The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

[EnolaGaia]

... Another thing, is that assuming they'd taken the film sometime previously, the hypothetical phone conversation between Patterson and DeAtley, might have contained confirmation from DeAtley, that the film had been developed, was back in his possession, he'd seen it, and it passed muster. So they, P&G should go ahead with their charade to establish a time.

Yep - that's what I was driving at in my remarks about the conversation being reversed from the usual account.

... I had toyed with the idea that DeAtley had decided to push ahead for some reason leaving P&G running around like headless chickens. But I find your version of events far more convincing and a very plausible reason for the scramble that followed.

Thanks!

If you push back the actual filming timeframe, everything else seems to fall into place - at least without any of the major issues that make the traditional account less than believable at face value.

 

[oldrover]

If you push back the actual filming timeframe, everything else seems to fall into place - at least without any of the major issues that make the traditional account less than believable at face value.

It does. And I'd like to see a proper investigation to prove that it, by implication of there not being a lab capable of developing it so fast. And by a neutral party, free of the sort of confirmation bias that I suspect may be present in Long's book.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I may be wrong, but in the Gimlin interview a few posts back, he seems to suggest they'd been there for quite a while longer than a week or so. ...

I don't recall which interview(s) or with whom, but more than once Gimlin's phrased things so as to suggest they'd been there a lot longer than the standard account (or at least the newspaper article) claimed.

Not sure on the source, but I recall one interview in which Gimlin emphasized the trip as being a response to the most recent discovery of tracks in the area - circa August 28(?), and his description of the push to make the trip didn't make much sense unless he was talking about a delay of 1 - 3 weeks rather than something more like 7 weeks.

There are two versions of the speculation to explain these occasional anomalies ... One has it that there was a single trip lasting much longer than a single week (Oct. 14 - 21), quite possible spanning late September through the admitted timeframe. The other postulates there were 2 trips - one more or less in September, and the second spanning the traditional account's timeframe.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... And this has always been my belief, although I didn't realise there was a supposed two to three week turnaround. ...

That was the cited typical maximum turnaround time nationally / overall. Actual turnaround time probably varied with the amount of film pending at any given time. There was probably a way to pay more and get 'rush' processing, but I doubt the overall turnaround time with mailing both ways could be reduced to less than a week.

I shot a lot of Kodachrome slides during a photography binge in the 1970's, and I seem to recall the usual turnaround time was at least 1 - 2 weeks.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Although, I've never heard it argued that the man in the bulk of the film wasn't Gimlin ...

I've always had the reverse impression - i.e., that Gimlin wasn't the most likely candidate to have served as 'the man in the suit'.

This is why I found it so easy to generate an interpretation under which he may have been 'played' as a trusted companion, source of transportation for both men and horses, and a conveniently naive observer who could be marketed as a credible witness.

Multiple folks have claimed to have been 'the man in the suit', of whom Bob Heironimus is the best known. If I recall correctly, he was also the first one to make the claim.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... unless, the majority of it was filmed elsewhere, there are no distinguishing features as I recall in the landscape. ...

The exact location of the filmings (the sighting; the footprint casting) is something that I don't recall ever being definitively confirmed or refuted. It's a wooded area adjacent to a creek / creek bed. It could be anywhere in the region. It could even have been back home in Washington (and some P & G critics have pushed this idea).

Multiple folks have filmed simulations / re-creations of the P & G scene, alleging it was done at the same exact spot.

I've never seriously looked into the validity of such claims or gone looking for convincing refutations of them.

 

[oldrover]

I've always had the reverse impression - i.e., that Gimlin wasn't the most likely candidate to have served as 'the man in the suit'.

Just reading through, but wanted to address this, I don't mean the man in the suit, but the man on the earlier part of the film prior to the 'Patty' footage. As in the section before which just shows them riding around through the woods the rest of film 1.

 

[oldrover]

The exact location of the filmings (the sighting; the footprint casting) is something that I don't recall ever being definitively confirmed or refuted. It's a wooded area adjacent to a creek / creek bed. It could be anywhere in the region. It could even have been back home in Washington (and some P & G critics have pushed this idea).

