Patterson BF Film Proven to be a HOAX?!

[Christopher O'Brien]

The Patterson Gimlin Film [a] Hoax [?]
Article HERE:
[Somebody! Please, say it ain't so! ---chris]

What you think, what you know, and what you can prove are often very different scenarios as I was recently reminded by a colleague. This is especially true when concerning the Patterson Gimlin film of an alleged sasquatch/bigfoot. On October 20th 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured film of a sasquatch and documented part of its trackway along with making plaster casts of the imprints left by the film subject.

I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting a track there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting. There is not. During the footage showing 4 impressions there is now a footprint present past the one Patterson was casting previously. The ground in the footage of Patterson making the cast shows flat mud and no impression. (no following track present!) I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression. (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)

It is not coincidence that Krantz documents Pattersons actions just by wild chance.

on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:​

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'​

Krantz's documentation of this also places Patterson making fake tracks at Bluff Creek, and making a film of it. The case of the missing print. How ironic is it that Patterson filmed proof of his own hoax?

 

[mike]

Australian aboriginal trackers are reported to have said this about the yowie, that the tracks just stop in a manner unlike any other animal they track, its as if they disapeared into thin air.
Iirc native americans say something similar about sasquatch tracks

 

[Xylo]

You know, there's so much anecdotal evidence of bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti and all the other names that they're called, it would be a shame if they didn't really exist. As to what they are exactly: I have no clue. There are cases of them completely disappearing, they're hard to photograph even to the extent of hiding from trail cams.... I think that the mystery of the unknown hominid is a hard one to unravel.

What confuses me the most is that for a very long time the sightings, if I recall correctly, were mostly relegated to the Pacific Northwest...but now there are sightings all over the country, reports from pretty populated areas as well. So are they migrating? Where are they going to? Why?

As for the DNA evidence...from what i've heard it comes back as "unknown primate." If that is the case, then have the researchers correlated the DNA profiles and established a "known unknown" profile for this particular primate? If the profiles match, or are close to matching, then couldn't that be considered proof that there is a population of unknown primates in North America?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And your nose to the grindstone?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

And your nose to the grindstone?

...and your ear to the ground (or at least the Paracast)

 

[mike]

Some interesting stuff here

http://www.strangeark.com/craig/MMPapers_Aust.pdf

High Strangeness” in Yowie Reports pg64


Investigating Cryptic Hominids (Yowies) in the
Blue Mountains of New South Wales Page 52

 

[John Price]

Based on the picture, the cast shown is of a LEFT foot. If Sasquatch is bipedal like we humans are, then the "missing" footprint should be UP and to the RIGHT of the print shown in the pic. We can't see where the next footprint would be because the right side of the picture is blocked by someone or something. This picture proves nothing. BTW, I love the Paracast (having recently discovered it and listening to many episodes via the BeyondPod app on my Android phone).

 

[Snidely Whiplash]

Perhaps he was hoping around for joy because he found an exceptional skunk gland for his mate. Bigfoot females love perfume too.

 

[John Price]

That's funny, LOL....I don't remember the guest's name, but just about everything he said was a bunch 'o bullc**p. I think he jumped the shark when he started talking about skunk glands being the cause of BF's musky smell.....Really? Could it be that living in the woods (sans shower) could also cause a "skunky" smell? Yikes.

 

[trainedobserver]

Could it be that living in the woods (sans shower) could also cause a "skunky" smell? Yikes.

Could there be a vast untapped market for Sasquatch shampoo and conditioner sales?

 

[Han]

100% of Bigfoot sightings are by people who believe in Bigfoots.
I dont think that they can "physically" exist as hunters would have caught/shot one by now, afterall it would be the ultimate trophy.
Having said that I do think that they are "real" and that people have, do and will interact with them. I am also glad that they will never be extinct as long as we believe in them, sadly the same cant be said for many other more tangible species.

 

[Xylo]

100% of Bigfoot sightings are by people who believe in Bigfoots.

That's a gratuitous assertion there HAN. And you know the rules of logic as they apply to gratuitous assertions...

I dont think that they can "physically" exist as hunters would have caught/shot one by now, afterall it would be the ultimate trophy.
Having said that I do think that they are "real" and that people have, do and will interact with them. I am also glad that they will never be extinct as long as we believe in them, sadly the same cant be said for many other more tangible species.

A lot of people thought the same of the Mountain Gorilla.

 

[Han]

I am unsure of what a "gracious assertion" exactly is, after a brief search I found this definition: "A gratuitous assertion is a statement of fact without any supporting data "*

If I have understood correctly you are saying that my statement "100% of Bigfoot sightings are by people who believe in Bigfoots." is not correct and there is no data/evidence to support it, I could not dissagree more, every case/sighting I have ever read or heard must of been witnessed by "bigfoot believers" otherwise they could not have reported or witnessed what they saw, the only variable is weather they entered the experience believing or not. This is a very simple concept in my head but trying to express it in words is harder than I imagined. I think what I am trying to say is that people who see a Bigfoot know they have seen one and therefore believe in them even if they did not before they saw one.

