Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Do you mean reversed in their order, or reversed like a flipped negative?

LTC, you can look at your own two still images with the circled branch and see that one of them must be reversed. I wouldn't use the term "negative", because developed film is a "positive".

While I agree with the majority of what you say, if you are going to make statements like that, you should be required to evidence this. Until someone finds a female bigfoot and can accurately assess the movement of any breasts - that is only an assumption on your part and your opinion. I stay away from statements like that - less I be accused of trying to sound like I know something I clearly can not. If I said "Its a fact" about anything seen in the patterson film, you would jump all over me, and rightfully so.

Click to expand...

It makes no difference what a real bigfoot's breasts do or don't do. We are talking about Patty only. Patty's breasts are not floppy. That is a fact. Patterson says they are. That is also a fact.

Wow, thats a lot of assumption. You cant even prove its a real animal or not - no one can.

Click to expand...

That could be why I said "I think". If it was a suit, the person with the suit can sure prove soemthing. We may yet find proof that it's a hoax. There are certainly bits of film shot by Patterson that have not come to light. There's a whole reel at least. Therein could be proof of a hoax or just more grist for the mill.

Yes, but we have been discussing BH - not Roger Patterson.. All I ask is if your gonna jump around just let me know.

Click to expand...

I've already told you that BH is not part of my argument, though.

How could I possibly know that? I wasnt there back then

Click to expand...

That's odd. I wasn't there either, and I know it. So does anyone else who reads the quotes of the people who were shown the PGF initially. Comments that are widely available, widely discussed, and well known among footers. Except you, apparently.

WP, right. One of them is certainly flipped. Diogenes said two were reversed, which is not what I would have said.

Do we know who labeled the collage "2ndreelstills"?

LTC8K6 said:

There are certainly bits of film shot by Patterson that have not come to light. There's a whole reel at least. Therein could be proof of a hoax or just more grist for the mill.

Click to expand...

The "original film" is missing or hidden. But when we all talk about the "original film" we are probably talking about what Roger projected in DeAtley's basement on October 22, or possibly what he presented to the University of British Columbia (October 26), or possibly the public presentation which was shown on TV and in theaters. We don't know that those three presentations represent the same roll of film. Another wild card is that according to Murphy, Green and Dahinden disagreed that what we now call the "second reel" (footage of track casting and stomp test) was shown at the U of BC presentation. One guy says it was shown and the other guy says it wasn't. Maybe that disagreement doesn't matter.

But the question still remains: Did anyone other than Roger (or the film developer) see the film exactly as it came out of the camera, or did they all see what was left after Roger cut-and-spliced the thing? It's not even one thing in the first place, because P&G told us that another roll of film was installed into the camera immediately after the Patty encounter. If those two rolls of film always remained as two seperate rolls, then any time that Roger wanted to show the whole expedition footage he would have had to tell his audience to wait a minute while he installed the "second roll" in the projector so that they could see what he filmed after his first roll was exhausted.

This is why I have mentioned with concern that students of the PGF have not yet agreed upon a terminology and provenance of "film(s)" that allow them to always know what is being talked about. At this point, many of us are saying the "second roll" shows horseback scenery and track casting. Those two things cannot really have both been on the actual (second) roll of film that Roger inserted underneath his poncho immediately after Patty vanished from sight.

Melissa said:

I have never read any comments by this Napier person - could you direct me toward something I can read? I would like to.

Click to expand...

From http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

In his book Bigfoot; The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution's director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film (pp. 89-96; 215-220). He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is consistent with a man's; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that "there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind."

Click to expand...

From http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

Bigfoot sympathizer John Napier, then-director of the Primate Biology Program of the Smithsonian Institution, wrote in his excellent book Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality (E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., NY, 1972), that the walk of the creature in the film was consistent with that of a modern man, that the body movements were grossly exaggerated, and the walk self-conscious, that the cone-shaped top to the skull is essentially a male characteristic "only very occasionally seen, to an insignificant extent, in females." Furthermore he felt that the center of gravity of the film subject is that of a modern man, rather than at a higher level as suggested by the physical build of the creature.