Multiple folks have filmed simulations / re-creations of the P & G scene, alleging it was done at the same exact spot.

I've never seriously looked into the validity of such claims or gone looking for convincing refutations of them.

Again, my memory fails me as to names, but the PG footprints were photographed shortly afterwards by some reasonable third party. If they'd been placed anywhere other than the location they'd have been taking a hell of a chance.

I'd always been under the impression though, that the site was visited and photographed etc shortly afterward, and that it was known.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Just reading through, but wanted to address this, I don't mean the man in the suit, but the man on the earlier part of the film prior to the 'Patty' footage. As in the section before which just shows them riding around through the woods the rest of film 1.

Oh ... OK ... I thought you were referring to the man in the suit ... Sorry ...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Again, my memory fails me as to names, but the PG footprints were photographed shortly afterwards by some reasonable third party. If they'd been placed anywhere other than the location they'd have been taking a hell of a chance. ... .

Yes - footprints were observed at Bluff Creek after P & G reported the sighting.

That doesn't necessarily prove the footprints subsequently found were created by the figure in the sighting film. I'm not even sure there are sufficient visible details to cross-compare so as to demonstrate the Patterson track casting segment occurred at the same location as the sighting film.

The sighting film is shot from a vantage point looking across the stream bed, at a distance (i.e., a wide field of view).

The track casting film is shot from a vantage point looking up along the stream bed, close in and tightly framed.

I'd always been under the impression though, that the site was visited and photographed etc shortly afterward, and that it was known.

The alleged location has ostensibly been re-visited multiple times over the years.

My point was that I don't recall anyone clearly demonstrating this alleged location definitely matches the location seen in the sighting and / or the track casting film segments.

More evidence for the exact location would be expected to be on the circa 70-some feet (out of 100?) of film on the first (sighting) reel, on which Patterson was supposedly shooting some background / scene-setting shots on October 20.

However, that's the portion of the first reel that was rarely if ever screened. As I can recall, DeAtley skipped directly to the final (sighting) film segment when screening it at his house on October 22.

 

[oldrover]

Yes - footprints were observed at Bluff Creek after P & G reported the sighting.

That doesn't necessarily prove the footprints subsequently found were created by the figure in the sighting film. I'm not even sure there are sufficient visible details to cross-compare so as to demonstrate the Patterson track casting segment occurred at the same location as the sighting film.

The sighting film is shot from a vantage point looking across the stream bed, at a distance (i.e., a wide field of view).

The track casting film is shot from a vantage point looking up along the stream bed, close in and tightly framed.

I think the only thing that connects the figure and the prints is that they both hoaxed by P&G, though not on the same day but probably at the same place. That I think it more likely that they were both done in the same place is because I think that had someone decided to check it out there and then, and found that they couldn't have found a view corresponding to the prints that matched the film the hoaxers would have been in trouble. I think that faking the track is most probably what they really spent Friday afternoon doing, after the work crew left the area, but knowing they'd be back after the weekend. And why if I recall correctly the second reel was never screened, again I think that's because, as with the first reel if they really had filmed it on that day too, they couldn't have had it processed in time.

It's also a possible reason why they chose that spot, as it allowed them to provide fakey substantiating evidence, which was visible to others. As I recall though, the non bigfoot men (a work crew?) were less than impressed anyway.

More evidence for the exact location would be expected to be on the circa 70-some feet (out of 100?) of film on the first (sighting) reel, on which Patterson was supposedly shooting some background / scene-setting shots on October 20.

However, that's the portion of the first reel that was rarely if ever screened. As I can recall, DeAtley skipped directly to the final (sighting) film segment when screening it at his house on October 22.

I haven't seen it for a couple of months, but as I remember the first part of reel 1 it was just them riding through fairly nondescript woodland and I don't recall there being anything on it which was particularly noteworthy, although I do recall there was a rock face which was fairly distinctive. But that may actually have been from any one of many of shots of men in hats on horses in S W Tasmania I've seen recently, I might just be getting confused.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I haven't seen it for a couple of months, but as I remember the first part of reel 1 it was just them riding through fairly nondescript woodland and I don't recall there being anything on it which was particularly noteworthy, although I do recall there was a rock face which was fairly distinctive. But that may actually have been from any one of many of shots of men in hats on horses in S W Tasmania I've seen recently, I might just be getting confused.