No case that I can recall, has ever involved a witness who says that they now do not believe in Bigfoots, after they have seen one!

I hope this all makes sense.

About mountain gorillas: I think this is not a good example to compare as we knew of the existance of gorillas, and the mountain gorilla is just a sub species.






*(source)((How to have an adult conversation - Free Chat, Dating Forums - Mingle2.com))

 

[mike]

Blue Mountains, New South Wales 1984

In this example the witness had heard of bigfoot in the US, but was totally surprised by their sighting of what they later found out was called a yowie

He also describes his fathers scientific mind being baffled

Wentworth Falls, New South Wales 2011

In this incident the witness states prior to the event they had no idea what a yowie was.


Heres a report from 1876

Wyangala Dam, New South Wales 1876

The local indigenous people have a long tradition of this animal, but the white men who made this report had no expectations it was anything other than myth until they saw one themselves

I think the problem here is

100% of Bigfoot sightings are by people who believe in Bigfoots.

Carrys the implication that 100% of people who sight a bigfoot, believed in them prior to the sighting.
Thats just not the case, i have a brother in law who is as down to earth as you can get, who didnt believe in them until after he saw one.

A classic expression of the adage "seeing is believing"

 

[pixelsmith]

i understood that the Patterson film was debunked long ago and the guy in the suit admitted it. His gait was analyzed and found to be the same as the gait of the BF in the film.

 

[Xylo]

I am unsure of what a "gracious assertion" exactly is, after a brief search I found this definition: "A gratuitous assertion is a statement of fact without any supporting data "*

If I have understood correctly you are saying that my statement "100% of Bigfoot sightings are by people who believe in Bigfoots." is not correct and there is no data/evidence to support it, I could not dissagree more, every case/sighting I have ever read or heard must of been witnessed by "bigfoot believers" otherwise they could not have reported or witnessed what they saw, the only variable is weather they entered the experience believing or not. This is a very simple concept in my head but trying to express it in words is harder than I imagined. I think what I am trying to say is that people who see a Bigfoot know they have seen one and therefore believe in them even if they did not before they saw one.

No case that I can recall, has ever involved a witness who says that they now do not believe in Bigfoots, after they have seen one!

I hope this all makes sense.

About mountain gorillas: I think this is not a good example to compare as we knew of the existance of gorillas, and the mountain gorilla is just a sub species.






*(source)((How to have an adult conversation - Free Chat, Dating Forums - Mingle2.com))

The rules of logic basically say that any gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. Unless you've read 100% of the bigfoot sightings then you can not make such a statement. And your statement implies that all sightings are by people who believe in bigfoot prior to the sighting, not that they believe in bigfoot afterwards.

Regarding mountain gorillas, it's a perfectly good example. For hundreds of years people were talking about the legendary mountain gorillas...and they weren't discovered until the late 20th century. It doesn't matter if they are a sub-species or not. They were considered legend and myth. Just as sasquatch and yeti are considered legend and myth by a great many people. As far as that other hairy big footed creature goes, we don't know if a) they even exist or b) if they are a sub-species of ape, or an entirely new species.

 

[Han]

What I was trying to say is that Bigfoots do exist regardless of tangible evidence or the lack of it, I dont know what a "bigfoot/sasquach/yowi/yeti etc" is or are but I dont think that they can be "Animals" in the traditional sense.

If we look at North America for example millions of people have been hunting since "time immemorial"*
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) "21.8 million Americans hunted at least once over the past five years."** so if we multiply that by ten that would mean that at least two hundered million Americans Hunted in the last fifty years(this is in my opinion a very conservative estimate as the original figure is based soley on licensed Hunters.
I would not like to hazard a guess as to how many individual hunting trips have taken place but it must be a huge number, and on none of these "hunts" has any body been able to kill a "Bigfoot". Even a fully grown African Elephant Bull (the largest known living land animal) can succumb to wounds inflicted by small caliber ammunition.

There are many possible conclusions you could draw from the figures above for example:
(1) Hunters in North America can not shoot straight and have missed "Bigfoots" every time.
(2) Bigfoots are super alert and perceptive and have evaded Bullets,Traps and Trail cams by animal cunning.


To my mind if a Bigfoot was a classic/traditional animal one would have been (a) Trapped or snared (b) Shot (c) Poisoned (d) Succomed to illness, old age or disease (e) Run over crossing a road.