Most telling perhaps is "the presence of buttocks, a human hallmark, [which] is at total variance with the ape-like nature of the superstructure.... The upper half of the body bears some resemblance to an ape and the lower half is typically human. It is almost impossible to conceive that such structural hybrids could exist in nature." (Napier, p. 86)

Napier, one of the most reasonable of the scientists who accepts the possibility for the existence of Bigfoot, concluded that, "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis." (Napier, p. 89)

Click to expand...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#John_Napier

"I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin, if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus, or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, Australopithecus africanus" (Napier, 95).

Click to expand...

I'm including this from http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic/yeti.htm but there's no indication of exactly where he made these supposed comments:

1) The walking style of the Patterson sasquatch is generally consistent
with that of Homo Sapiens

2) The adence of the walk is "self-conscious" and very exagerated

3) In spite of the heavy breasts, the walking style is that of a human male

4) The cone-shaped skull is definitely non-human, but occurs in adult
male orangs and gorillas. Essentially, it is a male characteristic only
very occasionally seen in females, and then to a greatly lesser extent

5) The creature's build (heavy neck, shoulders and chest) strongly suggest
the center of gravity for this creature would be considerably higher than
in man. In spite of the that, the mechanical baseline of moving the center
of gravity through space is, on the Patterson Sasquatch, precisely where it
would be on a modern Homo Sapiens.

6) The Patterson creature has a cone-shaped skull, an adaptation that
allows for more surface area to attach chewing muscles, which is found in
animals that eat primarily ruffage. Animals that eat primarily ruffage must
always have a pot-belly, since the ruffage digests slowly and builds up in
the stomach. This happens in gorillas, chimps, and orangs. The Patterson
Sasquatch has a flat stomach, so it must not be a ruffage-eater. Therefore,
the skull-crest makes absolutely no sense on the creature.

7) The prints that were found at the Bluff Creek sight by Patterson measure
14-15 in, suggesting a corresponding height of between 7'8" and 8'3" for
Patterson's Sasquatch. The length of the step, however, was a mere 41 in.
This would suggest a stature of about 6'4" or 6'5" (well within human limits).
This disparity might explain why the walk was so grossly exagerated in the
film.
The actor playing the Sasquatch purposely stamped his feet down to make better
impressions to support Patterson's story.

Click to expand...

These sources were obtained by Googling, and though I read his book many years ago, I don't personally have a copy.

I also dont know if people did or did not comment early on about the gait.

Click to expand...

Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy did a "qualitative biomechanical analysis of the walk of the creature in the Patterson film", and his report is included as an appendix to the 1973 book Sasquatch, by Hunter/Dahinden.

Donskoy concluded, "[the] walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man."

That's not quite the same as saying the walk is non-human.

Krantz writes about Patty's locomotion in Big Footprints, pages 111-117, and more recent study results can be viewed here, and here.

There still seems to be no absolute conclusion or consensus, and rightly so.

RayG

Melissa said:

Thanks for that, I will be sure to impart your wisdom on the actual scientists involved in the research, I am sure they will get a kick out of your comment. LMAO

Click to expand...

When they start doing science, then it might matter. I've yet to see any Bigfoot science that doesn't result in, at best, a very, very slim possibility. The evidence simply isn't there. The Footer scientists, quite simply, are not doing science. All the nonsense about "mid-tarsal breaks" and IM indexes figured from grainy films, supposed data about diets and customs...it isn't science. It's bias and wishful thinking, hoax and publicity seeking, and post hoc reasonings. A scientist is, by definition, one who does science. When you leave science behind, you're no longer a scientist. I'll be happy if you can point to a real scientist involved in Bigfoot research. I'm sure he can point me to the actual evidence he bases his research on. Even the idea of a an expert on something we have no better evidence for than a grainy, 40-year old film; and no knowledge about that is anything other than rampant speculation, is both humorous and depressing at the same time.

And anyone trying (as you were) to compare the case for Bigfoot to the case for the IBW is quite simply wrong...which was my point. The ONLY reason the video and audio recordings for the IBW are given any credence at all is because:
1. We know the creatures did exist in that area at some point in the recent past.
2. We have known samples and records of the appearance and calls to compare to.