Some sources explain the initial 70-some feet of footage on reel 1 by saying Patterson was collecting background or scene-setting footage intended to be used for either his already-in-progress (?) documentary project or perhaps a separate film focused on the recent (August) tracks find.

To the extent I've seen images from this earliest portion of reel 1, the foliage status (e.g., summer-ish versus autumn-ish) seems consistent with the sighting footage. My point is that if reel 1 was already in the camera, left over from some earlier filming, it's not obviously from back when summer was in effect.

There are two arguably minor items that bug me about Patterson shooting the environmental footage on Friday.

The first is wondering why Patterson waited 6 days (per the standard account) to get any such background footage. He could have been gathering it (and getting re-familiarized with working the camera) prior to the Friday sortie. The Friday sortie wasn't their first outing. I mention this because of the second bug-me issue ...

It was risky (or at least not especially bright ... ) for Patterson to head out on Friday carrying a loaded camera in case he encountered something significant, only to essentially squander 70% of the potentially critical film stock illustrating the woods.

On the other hand ... Nonchalantly shooting some background footage would have contributed to making the eventual reel 1 contents seem like a chance encounter - perhaps for the benefit of a Gimlin being groomed as a naive corroborating witness.

Another speculative angle would be that gathering the environmental footage was a goal - adding more of a realistic wrapper around an already-filmed encounter. A variant on this theme would be that new background footage was needed because extant footage obviously indicated a different locale or different time of year.

I would also point out that leaving only about a minute's worth of film afforded Patterson a ready excuse for breaking off an encounter that wasn't going as expected / desired.

 

[oldrover]

Some sources explain the initial 70-some feet of footage on reel 1 by saying Patterson was collecting background or scene-setting footage intended to be used for either his already-in-progress (?) documentary project or perhaps a separate film focused on the recent (August) tracks find.

To the extent I've seen images from this earliest portion of reel 1, the foliage status (e.g., summer-ish versus autumn-ish) seems consistent with the sighting footage. My point is that if reel 1 was already in the camera, left over from some earlier filming, it's not obviously from back when summer was in effect.

The whole of reel 1 is linked on this thread, somewhere. Although where exactly is bookend me. Again though going by memory, it's more like a home movie from a trip than anything else.

I listened to the interview again, Gimlin said that he couldn't swear what day they arrived at the Bluff Creek area, but that it was either, the last few days of October, or the first day of November. So weeks before the date presumably given by Patterson. But of course, Gimlin is talking decades after the event,longer than my lifetime, and I can't remember details of the things I did a decade or so ago. I think though, that he gives a pretty consistent timeline of what led up to their trip. Citing Labour Day Weekend, September the 4th in 1967, as being the starting point for the events, so it does seem plausible that his recollections were accurate.

It was risky (or at least not especially bright ... ) for Patterson to head out on Friday carrying a loaded camera in case he encountered something significant, only to essentially squander 70% of the potentially critical film stock illustrating the woods.

Indeed, what were they doing, scouting locations (badly) or looking for bigfoot. The crux of their story was that they were doing the latter, so why use half your film shooting 'Bob on his horse', 'Bob on his horse again', 'Bob...?

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I listened to the interview again, Gimlin said that he couldn't swear what day they arrived at the Bluff Creek area, but that it was either, the last few days of October, or the first day of November. ...

??? ... Did you mean "the last few days of September, or the first day of October" ?

 

[oldrover]

??? ... Did you mean "the last few days of September, or the first day of October" ?

Oh yeah, September to October it was. I'm not fully awake yet.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I can think of another good reason why Patterson may have needed to capture some background footage on October 20.

An arrest warrant (for grand larceny) was issued for him on October 17, for having not returned the camera he'd rented in mid-May.

The warrant was not formally served upon, nor acknowledged (via signature) by, Patterson until he appeared in court on November 28.

