Druk
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2023
- Messages
- 1,209
Thunderbirds?hopkarma is getting reality and fiction mixed upScott Tracy:
View attachment 85574

Thunderbirds?hopkarma is getting reality and fiction mixed upScott Tracy:
View attachment 85574
The full frame stills are very interesting.A very interesting report on this film, with the author using precise measurements, from 2017. He claims that "the suggestion that this is merely an average man(70 inches tall) in a fur suit is untenable".
THE PATTERSON/GIMLIN FILM – SOME NOTEWORTHY INSIGHTS
https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/brief-communications/Murphy_PGFilmInsights.pdf
I did not love the narrator, but Meldrum's toe flex analysis to a solid debunking of the claims in Long's novel, he covered a lot in a short amount of time.Another interesting take.
Have you actually looked any of the tracks? If so, then you know that they all are different and many display spread toes.Look. There’s clearly a nap in the fabric creating a clear light differentiation across the shoulders at the back. This would happen if someone was mirroring a fold of fabric across a seam in a costume as opposed to a natural fur occuring across the body.
View attachment 81518
Plus. The casts in a dry creek river bed and many of these Bigfoot don’t display splayed toes in their tracks like you’d expect from an animal that never wore shoes.
What he said...Agree with you as regards the noise so many Bigfooters make, even in the better documentaries such as Small Town Monsters produce. They rock up in 4x4s, chatter, light fires, knock on trees, shine torches... Very few of them seem prepared to hike in on foot or by horse as Patterson and Gimlin did and if there are Bigfoot-type creatures they will have heard and smelt these humans long before they had unpacked their thermal imaging cameras
Personally I find myself flip-flopping between excited believer and mildly skeptical on this one, although it amuses me how often the footage is dismissed as hoax by skeptics (eg Metabunk) without proving how it was hoaxed.
I've long given shout-outs to Justin Chernipeski - he approaches the whole thing as a wildlife photographer, ie quietly, patiently and almost meditatively. His documentaries (available on Prime) are well worth a watch.What he said...
The loudness of Bluff Creek itself, in this and other videos like this one, is striking.The location of the Patterson-Gimlin film is not so remote, at least anymore, it's close to a maintained dirt road:
https://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_22.html
"From the parking area at the berm the film site is a short 30-45 minute walk. It is suitable and safe for families and children but not recommended for people who people who have bad knees or trouble walking. We have had 400lb people hike down and back fine, as well as people in their 80s. The greatest risk is slipping and rolling your ankle. "
Driving and hiking to the location (they reach the spot at around 16 minutes into the video)
Required Listening.In the same vein, here is a 1967 interview with the two men:
"Todd from The Sasquatch Archives posted this interview but the audio was so bad I cleaned it up and reposted it. Todd posts some cool archive content. Check out his channel here/ thesasquatcharchives On October 26, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were interviewed on radio by Jack Webster in Vancouver, following the showing of the Patterson-Gimlin film at the University of British Columbia that same evening. Fortunately, John Green had a copy of the interview in his cassette tape collection. He graciously permitted me to make a copy of the recording and all of his other cassette recordings as well. These will later be added to this channel.Until now, and after a long 53 years, the interview had not been made public."
About the interviewer:
"Webster was an old school newsman who didn't put up with anyone who he sussed out as a liar or a fake. He won many awards for journalism and was considered a totally solid reporter by any standard. Webster had a style of interviewing, shotgun style, repeating the same question, slightly changed coming from different angles, that would confuse the person being interviewed and illuminate any comments that appeared to be untruths. This interview took place in BC a week or so after the encounter was filmed so the recall of the event should have been as clear as possible given the unbelievable circumstance of the events. Wikipedia has a good bio on Jack Webster reporter (Glasgow - Vancouver)."
[from the comments]
Dr Meldrum videos are Required Viewing...I liked this talk by Jeff Meldrum a lot. He talks about how anthropological theory around the time of the film could not have allowed for relict hominids. But actually things have changed since then. And he talks about foot casts and how they have a feature (across continents) which we do not have and which would be likely and which fit in with how the foot of the PGF creature moves.
Everything you have written is demonstrably incorrect...I don’t to rehash all the evidence we’ve raked over here so I’ll be brief.
The previous historic record of large primates in North America is very, very thin…
View attachment 72926
Patterson was desperately trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot movie for which he had previously done a concept illustration depicting a female Bigfoot with an oddly human breast shape.
Logging activity in the area revealed large footprints that raised Patterson’s interest were themselves revealed to be faked.
For me, the costume shows clear joins across the waist, which seems to rotate almost independently of the lower half. Here seems to be a visible difference of the nap of the fabric on the back. This would indicate the fibres aren’t stitched together with a natural symmetry in mind.
AI stabilisation shows a more human walk.
And for those who make a lot of rippling muscle detail, this thing doesn’t have an ass. (I’m not about being put on a watchlist for a search history of monkey’s bottoms) And see what I mean about the nap of the fabric on the shoulders? The waist seam join overlap also visible here.
View attachment 72927
I’m in among the unconvinced lot, I’m afraid.
Really?Everything you have written is demonstrably incorrect...
Click the "watch on youtube" link...Video has been disabled...?
This is not relevant...Not wishing to retread old ground with my size 29 boots,
Patterson was working on a bigfoot movie. He drew artwork of a female Bigfoot before he ever took a trip out to the woods with a camera in his hand.
