9 Responses

  1. McClarinJ
    McClarinJ May 28, 2013 at 7:58 pm |

    First I’d heard the subject´s breasts were flowing. I suppose they didn’t think to collect samples of the milk dribbles ;-)

  2. chadgatlin
    chadgatlin May 28, 2013 at 9:38 pm |

    Loren, you maybe can answer this for me. One thing that bugs me in the PG film is the lack of definition in the foot in the still frame that you have at the top of this post. I can see no discernible toes, or any arch or mid-tarsal break. Also, the bottom of the foot seems very white for a barefoot walking primate. Maybe this is from multi-generational copies, color alterations made to show greater clarity, or just the fact that it was 1967 handheld film quality. I just wondered if this had been addressed.

  3. DWA
    DWA May 29, 2013 at 9:57 am |

    It’s as incumbent upon hoax claimers to prove the hoax as it is on proponents to prove the animal. Far, far easier too, I might add.

    That this hasn’t happened in over 45 years, and that no attempt either to duplicate or to prove the hoax is anything less than laughable, is telling.

    It does no good for skeptics to constantly fall back on the “extraordinary proof” canard when addressing proponents on this film. They have made a specific, very extraordinary claim, and must be held to proving it or accepting that science has something to resolve here.

  4. chadgatlin
    chadgatlin May 30, 2013 at 12:25 am |

    Whatever the truth behind this film, I think there is one mistake many skeptics and believers alike make. Many approach this film as though the existence of sasquatch is predicated on whether or not this film is real. The PG film should be taken as an important piece of the modern history of bigfoot no doubt, but not the be-all, end-all discussion. There are plenty of reasons to consider the existence of an undiscovered bipedal primate in the Pacific Northwest other than this film.

    Thanks, Loren for clearing up the foot color. I have seen compelling evidence on many different television shows and online that point to this film being genuine. I also have not seen a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. Even those who claim to know it was a hoax, when pressed have been unable to prove that claim. I just wanted to ask a couple of the questions I have always had about the film. And I will also ask one more.

    Probably the thing that has always bothered me the most is the “ski mask” appearance of the face. The forehead and mouth seem to be covered while the eyes and nose are exposed. This seems strange looking to me, and I have never really seen it addressed. I just wondered if there were theories out there, like maybe they have facial hair like orangutans?

  5. mandors
    mandors May 30, 2013 at 7:12 am |

    I think one of the most interesting aspects of the “layers” of the pancake is that they were not led with. What I mean is, nobody said when the film was released “hey, look at that funny gate, look at the shine on the fur, hey, it has breasts!” It was all just “ah, that’s just a guy in a suit.” The interesting stuff came out in the review process. Which in retrospect is probably the right way.

    I have not heard a single valid, non-conclusory criticism of the film, i.e. “it’s just a guy in a suit” or “P and G were flimflam guys.” What I have heard is unscientific, Clarence Darrow type character assassination, and/or hearsay.

    What I also have not heard, though someone probably has made this point, is that if it’s fake, it’s a darn good one take shot (two, if you count the second walk into the trees footage). I also don’t recall anyone using the “Blair Witch, Cloverleaf” style camera shake back then.

    To clarify, and I’ll get conclusory here, if a film maker back then was going to take a shot to make millions and prove bigfoot, he would have had a more stable, more crafted look to the film. Something like the WWII footage that was abound back then, and though live, is much more stable. Again, not exactly science, but seems to make sense.

  6. jamesrav
    jamesrav May 30, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

    Those pancakes look scrumptious. But an equally good analogy used by the other side is that of “lukewarm coffee”. Something to the effect ‘combining a dozen cups of lukewarm coffee does not create a pot of strong coffee’. I personally think that analogy applies to UFO sightings – hundreds of accounts of lights in the night sky does not mean we are being visited by star beings. I would *almost* put Bigfoot in that category minus the PG film, thank goodness for those guys.

  7. corrick
    corrick June 4, 2013 at 11:03 pm |

    Stack the pancakes as high as you want, but the Patterson-Gimlin film can never be accepted as anything other than inconclusive evidence for the existence of bigfoot.
    And I only need one pancake.
    The original 16mm Kodak Cine-100 home movie camera that Patterson used was a rental so it was never be examined and tested. This point is critical since that model, the the 16mm Kodak Cine-100 home movie camera was notorious for its inaccuracy of film speeds. (Look it up). Patterson stated he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but didn’t remember the camera’s setting that day. It also had settings of 32, 48, and 64 frames per second but those settings aren’t relevant, just the only one lower than 24, at 16 frames per second.
    Analysis after analysis by believers and skeptics alike always echo what John Napier wrote long ago. “If the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature’s walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man’s gait.” Why he mentioned 18 fps back then is a mystery to me unless he was also aware of that particular cameras notoriety for frame speed inaccuracy.
    So since the exact camera used by Patterson can never be examined, whether it was at 14,15,16,17,18 or 22,23,24,25,26 frames per second there are actually TEN versions of the Patterson-Gimlin film and all ten are equally likely to be the genuine speed. You want to believe? Then you choose the lower speeds or if you’re a skeptic you choose the higher ones. However, without the original camera no one will ever know know which of the ten possible speeds is true. Not the believers, nor the skeptics.
    Interesting? Fascinating? Compelling? For sure. But without the camera, forever inconclusive and strictly in the eye of the beholder skeptic and believer alike.
    The Museum looks wonderful, btw.

Comments are closed.