Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, if the fingers move...

C'mon, why would someone bother stretching the hands of his/hers kids' doll to discredit PGF?

Its not a hoax attempt, no one will make money out of it - unless, of course the you are a NSA disinformation agent...

Its not like selling a hoaxed pic.
 
I saw that. Fox News. Foxy Fox Fox. The writer/producer guy specializing in UFO's didn't say mangy bear. I like his work. Face work, I mean. Reminds me of 'Brazil'.
Why do you hate giant obssessive pointless bureaucracies?
:confused:
 
All of this padding looks like it should come off. You can see where the human's arm is in this frame, you can see where the butt is added on. you can even see the small face size of a human refelected in the small eyes on Patty. You can see where the human right hand and the fake prosthetic hand bend unnaturally.




 
Last edited:
The entire discussion, before you waltzed in here and started calling people liar.

Look for posts by ' Spektator ' .. He's the one you are calling a liar ..

Just because you don't understand how something was done, is hardly a reason to believe it's not possible..

Let me ask..

Do you think this goofy looking suit is/was a real Bigfoot ?

I don't recall seeing any posts by anyone that explains this mysterious illusion, only the supposed setup. I see that this is a favorite piece of evidence for you, but I'm curious why you accept it on face value when you don't even understand how the illusion was accomplished? Agenda perhaps? And why exactly is Spektator, or anyone here, beyond reproach?

I'm not interested in accepting things on either side of the fence without confirmation. I'm not selectively skeptical. My rejection of this as evidence is based solely on my inability to reproduce this illusion myself. And I tried. How many ways can I rotate, re-orient a doll hand without achieving the same illusion? What's the trick? Saying that the "hand was moved a bit" just doesn't explain anything.

Do I think the PGF shows a bigfoot? Not likely. But quibbling over whether a doll hand animation demonstrates whether finger bending in the PGF is an illusion seems like a minor point.

I'd prefer to see where the evidence takes me. Does waltzing in and doubting the doll hand illusion make me less objective? All I want is confirmation, which is something most here insist on from the footers. Unlike you, I haven't created the bonds that allow me to blindly accept the word of fellow JREFers. Sorry I'm not being a team player, but reproduce the illusion and I'll submit to the wet noodle.

Correa Neto said:
Hey, if the fingers move...

C'mon, why would someone bother stretching the hands of his/hers kids' doll to discredit PGF?

Its not a hoax attempt, no one will make money out of it - unless, of course the you are a NSA disinformation agent...

Its not like selling a hoaxed pic.
Motives are also mysterious. Maybe to shut Sweaty up. Who knows? I wouldn't equate this with hoaxing a bigfoot sighting. It's just a red flag for me that I can't re-create this illusion, except by bending the fingers.

What I'm certain of, is if this was done on a lark, then there was no turning back once it picked up steam. It could have started out innocently enough and took on a life of its own.

Waltzing out....
 
Last edited:
...snip...I'm not interested in accepting things on either side of the fence without confirmation. I'm not selectively skeptical. My rejection of this as evidence is based solely on my inability to reproduce this illusion myself. And I tried. How many ways can I rotate, re-orient a doll hand without achieving the same illusion? What's the trick? Saying that the "hand was moved a bit" just doesn't explain anything....snip...

"Because I can't do it" is an argument from personal incredulity and or biased sampling.

Note that along the treads where the "moving fingers" were discussed, the basic conclusions are:
(i) The fingers may or may not actually move; the images are not clear enough for a definitive answer;
(ii) Even if the fingers move, this is not evidence Patty is a real bigfoot, since there are a number of cheap and easy ways to make costumes with long arms and moving fingers.

In other words, just another dead end.

...snip...Motives are also mysterious. Maybe to shut Sweaty up. Who knows? I wouldn't equate this with hoaxing a bigfoot sighting. It's just a red flag for me that I can't re-create this illusion, except by bending the fingers.

What I'm certain of, is if this was done on a lark, then there was no turning back once it picked up steam. It could have started out innocently enough and took on a life of its own.

Waltzing out....

Then several people are part of this conspiracy, including myself. I managed to recreate it with my hand, looking in a mirror.

And "to shut Sweaty out" looks suspiciously like an attempt to poison the well.
 
I sent this to Dr. Meldrum on a whim:
Dr. Meldrum,
Would your scientific study of sasquatch allow you to say that Sasquatch has a well-developed Achilles tendon, similar to humans?

If yes, then why would the foot require a mid-tarsal break similar to great apes, which do not have a well developed Achilles tendon?