For me the lack of a "body" or a fossil/bone record does not rule out Bigfoots existance, it does however suggest that these "entitys" or "beings" dont operate in the "traditional" framework of "reality" what I am getting at is that the Fact that people believe in "Bigfoot" validates "Bigfoots" existance and if people stopped believing in them they would not exist, but people will not stop believing in them because they do exist (chicken or egg), they just dont fit into any known catorgory.

In summary I think the world is a richer place with "bigfoot/sasquach/yowi, yetis" and cryptids in general I think that they are important and relavant and do not receive the respect or study that they merit. Sometimes science is slow to accept new ideas or reasoning but in the case of "bigfoots" I cant see Zoology accepting their existance without a "specimen" and given that I believe "bigfoots" to be ethereal I think they will remain "cryptids" forever this however does not devalue them, in my mind atleast.

Finally I still dont think gorillas and mountain gorillas are a good example, if you said duck billed platypus it would be closer but even if duck billed platypus were extint we have a fossil record of them and with "bigfoot" we do not.

*Time immemorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
**http://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf

 

[mike]

Here is an example

It's New Zealand's version of the sasquatch, a mythical beast thought by a credulous few to be roaming the deepest, darkest woods of the South Pacific nation -- and by everyone else to be a joke.
Most New Zealanders laugh at claims that Canadian moose have somehow survived in the south island wilderness since the 1910 introduction of 10 antlered immigrants from Saskatchewan. Purported sightings of the gangly ungulate are widely viewed as hoaxes inhabiting the same eco-illogical niche as the Loch Ness monster, Ogopogo and abominable snowman.

A reported glimpse of a moose in 1971 caught the attention of Mr. Tustin, then a young wildlife biologist. The following year he found a set of antlers in the Fiordland reserve. And over the past three decades he has used hidden cameras and recording devices -- unsuccessfully -- to monitor possible moose movements, and amassed a collection of suspected moose scat, bones and hair.

Mr. Tustin didn't have much luck until 2001, when hair found by two hunters was identified by scientists as coming from moose. Skeptics insisted the sample could have been planted to trick Mr. Tustin, who has chronicled his 30-year pursuit of the lost Canadian herd in a book titled Wild Moose Chase.
But the latest specimen, snagged waist-high on the bark of a tree in the deepest reaches of New Zealand's most inaccessible bushland, was found by Mr. Tustin himself.

Tustin was told the hair he found wouldnt last more than a month in that environment, this is a significant fact. biological samples break down quickly
Its on that fact alone, he can make the claim they are still there, despite no other proof

So here we have a flesh and blood animal, that remains elusive, trail cams and other tech have been unsucessful or inconclusive. Hunters have shot them

Yet today since no one has seen one in decades they are considered myth

And while the moose is likely a smart enough animal, I posit a hominoid like BF would be even smarter



On a wild moose chase | Stuff.co.nz

There was a living moose in two different places in 2001 and 2002 and those animals are still likely to be living right now," he said. "The DNA is irrefutable, but it did not change a lot of people's scepticism. I respect that it does seem unlikely when you look at it, but when you see the scale and the size of the place ... it is not as surprising as it might seem straight off."
Along the way Tustin believes he has found moose signs, some as recent as this year. The signs range from fresh dewclaw prints near Herrick Creek, droppings that are the wrong size to be from deer, and branches that have been torn too high up and too roughly to be from an animal other than moose.

Cameras triggered by sensors have been installed all over the area, 13 of them sponsored by businesses and families in place at the moment.

Last year one of the cameras snapped an image that Tustin is still unsure about. The shape and size of the animal's face was not a deer, he said, but he cannot be certain it was a moose either.

Tustin thinks there are 20 or so moose still alive in the area, mostly around Wet Jacket Arm in Dusky Sound.

The cameras are capable of taking about 1100 shots, and are left at their stations for up to five months. A range of deer, birds, possums and even bats have been captured by the cameras and offer people a glimpse into the wilderness they would not get otherwise.

Tustin will continue the project in the hope that one day he sits down at his computer and finally sees the animal he has been searching for for decades. The surrounding mystery, and the suspense, are among the things he loves.

Fiordland itself has an air of mystery, and the moose would be the perfect inhabitant of such an area, Tustin says.

"If the wilderness is so good it can hide an animal the size of a moose for decades, what does that tell you about the quality of the wilderness we have got right on our doorstep?" he says.

We can compare that example with this one

Review of the Ullibarri Events

Raven observes a hairy biped take garbage.
Raven signs an affidavit to the facts surrounding the sighting.
Raven completes a forensic drawing of the biped with Harvey Pratt.

A police officer responds to Ravens residence, feels thunderous footsteps and feels a presence in the woods and observes odd looking hair on the shed.
The police officer signs an affidavit to the events at Raven’s residence.

The hair from Raven’s is sent to the hair and fiber expert. He confirms that it does not match any known hair or fiber that exists today. He states that the hair does have properties that make it appear to be some type of primate, an unknown primate. The hair is sent to Dr. Ketchum for DNA extraction.