View attachment 72896
First point in incorrect - Patterson was not desperately trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot movie. Is this from Long's novel? Disregard anything Long writes or says.Really?
The first point is correct although future finds may change things.
The second is correct, Patterson's drawings are reproduced up forum.
The third is correct.
The other points are @Analogue Boy s views on the validity of the costume and gait and really what most of the debate is about.
Always have time to listen to the defenders of Patterson & Gimlin, after all, whilst people have strong opinions and despite the best efforts of TV production crews, no-one has conclusively proven it was a hoax. Personally, I have my doubts, especially around how, when and where the film was processed, but I am willing to be persuadedFirst point in incorrect - Patterson was not desperately trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot movie. Is this from Long's novel? Disregard anything Long writes or says.
Second point incorrect - His drawings had nothing to do with a film; Patterson wrote books about Sasquatch. This drawing is from one of his books, and is based on a drawing by Mort Kunstler. Again - it has nothing to do with the PGF.
Notice that the images posted by Analogue Tracy even state that they depict the Roe's descriptions, not a Patterson fantasy.
The idea of Patterson's film was to recount - not recreate - Sasquatch stories. Note that the PGF does not recreate any aspect of the Roe story.
Third point very incorrect. Please. Have you seen the Crew cast compared to the Wallace stompers? Very, very, incorrect.
No ass? Please. Two very muscular glutes are staring you in the face, and in motion they are perfect. Analogue Tracy needs to spend some time with Dr Meldrum.
Just a side note - I used to play here a few years ago, but my computer crashed shortly after I found this forum thru FT. By a FT worthy coincidence, I stumbled upon this site again just as my partner went in for hip surgery late last year, so I decided to start in the present and read my way backwards until I caught up with myself.
So I am not checking/responding to alerts, unless I scroll upon them as I did this one, as I'd never actually get to read all this fascinating old stuff if I did.
So it is not that I am shying away from my comments, or ignoring anyone...
Fun to see this again, but it does not really match Stu Neville's apparently description of this episode in his Patty At 50 piece.Now available on YouTube:
It includes an interview with Gimlin (or might be Patterson, will need to check) and he makes some interesting comments as regards height and appearance.
In fact, working my way through all these episodes for the first time in many years and I am struck by how many of the famous paranormal witnesses of yesteryear - whose names we still mention on this forum - were interviewed in person and often on location
Originals of Patterson's show up for sale from time to time, but usually kinda pricey.Always have time to listen to the defenders of Patterson & Gimlin, after all, whilst people have strong opinions and despite the best efforts of TV production crews, no-one has conclusively proven it was a hoax. Personally, I have my doubts, especially around how, when and where the film was processed, but I am willing to be persuaded
Are any of Patterson's books still in print or available on t'internet?
Luddite can't figure out how to make a new post, only reply! So I'll leave it here...Always have time to listen to the defenders of Patterson & Gimlin, after all, whilst people have strong opinions and despite the best efforts of TV production crews, no-one has conclusively proven it was a hoax. Personally, I have my doubts, especially around how, when and where the film was processed, but I am willing to be persuaded
Are any of Patterson's books still in print or available on t'internet?
A LONG intro; it really starts around 11:00.Jeff Glickman—Forensic Examination of the Patterson-Gimlin Film
Probably derived from Patterson...Patty could be short for Patricia.
A guy named Bob Heironimus claims he wore the suit.Over the years opinion was this Bigfoot was 6 and 1/2 to 7 and 1/2 feet.
If this was a hoax, who was in this tall costume ?
Here is a link to Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal. Site maps and photos; history of the filming, as well as events before and after. A great read, and one you will go back to...https://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/bf_film_journal_ebook_25_feb_2013_s.pdf@hopkarma Is there are time-line of the events written down anywhere online?
Indeed but I was just offering a feminine way to think of the name to a poster who thinks of it as male.Probably derived from Patterson...
They may very well pick a lot of fruit - Patty's got to eat something.On what basis do you confidently assert that they are not habitual tool users?
Walking on two legs rather than 4 is a disadvantage in many ways. 4 legged animals are faster and more stable. That's why most large animals, whether predator or prey species, move on 4 legs. A creature would only evolve to walk on two legs if it made a substantial gain elsewhere to offset the disadvantage.
Why would an animal use only use 2 legs? Birds or bats do it to release their upper limbs for flight. Apes and monkeys are capable of walking on two legs and can use their hands for climbing, picking fruit, carrying things, grooming, etc. However, most of the time, they move on 4 legs.
Bears can stand on their back legs either to appear more threatening, or to reach things, or to observe something in the distance, but they habitually move on 4 legs.
Bigfoot, being heavily built and substantially over 6 feet tall is not optimised for climbing (or flight!) and they would only be expected to spend a small amount of time picking fruit, carrying things, or grooming each other, yet they are (nearly?) always reported as walking upright on 2 legs.
So why does Bigfoot walk on 2 legs? The most likely explanation would be habitual tool use.
Tool use is not restricted to humans. Simple tools are used by many creatures, and there are even several that carefully choose stones, and modify sticks, to use them as tools.
My conclusion would be that if Bigfoot is a real flesh and blood bipedal mammal, then it is an habitual user of at least simple tools.
we can prove it is NOT a human in a suit though...