If no, then wouldn’t that preclude witness testimony saying that Sasquatch walked smoothly/gracefully, and/or was able to run down prey animals? (Lack of Achilles development would require that highly accelerated bipedal travel would be unlikely. (From the Bill Sellers study, detailed here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6990319.stm )
Here is his answer. I thought Kitakaze's FooterBot hijacked my email and replied!


Meldrum's response to my query said:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meldrum's email response to above query
I am on my way out the door this morning to catch a plane, so my answer will of necessity be brief (I suggest you read chapter 13 in my book if you have not already). Sasquatch certainly would be expected to have characteristics associated with bipedalism. If the P-G film can be accepted at face for the sake of discussion, the film subject shows a lengthened Achille's tendon cxompared to a gorilla or chimp, but one shorter than the average human. Retention of the flexible midfoot affords several advantages (enumerated in the book) and associated/correlated anatomies of the foot are evident in multiple independent examples. A flat flexible foot doesn't preclude efficient walking and bursts of speed -- observe a chimp. But ape, and sasquatch I suggest, lack the specializations of the human foot and gracile body form, and physiology, selected for endurance walking and more specifically -- endurance running.

I have to go. Hope this helps.

The link you provided wouldn't open.

Jeff Meldrum

I was wondering if Kitakaze's footerbot could translate the Email I recieved from Meldrum regarding Achilles Tendon/Mid tarsal break biology in Sasquatch.
 
Why not a wig? Roger was filming a documentary, faithful Indian companion and all..................

Have you looked at the definition of a documentary? That's not what Roger was making. It was a fictionalized portrayal of a Bigfoot hunter and his Bigfoot posse. It was bullcrap. The still image of the six Bigfoot-seeking cowboys on their horses is a hoax. Those guys didn't go looking for Bigfoot with Roger. Hell, two of them are the Heironimus bothers. Gimlin is in the wig because he is supposed to be an Indian Tracker who apparently is so close to his ancestry that he lets his hair grow. That's a hoax. Gimlin cannot be described as a "tracker" in any real sense and he obviously doesn't wear his hair long in spite of his Indian ancestry. Patterson tried to trick the world into thinking that Gimlin was different than he really was. Forty years later we can see right through this hoax. In many ways we can see that it was pathetic and aimed very low. Patterson must have known that a certain percentage of viewers would see it all for what it was.

In fact, Roger Patterson did film a documentary of sorts. He documented a false world that he created himself. Gimlin didn't have long hair and wasn't any kind of tracker. Heironimus was filmed pulling a packhorse with nowhere to go. He wasn't one of Roger's Bigfoot searchers. He was just used to ride in front of the camera. OK boys, let's look like we are looking for Bigfoot. Ready to roll... on my cue... now... Action!
 
Hmmm...
But ape, and sasquatch I suggest, lack the specializations of the human foot and gracile body form, and physiology, selected for endurance walking and more specifically -- endurance running.
But ain't bigfeet nomadic, able to walk several, perhaps tens of kilometers a day (or at night)? Ain't this highly mobile lifestyle one of the reasonings used to explain their elusiveness? And how a bunch of a few thousands specimens can cause sightings across North America? And how these scattered individuals can keep a viable population?
 
How does Bigfoot deal with hard winter in the PNW? Does he gnaw on stored frozen meats? Does he go out and forage or hunt for food regularly? Snow shows trackways that the ground would not otherwise reveal. If Bigfoot is active in the winter snow, then this is certainly the best way to locate him. The ability to locate any moving creature must be enhanced by snow cover.

Any Bigfooter who supports the idea of high-value targeted searches must place special value on winter snow search campaigns in the PNW. The found trackway of a Bigfoot walking through snow must be a distinct and rather obvious sign. Screw poking around for Bigfoot in the mild weather. Save all of your energy for winter snow searches. This is the money.
 
The reason Bigfoot tracks are seldom found in winter-

The bears are sleeping in their dens...
 
How does Bigfoot deal with hard winter in the PNW? Does he gnaw on stored frozen meats? Does he go out and forage or hunt for food regularly? Snow shows trackways that the ground would not otherwise reveal. If Bigfoot is active in the winter snow, then this is certainly the best way to locate him. The ability to locate any moving creature must be enhanced by snow cover.

Any Bigfooter who supports the idea of high-value targeted searches must place special value on winter snow search campaigns in the PNW. The found trackway of a Bigfoot walking through snow must be a distinct and rather obvious sign. Screw poking around for Bigfoot in the mild weather. Save all of your energy for winter snow searches. This is the money.

Funny you should ask ..

" Prints In The Snow .. Why Not More ? "

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=18121&hl=

A small excerpt from a typical answer..