If DeAtley had gotten wind of the warrant and been in touch with Patterson earlier in the focal week (e.g., via a phone contact from somewhere other than Hodgson's store), that could have ignited a rush to film whatever he needed and get back to Yakima.

Alternatively, DeAtley could have advised Patterson of the warrant (and / or chewed out his problematical brother-in-law about it ... ) in their phone contact late on Friday the 20th, and this served as the motivation for changing the plan and leaving the next morning.

 

[Cynical Apathist]

In investigative interviews, the interviewee is asked repeatedly to tell the story again and again. This is not to anger the subject, but each recounting changes slightly. If he is telling the truth, the key elements of the story will not change with additional details added each time as recall is enhanced. A false story will either never change, remaining identical verbatim (meaning rehearsed) or the key elements change.

With the PG film, the basic timeline and key elements keep changing over time. This suggests falsehoods in the story.

 

[oldrover]

I can think of another good reason why Patterson may have needed to capture some background footage on October 20.

An arrest warrant (for grand larceny) was issued for him on October 17, for having not returned the camera he'd rented in mid-May.

The warrant was not formally served upon, nor acknowledged (via signature) by, Patterson until he appeared in court on November 28.

If DeAtley had gotten wind of the warrant and been in touch with Patterson earlier in the focal week (e.g., via a phone contact from somewhere other than Hodgson's store), that could have ignited a rush to film whatever he needed and get back to Yakima.

Alternatively, DeAtley could have advised Patterson of the warrant (and / or chewed out his problematical brother-in-law about it ... ) in their phone contact late on Friday the 20th, and this served as the motivation for changing the plan and leaving the next morning.

Now that's a good point.

 

[oldrover]

In investigative interviews, the interviewee is asked repeatedly to tell the story again and again. This is not to anger the subject, but each recounting changes slightly. If he is telling the truth, the key elements of the story will not change with additional details added each time as recall is enhanced. A false story will either never change, remaining identical verbatim (meaning rehearsed) or the key elements change.

With the PG film, the basic timeline and key elements keep changing over time. This suggests falsehoods in the story.

What an interesting comment, do you have any experience of this sort of thing, if so I'd like to ask you a few questions.

 

[oldrover]

Alternatively, DeAtley could have advised Patterson of the warrant (and / or chewed out his problematical brother-in-law about it ... ) in their phone contact late on Friday the 20th, and this served as the motivation for changing the plan and leaving the next morning.

Personally, as I agree that the film was taken a lot earlier,I think that it was probably, 'we're going to loose the camera soon, it's time to do it now', sort of a thing.

 

[hopkarma]

Exactly ... One of the most relevant factoids in all this - one that's been conveniently obscured over the decades - is that they went out into the woods to make a documentary about the Sasquatch phenomenon.

How were they going to create a marketable film without illustrating a Sasquatch? And how were they intending to illustrate a Sasquatch without a suit or some sort of model?

I have seen several documentaries on the Loch Ness Monster, and none of them have used fake monsters. They all feature photos and films claimed by others to be of the subject at hand, as well as interviews with eye witnesses/experts/skpetics. A fake cryptid is not necessary for a good documentary...

 

[Swifty]

I have seen several documentaries on the Loch Ness Monster, and none of them have used fake monsters. They all feature photos and films claimed by others to be of the subject at hand, as well as interviews with eye witnesses/experts/skpetics. A fake cryptid is not necessary for a good documentary...

To be fair though, a full sized believable Loch Ness Monster would be a lot harder to build and fake than a life sized Sasquatch but I agree with your other point.

 

[hopkarma]

That's one of the things that made me wonder, yet I recall an interview with Gimlin sometime in the 90's when he said something along the lines of, 'if it was a man in a suit he was taking a huge risk because if he'd turned toward me I'd have shot him'. But then I don't believe he was in the dark so that doesn't convince me.

Gimlin did though seem to be hinting that he wasn't as convinced as he had been in the Chris Packham interview. When he said that back then he was sure no one could get the better of him, but now he wasn't too sure.

But, for Patterson to pre-arrange a meeting with Patty in the middle of a forest and ensure that he and Gimlin were in the right place to get a good, but not too good a shot of the thing, is to me a bit far fetched. I think for that reason if nothing else he would have to have been in on it.