Dr. Ketchum attempts to extract DNA from the Ullibarri sample. We find that DNA cannot be extracted from the shaft of the hair, we must use the root or tissue tag. Dr. Ketchum obtains highly unusual results, which are documented in David Paulides’ book, Tribal Bigfoot.

Bigfoot DNA

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Few things about bigfoot in general.

there are reports from round the world dating back long before the patterson film (obviously) - but also long before news could travel so easily. i find it really interesting that the yeti has been reported as having a winter coat (white) which would make sense.
i king of think there must be something to it all for all the sightings and especially that they are from very distinct geographical areas.

one thing i cannot get my head round though is the same argument which has been put forward against the loch ness monster (no, i don't believe, even though loch ness is not far from me) and that is that there is just not enough food for such a large creature in a freshwater lake.
bigfoot as well, say in the pacific northwest in winter - what exactly is he supposed to eat? a large creature (and there must be families of them to procreate) would need a lot and there just isn't that there. unless he hunts with tools? but even so...

the argument about there being no skeletons - i am in the camp that says well you don't find skeletons of many things we know are in these woods. nature can have a way of getting rid of anything left exposed. are they intelligent enough to take care of their own dead?

i realise many people have a problem with lloyd pye but i am going to say i have watched some of his presentations and there at least is lots of information that makes me think something is going on?

when people say that any sighting of bigfoot must be something else being mistaken - that does not hold water for me - a very large hairy human-like creature just does not have anything close to get mistaken by in these areas.

if the patterson film is a fake then that is a shame because really, no video since seems to be anything other than pathetic schoolkid attempts. if patterson did fake it then he did it well to stand as long as it has...

 

[Xylo]

What I was trying to say is that Bigfoots do exist regardless of tangible evidence or the lack of it, I dont know what a "bigfoot/sasquach/yowi/yeti etc" is or are but I dont think that they can be "Animals" in the traditional sense.

If we look at North America for example millions of people have been hunting since "time immemorial"*
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) "21.8 million Americans hunted at least once over the past five years."** so if we multiply that by ten that would mean that at least two hundered million Americans Hunted in the last fifty years(this is in my opinion a very conservative estimate as the original figure is based soley on licensed Hunters.
I would not like to hazard a guess as to how many individual hunting trips have taken place but it must be a huge number, and on none of these "hunts" has any body been able to kill a "Bigfoot". Even a fully grown African Elephant Bull (the largest known living land animal) can succumb to wounds inflicted by small caliber ammunition.

There are many possible conclusions you could draw from the figures above for example:
(1) Hunters in North America can not shoot straight and have missed "Bigfoots" every time.
(2) Bigfoots are super alert and perceptive and have evaded Bullets,Traps and Trail cams by animal cunning.

Just a quick interjection here...

In the hunter sightings I have read, the hunters almost always say something to the effect of "I had him in my sights but I just couldn't pull the trigger, he looked too human-like." However I have read of one or two bigfoot killed by hunters, who later returned and there was no body nearby. How reliable are these reports? Probably less reliable than the Patterson film, in my opinion.

As far as evading and avoiding cameras...there's a huge amount of wilderness. Man makes a lot of noise and carries a distinctive smell. Plastic has a distinctive smell. Mechanical objects make noise. Electronic devices create magnetic fields.

To my mind if a Bigfoot was a classic/traditional animal one would have been (a) Trapped or snared (b) Shot (c) Poisoned (d) Succomed to illness, old age or disease (e) Run over crossing a road.

I agree.

For me the lack of a "body" or a fossil/bone record does not rule out Bigfoots existance, it does however suggest that these "entitys" or "beings" dont operate in the "traditional" framework of "reality" what I am getting at is that the Fact that people believe in "Bigfoot" validates "Bigfoots" existance and if people stopped believing in them they would not exist, but people will not stop believing in them because they do exist (chicken or egg), they just dont fit into any known catorgory.

In summary I think the world is a richer place with "bigfoot/sasquach/yowi, yetis" and cryptids in general I think that they are important and relavant and do not receive the respect or study that they merit. Sometimes science is slow to accept new ideas or reasoning but in the case of "bigfoots" I cant see Zoology accepting their existance without a "specimen" and given that I believe "bigfoots" to be ethereal I think they will remain "cryptids" forever this however does not devalue them, in my mind atleast.

I understand your theory and it certainly is plausible that bigfoot is a tulpa of sorts. I won't rule it out and it does make for interesting conversation.

Finally I still dont think gorillas and mountain gorillas are a good example, if you said duck billed platypus it would be closer but even if duck billed platypus were extint we have a fossil record of them and with "bigfoot" we do not.

*Time immemorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
**http://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf

Agree to disagree with a smile.