" ...If it's smart enough to have eluded us for all these years, it's probably smart enough to not make tracks in areas where people congregate during the snow season of the year.... "


A topic so insidious, they named a town after it .. " Dodge " ...
 
LAL said:
Larry Lund claims Fred Bradshaw's voice is on the MDF. Bradshaw's family denies it.The voice is that of Tom Lines, the outfitter.

So much for Larry Lund.

(I can play Shoot the Messenger too.)

Now if Larry Lund was claiming that the Redwoods video was faked based on his hearing a Bigfoot proponent speaking on the tape's audio, you'd have a valid point. However, that's not the case here. I should also note that there are other things about the Memorial Day video that point to a hoax.

Here's a link to a post by DamnDirtyApe at the BFF that shows what appears to be frames 61 to 67. The image quality's not great.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18482&view=findpost&p=380733

Thanks! To be honest, I don't see the fingers bending. I do, however, see the wrist moving.

Optical illusions aren't mysterious unexplained phenomenon. What principles are at work here? Describing the setup doesn't qualify anything. I defy anyone (else) to reproduce this effect with a doll hand or their own hand. What was supposedly done to the doll hand to create this illusion anyway? What am I missing?

Okay, I think I figured out something that should satisfy your request: Cup your left hand slightly and angle your wrist downward. Now raise your arm straight out and bend your elbow so that your hand is in front of you (You can do this at any distance you like). Blink your left eye and then blink your right eye. Repeat as necessary; If this doesn't work, you might have to adjust the position of your hand or how much you're cupping it until the blinking makes it appear to "move."

As for how the pictures used to create the first .gif were created:

I took the second photo with a flash, by the way, and rotated it a little bit in Photoshop to get it in about the same position as the first. It was a bit smaller, too, so I fudged in a strip of "wall" near the bottom of the photo with the stamp tool. But I did NOT retouch the fingers at all--just a different tilt, angle, and distance from the camera!

'Nother edit--I think the flash went off in the first photo, too, now, when I look at the shadow; I didn't even realize that in the heat of photographing the elusive Kenfoot!

You're killing me here.

Why? I'm just asking for you to explain something; just as you asked for someone to explain the optical illusion to you. Thanks for the serious part of this reply, though.

Are you comparing this to frames 61 & 72?

I'm comparing it to the first .gif animation; the one that you claim had its fingers straightened to create the optical illusion. I think we can both agree that Spektator should recreate the effect with some unquestionably (for lack of a better term) "clean" images.

You mean because the creator said so? Isn't that how a hoax is set up?

No, what I meant was that Spektator didn't hide the conditions he used to create the illusion of movement, which was what I thought you were implying. If you meant that his explanation of the conditions was a lie and if his conditions were proven to be false (having someone attempt to recreate it in Photoshop should show whether or not that's the case), then you'd be correct.
 
Luminous, I can't believe I didn't realize this before but it just became apparent to me who you are. You are David Thomas King of the NESRA bigfoot research organization on the BFF, DTK on the MABRC, AKA Kerry D Anderholm. I'm right, aren't I? It's not a big deal but as I and others have said before it is often the personalities of the bigfoot phenomenom that are as interesting as the subject itself. I think it's fair to say you are heavily involved in the phenomenom. I've actually been familiar with your posts for a few years now.I can understand why you wouldn't post at the BFF now. Did the destroyed beaver dam debacle contribute?

You wrote this, right?:

http://aibi.gospelcom.net/articles/bewarmen.htm

Are you an atheist now or still a pastor?

Anyway, as I said, it's no big deal. As William Parcher mentioned before, it is interesting figuring out which bigfooter is who when they come here. Also it does put in perspective much of what you've said or commented on (bigfoot sea to sea, for example). BTW, I wasn't quite sure until I had seen this discussion at the MABRC.

Regarding your current line of pursuit concerning this debris, I think you are quite mistaken but I look forward to any evidence you present supporting it.

He was with NESRA for a while, is currently with the MABRC. I don't know where he is now claiming being an atheist but I didn't see his "I hate religion" post.

Interesting...
 
Ding dong. Doorbell. Are you a student of the PGF and have been wondering where Perfectfoot came from? Things just got interesting for you. The new Meldrum paper had a caption for three PGF still frames that reads:

FIGURE 5. Three cropped frames from the Patterson-Gimlin film clip. Note in particular the entire length of the plantar surface of the foot visible at left; the dorsiflexion of toes visible at center; the midfoot flexibility visible at right (courtesy of Erik and Martin Dahinden).

Is a Dahinden Cibachrome the only source to arrive at Perfectfoot? You can see these three frames on page 4 of Meldrum's paper.