I grant you though, it's strange.

The pre-arranged scenario just does not make sense. There were no cell phones then; someone would have to have gotten to the site, put on the costume, and then waited - maybe for hours - for Patterson and Gimlin to show up. I think this theory can be crossed off the list...

 

[hopkarma]

M K Davis says he'll be publishing more videos for the 50th anniversary of the PG film.

This one, a couple of days ago. It's slow going but well worth watching for insights into why frame 352, the 'head-turning shot', was manipulated due to copyright reasons. According to him, fingers were added to the right hand and the mouth altered.

Very slow going indeed, but Davis has some interesting points. But why didn't he do his color adjustment on the "doctored" 352/

 

[oldrover]

The pre-arranged scenario just does not make sense. There were no cell phones then; someone would have to have gotten to the site, put on the costume, and then waited - maybe for hours - for Patterson and Gimlin to show up. I think this theory can be crossed off the list...

Hi hopharma, and welcome to the FT, and this discussion. As I said in the quoted section, I think it's a non starter too.

I have seen several documentaries on the Loch Ness Monster, and none of them have used fake monsters. They all feature photos and films claimed by others to be of the subject at hand, as well as interviews with eye witnesses/experts/skpetics. A fake cryptid is not necessary for a good documentary...

Here though I disagree. Of course the sort of documentaries I think you mean there (if I'm right, the sort I like) don't need a fake monster, but that's not what Patterson was making. He was making a drama-documentary, featuring reconstructions of famous accounts, significantly the Ostman case, for the big screen. You needed a monster for that.

 

[hopkarma]

At first consideration I doubt it, firstly if it was camouflage, from what? It's eight feet tall, although I can't imagine a potential Sasquatch winning in a fight with a grizzly...

If they exist they are not all eight feet tall; that would just be a full grown adult. But a young sasquatch would be smaller; obviously very small when very young. A non-aggressive species that does not move fast or fight well might very well benefit from some camouflage...

 

[hopkarma]

One aspect of this film seems to be being ignored here though by all of us, the footprints. Scroll down a bit here

http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/footprint-cast-gallery.html

The plausibility of these prints directly impacts on both the credibility of the film, and has a bearing on whether if it was a hoax, Gimlin was involved.

Agreed, and Patterson's right foot cast matches up quite nicely with the cast by Titmus shown second in the bottom row. As for the others - Titmus made his casts nine days later. Did it rain during those nine days? If it did, how much, over how many days?

On the other hand, none of these casts show the "splayed toes" that Meldrum sees as an identifier of Sasquatch...

 

[hopkarma]

This is completely backwards from what Long (p. 177) relates from Hodgson ...

Why is anyone putting any credence into what Long says? I read the beginning of his book, and it is absurd. He is no qualms about making up anything and everything. The amount of detail he has invented is astounding - he is providing the inner thoughts of P and G as if he was there with them, or even one of them. If much of the "information" to be found here that is new/news to me (yes, I am new here, and reading as much as possible to catch up with the group) has Long as its source I doubt it very much...

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Did it rain during those nine days? If it did, how much, over how many days? ...

Yes ... It began raining heavily the morning following the alleged sighting / filming (Saturday). The standard story is that Gimlin traveled back to the site to cover the tracks in the hope of preventing their getting washed away, and Titmus (days later) found the tracks Gimlin had covered.

 

[oldrover]

This is completely backwards from what Long (p. 177) relates from Hodgson ...

Why is anyone putting any credence into what Long says? I read the beginning of his book, and it is absurd. He is no qualms about making up anything and everything. The amount of detail he has invented is astounding - he is providing the inner thoughts of P and G as if he was there with them, or even one of them. If much of the "information" to be found here that is new/news to me (yes, I am new here, and reading as much as possible to catch up with the group) has Long as its source I doubt it very much...

Fair enough, I'm not happy about Long either. It's a secondary source and my experience elsewhere teaches me to very cautious about that.

When we were discussing this back in the summer I restricted myself to first hand accounts for the most part.