And even at this, there's a lot of doubt. Yet still, as you say, money is being provided for this research. Resources are spent. But none for finding Bigfoot. You admit that the case for the IBW is week. Yet it is orders of magnitude more solid than the evidence for Bigfoot. That's why money is spent to find the IBW, but no one (besides believers) spends it for Bigfoot.

And, contrary to what most foot believers think, the more numerous the sightings and reports without any physical evidence showing up, the less likely to be real. That's what I'd like to see: a ahir or dna sample, feces, remains, anything that could provide some measure of reliability. The thought of a sustainable breeding population of large primates existing in an area as heavily populated as the northwest U.S. (and yes, sorry, but it is heavily populated compared to many wilderness areas where we've found species rarer, smaller, and that don't walk along nice, track-holding sandy roadways) while leaving not so much as a pile of scat is, well, laughable.

Thank you RayG.

See how easy that was LTC. I have reading to do

Its erect attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion, as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb, are all manifestly human, commented Dr. Osman Hill, Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, and Emory University.

Click to expand...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/truefrontier.htm

Pretty strong words. Keep in mind that these are from shortly after the PGF was created when comparing them to modern comments about inhuman gaits and inhuman proportions.

Dr. John R. Napier, Director of the Primate Biology Program, Smithsonian Institute, was quoted in the article as saying that, in his opinion, nothing about the film would point conclusively to a hoax. He also stated that he was satisfied that the walk of the creature shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film was consistent with the bi-pedal striding gait of man. Napier also conceded that the bodily proportions of the creature appeared to be within normal limits for man.

Click to expand...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/chapters.htm

Dr. Wm. Charles Osman-Hill: The creature portrayed is a primate and clearly hominid rather than pongid. Its erect attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion, as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb are all manifestly human, together with the great development of the mammary glands. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that it is indeed a Homo sapiens masquerading as a hairy 'giant'. All I can say, at this stage, is that if this was a masquerade, it was extremely well done and effective.

Dr. John R. Napier: I observed nothing that, on scientific grounds, would point conclusively to a hoax. I am satisfied that the walk of the creature shown in the film was consistent with the bipedal striding gait of man (except in the action of the feet, which were not visible). I have two reservations which are both subjective: First, the slow cadence of the walk and the fluidity of the bodily movements, particularly the arms, struck me as exaggerated--almost self-conscious in comparison with modern man; second, my impression was that the subject was male, in spite of the contrary evidence of heavy, pendulous breasts. The bodily proportions of the creature, as far as could be seen, appeared to be within normal limits for man. The appearance of the high crest on top of the skull is unknown in man, but given a creature as heavily built as the subject, such a biomechanical adaptation to an exclusively fibrous raw vegetable diet is not impossible. The presence of this crest, which occurs only in male non-human primates, such as the gorilla and the orangutan, tends to strengthen my belief that this creature is a male. Finally, it might be supposed that a creature with a heavy head, heavy jaw and musculature and a massive upper body would have a center of gravity placed at a higher level than in man. The position of the center of gravity modifies the gait and the easy stride shown in the film is not in harmony with a high center of gravity. The opinions I have expressed on this remarkable film are those of an expert witness, rather than a member of a jury.

Click to expand...

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans. His comments are as follows:

In all furry animals the hair has a definite pattern, that is, on each area of the body the hairs are oriented in a certain direction. For instance, on a chimpanzee's arm, or even on a man's if he is hairy, they go down from the shoulder to the elbow, and up from the wrist to the elbow. This definite hair pattern can be seen even on photographs of animals from the way the light shines on their fur.

On the creature shown on Patterson's film there is nothing of the sort. As can be seen from the way the hairs shine, giving the fur a speckled appearance, they point in all directions (compare the blowups of the film with photographs of gorillas or, better, of certain bears, which have 'short, shiny, black hair', and you will see that in the latter, the shine on the fur shows that on each part of the body the hairs all point in the same direction).