Rick Noll on BFF said:
There is only one picture in the public domain (Parcher: this is frame 352). Eric Dahinden has his fathers rights to 12 different images and the rest belong to Patricia Patterson.

In Meldrum's first paper on Bigfoot tracks, he attributes the copyright of Perfectfoot to Roger Patterson.

So did Eric Dahinden give Meldrum a copy of his Perfectfoot Cibachrome to use in this new paper?
 
Bigfoot, ANE, and Mormons

I found an interesting letter dated Jan. 31, 2004 on this Mormon website. It makes mention of ANE (The company being based in Salt Lake City is the only "Mormon" connection that I can see) and a claimed encounter with Cain (described as a hair-covered man) by an early supporter of the Mormon faith. They don't give a name, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was sent in by Kal Korff. This certainly wouldn't be the first time someone tried connecting Cain to Bigfoot, either (Remember, Grendel was described as a descendent of Cain).

Perhaps Korff got ANE mixed up with Sunn Classic Pictures? They're described as being a Mormon company on these sites and some of the people who worked for them were Mormons. I should note that Paramount apparently has the rights to the Sunn Classic catalog, so anyone who wants a restored DVD release of "The Mysterious Monsters" should contact them.

As for ANE, here are some interesting sites that I found that make note of them.

During my search for the above information, I remembered a rumor I had once heard about the movie "Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot" (not to be confused with Ivan Marx's "The Legend of Bigfoot") was based on Roger Patterson's idea for a movie. I couldn't find where I had read that, but I did find a review of the movie that noted an Indian tracking guide. Obviously, that's hardly proof of a connection; I just found it interesting.

Then I found this interview of sorts with one of the film's writers (and executive producer) Ron Olson, who is the son of someone connected to ANE and who helped build that infamous"Bigfoot trap". In it, he notes that:

"It all began back in the summer of 1968, when Olson, who was then distributing wildlife films, met a fellow named Roger Patterson. Bigfoot buffs will know Patterson, who later died from cancer, as the fellow who shot film footage of an alleged Sasquatch along Bluff Creek, Calif., in October 1967. Bluff Creek flows into the Klamath River about 50 miles south of Happy Camp.

"Roger had been looking for it for a long time," Olson recalls. "I met up with him and talked about doing a movie. But we needed more data information."

So maybe there's some truth to the rumor after all...

I also found an (undated) interview with the film's director, Ed Raggozino. On pages 2-3 of the interview, we get the following (bolding by me):

BijouFlix: ...There are rumors that John Chambers the special effects make-up artist may have used an old LOST IN SPACE ape suit with a new head and worked with Roger Patterson to stage the famed 16mm footage as a hoax. Were you ever aware of such rumors?

Ed Raggozino: The truth is, that the costume is better than the actor who wore it.

And then the interviewer continues on to another question without pursuing the matter. What the hell?
 
Korff and Heironimus are now making themselves available to inquiries on live Internet radio. Anybody could ask Korff for his source on ANE info. Bob Gimlin won't answer questions. I wonder if he will show up at any more Bigfooter conferences.

We might be seeing a shoot-out to the deathbed. Ole Gimlin still says Patty was a Bigfoot, and wasn't Bob Heironimus. Ole Bob still says it was him and that Gimlin helped him put on the costume at Bluff Creek. Time marches on to see if one of these guys will break and admit their personal fabrications. They can't both be telling the truth. Fox News will have microphones by their death bedsides in case either of them wants to clear the cultural fog. One of you please tell us the truth before you die. We would like to hear an "I'm sorry" before you go. It would mean so much to the living. One of you guys must be able to apologize, because we know that one of you is not keeping the truth. You see, lots of folks are running around saying that the PGF is real and that Bigfoot exists. Lots of other folks are running around saying that Patty is a guy in a suit. Please let us all know before you go away forever.
 
Return of The Hand


This will not come as a surprise to most of you but I believe what we see is simply the rotation of the wrist and movement of the body. This film is a good example of what happens when a film is pushed beyond its resolving power. IMO the “experts” toasted this copy of the film when they color corrected, their contrast adjustments suck as well. All I see here is light and shadows creating shapes and forms.


My hand was shot at 16fps yes I was standing still and was close to the camera. When an image changes shape and these different shapes are captured on film you will see it regardless of distance, as long as the film has recorded it, it’s there.

These two photos are 10 frames apart. I set the opacity to 32 percent on the overlays, blurred them 2.9 pixels and burnt where the shadows are in the originals. You can clearly see that the shape of my hand/fingers lines up fairly well. What’s referred to, as “the bend”, is simply the next digit. No, it’s not lined up perfect nor am I going to go to that much trouble. I’m satisfied that this could certainly be what we see.



m


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom