken my challenge of watching the Mr. Luci footage at .5 speed, full screen, no sound, on loop for a couple minutes? I actually do that almost every day, its just a couple minutes. That does add up to 10 hours a year, so either I'm wasting my limited remaining time on a 'man in a monkey suit' or paying appropriate homage to something that goes way beyond our current knowledge of reality and the Universe. Or maybe it's the same thing, because if Roger did pull this off, he's a god-like figure in masterminding the most amazing hoax of all time.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
he himself denied doing so, supposedly said "I'm good, but not that good"
that's only because they were told they are seeing muscle movement in that super blurry footage. if they are actually seeing padding movement and light shifts off fur in a blurry movie, then that changes the whole equation.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
gimlin: "he was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into that real thick bush"
They are telling this story to Ivan Sanderson.

Let me get this straight, it walks in an "in human way" and not built like a human, per John Green, and yet Patterson and Gimlin are supposedly telling Sanderson that it runs just like a human?

1659648498953.png

Another thing from that interview, when Sanderson asked Gimlin if he saw the creature, the answer doesn't sound like what he describes in later years:

1659648671222.png
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/argosy-1968.html

It's like he kinda saw it in the distance.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Todd who runs the Sasquatch Archives channel seemed surprised when I mentioned that Roger mentioned in a 1971 interview that they 'chased' the thing for 3 miles. His (and others) belief was that Gimlin went in a short ways (300 yards) and somehow Roger shouted for him to come back and they worked on the casts and drove back to town with the film. End of story, end of chase.

Because the standard story already has them making multiple trips from site to camp, adding up to ~9 miles, which I think most believers don't think about or discount.

As noted in previous posts, they had a ~5 hour window between the encounter at around 1:30 and their arrival in Willow Creek at 6:30.

The early Argosy interview has them tracking Patt for 3.5 miles, including in the underbrush. So, that's now somewhere between ~12-15 miles of walking back and forth in the woods along a creek.

We've established that a horse averages 4 miles an hour walking, and that's being generous considering the terrain they're in and they're leading a loaded small pack horse along with them. Sanderson's description of the area:


1659716938819.png

At best, that's at least 3+ hours of just walking/riding, and that's best case. It's probably closer to 4.5-5 hours. Even if they manage to cover all the ground in 3 hours, they still need to do the other things they claim, such as track the creature into the underbrush, mix, pour and pack up the footprint castings, filming more footage and doing other stuff that they took pictures of.

That's just from what they claimed. We can also infer a few other things that should have happened. Upon getting back to camp for the final time, what did they do with the horses? If they left them at camp, they needed to unsaddle and unpack 3 of them to get them ready to hang out at camp while they left, or the unsaddled and then loaded them onto the truck to take a long.

That's got to be close to 1 hour of other activities, besides the walking/riding. That uses up nearly 4 hours of a 5 hour window. And that's best case, assuming they are going the 9 miles (site to camp to site to camp) usually in the story and the 3-3.5 miles of tracking isn't a straight out and back and brings the total to 12 miles. If it is out and back, they're closer to 15-16 miles and 3.5 to 4 hours of just walking/riding.

As noted in previous posts, it's a 2.5 hour drive to Willow Creek on today's roads if one follows Bluff Creek Rd to the dead end, which is ~3-4 miles from the film site. Yet these guys managed it in much less than 2, closer to 1 hour? In a horse hauler? It doesn't add up.

Sanderson has them 20 miles from the end of a logging access road, then 35 miles from the pavement. So, no road at all for 20 miles? That makes it even worse.

The counter argument is that this site isn't nearly as remote and off the beaten path as we've been led to believe. If Murphy's claim that a few Federal foresters were almost routinely passing by the site in their Jeep, then it would make sense that site is more well-known and accessible. That means Sanderson is exaggerating and hyping the story, so them how much of the rest of it do we trust?

That may explain Patterson's incredibly convenient luck, that the one spot he filmed a Bigfoot, happened to be in a newly created sand bar so that tracks can be left to go along with the film.

The miles and hours still seem to not add up.
 
Top