The aspect of the hair of the creature in the film is exactly what should be expected from artificial fur--whether thick velvet or nylon fur--in which all threads (not actually hairs) are attached uniformly on some canvas base. When you stroke this material in different directions, the artificial hairs get bent in these directions and remain so until you brush them all carefully in the same direction.

Patterson adds--which is also seen in the film-that 'even her big, droopy breasts' are covered with short shiny black hair. This would of course be possible in some unknown species of man, but it would be rather improbable to say the least. In all larger apes the breasts have a slight tendency toward swelling, and even dropping a little, when the female is nursing its baby or if it has been nursing many of them, but even in such hairy primates the chest is almost naked.

I want to add that this (to me) obvious hoax does not shake at all my firm conviction that some large unknown human-like primate lives in the northwest of the United States and in the western provinces of Canada, not to mention of course certain mountain ranges of northeastern and central Asia."

Click to expand...

See how easy that was LTC. I have reading to do

Click to expand...

I never said I would not provide the info. I merely questioned how well you knew the subject.

It seems to me that JREF PGF skeptics are far more informed and knowledgable about the PGF and the various historical testimonies about it (including the words of P&G) than are the Pattycakes that come here and argue for its authenticity. It's a shame that JREF skeptics aren't arguing against anyone with equal PGF research and interest. Yes, it often appears that the skeptics pay more attention to the PGF than the believers do.

Maybe a hardcore support of the PGF sometimes involves a kind of blindness, or unwillingness to research the whole thing. The Bigfoot Encounters website hosts the various accounts, testimonies and interviews that show that P&G changed their stories over time, and in some cases never agreed with each other. It also shows that descriptions of the figure (by P and/or G) don't match what we can all see on the PGF.

Why are JREF skeptics continually faced with arguing against uninformed Pattycakes?

LTC said:

I never said I would not provide the info. I merely questioned how well you knew the subject.

Click to expand...

Then why didnt you? Instead you decided to make comments about what you think I know and do not know. I know the subject quite well, but not all the players. Sorry, I skipped that class and went to lunch with my girlfriends that day - we wanted to talk about boys

It seems to me that JREF PGF skeptics are far more informed and knowledgable about the PGF and the various historical testimonies about it (including the words of P&G) than are the Pattycakes that come here and argue for its authenticity. It's a shame that JREF skeptics aren't arguing against anyone with equal PGF research and interest. Yes, it often appears that the skeptics pay more attention to the PGF than the believers do.

Click to expand...

No offense Mr. Parcher, but that is pretty funny. What I notice is most regardless of stance are very well versed in what they feel is the important information - and many disregard anything to the contrary of what they themselves think. Thats the overwhelming attitude in both the skeptical approach and the average bigfooter.

While I come here from time to time and chat with you guys, I often find myself laughing - you all do the very same things wrong you accuse bigfooters of doing, yet that seems to be acceptable. I sat here and had to try and debate someone based on speculative comments and hearsay - would you as a skeptic accept that as a reasonable discussion from a bigfooter - heck no, and I wouldnt blame you.

I have fun here, you all make me think and you all make me laugh. Thanks.

Melissa said:

Thank you RayG.

Click to expand...

No problemo Melissa, Google is mah bess fren.

I have reading to do

Click to expand...

You may want to see if your local library can get you a copy of his book on an intra-library loan. I've gotten a few that way and it's a lot cheaper.

RayG

You came in here talking as if you knew a lot about the issue, Melissa. Then when I mentioned some well known info, you didn't have a clue. What was I supposed to think?

Why 2 seperate showings? Why make the Uni scientists swear not to talk about the authenticity of the PGF?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

On October 26, 1967, the film was shown at the University of British Columbia (U.B.C.). Two screenings were conducted. The first screening was given to University scientists only. The second screening was to university scientists and Don Abbott and Frank Beebe (both of the British Columbia Provincial Museum). Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were at both sessions to answer questions. They also showed the audience the casts of the footprints found at the film site. Whether or not the second film roll was shown at these sessions is not clear. John Green, who was present, states this roll was shown; Rene Dahinden, also present, says it was not shown. Unfortunately, this roll vanished in the early 1970s.

The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group. The museum people, Frank Beebe and Don Abbott, however, were not restrained. Frank Beebe, although impressed with the film, implied the strong likelihood of a hoax. Don Abbott did not give a personal opinion at this time. A press screening and conference was held later the same day. Subsequent newspaper reports were given very high profile.

Click to expand...

RayG said:

No problemo Melissa, Google is mah bess fren.



You may want to see if your local library can get you a copy of his book on an intra-library loan. I've gotten a few that way and it's a lot cheaper.

RayG

Click to expand...

I will Ray, I appreciate the info. As soon as I am done reading the book I will let you know what I think. Give me a little while though, I am pretty busy with work and other endeavors

Once again, thank you

LTC said:

You came in here talking as if you knew a lot about the issue, Melissa. Then when I mentioned some well known info, you didn't have a clue. What was I supposed to think?

Click to expand...

I infact said just the opposite.

A true sign of intelligence is admitting when you dont know the answer to something. A true sign of ignorance is to pretend you have all the facts, when you do not.

I dont pretend to know it all, and when I dont I ask questions. I am however always grateful to those who are kind enough to not make a big deal out of something as minor as asking a question.

Dont bad mouth me, because your unwilling to quote your own sources.

Dont bad mouth me, because your unwilling to quote your own sources.

Click to expand...

I never failed to quote a source, actually.

I may not have linked the source, because I thought you would be familiar with the subject, but I sure quoted it.

Now that I know you are a newbie, I will push your nose right up to the milk bowl every time.

Huntsman said:

Yet still, as you say, money is being provided for this research. Resources are spent. But none for finding Bigfoot. You admit that the case for the IBW is week. Yet it is orders of magnitude more solid than the evidence for Bigfoot. That's why money is spent to find the IBW, but no one (besides believers) spends it for Bigfoot.

Click to expand...

Fairly recently, Dr. Jeff Meldrum has been given (by donation and matching university grants) more than $70,000 to "find Bigfoot". Neither he, nor his employing university, have made any public information known about the plan, detailed expenditures and outputs of this investment in a man on a mission. Bigfooters know about this, but they don't seem to want to talk about it or get curious about how that whole thing is going or any details. This big cash money given to Meldrum to find Bigfoot is always flying under the radar and really isn't talked about by Bigfooters. Yet, these same people will simultaneously bitch and moan about how institutions ignore and won't fund Bigfoot searches.

Throwing money at Bigfooters hasn't yet resulted in anything like a confirmation. Some researcher might try to calculate how much money has been given to the sum total of all American Bigfooters (by way of book sales, ticket prices to watch the PGF in a theater, media contracts and purchases, copyright proceeds, expedition fees, video and DVD sales, speaking honorariums, etc.), and compare it to the total output of confirmatory evidence presented that this is a real animal and not a myth.

Bigfoot has not yet been confirmed to be real, so the output side of the equation remains at zero. As far as a faith-based belief system... it seems to be clipping along at modern bitstream and talky-talk speed.

William,

Well, I'll withdraw part of my statement, then. Still, Foot money comes in slower an din smaller amounts...which was kinda my point.

Comparing Bigfoot to the IBW, and saying "See? The IBW only has a film, but they get money!" is disingenious and incorrect. The IBW case has a lot more than a film...they have known samples and a history. And it's still regarded as a flimsy case and not likely to be true (although, again, a couple orders of magnitude more likely than Bigfoot).

Such a comparison only highlights how little the Footers have to point to anything like a Sasquatch being reality.

William Parcher said:

Why are JREF skeptics continually faced with arguing against uninformed Pattycakes?

Click to expand...

Maybe because there's so much info out there now in the way of books, videos, websites, etc., that it's damn near impossible to keep up with everything regarding bigfoot. All those names, places, info... my head barely swells large enough to hold half of it.

Gah, why even worry about it? I've been tagging along with this mystery for the past three decades and I still know nothing. But then, when it comes to bigfoot, aren't we all truly uninformed?

RayG