First roll, second roll —– just a few thoughts and questions

What time of day did the actual sighting and filming occur?

Wouldn’t it be possible that it was earlier in the day which gave them the rest of the day for shooting the second roll? I’m looking at the shadows.

Was this the only time that Roger ever used a 16mm movie camera on one of his outings?

Are there other rolls from other trips, or considering how long this trip was, are there more than 2 rolls?

It only makes sense to me that the toes are not always going to line up perfectly on each track since they don’t wear shoes they no doubt use their toes much more than we do. Again there is some shadowing effect going on.

The print with the “splayed” out toes is obviously not the one that is being cast.

Good work

“The placement of the toes is very important to the movement of the creature, especially for a biped, they have to point forward.”

Ever seen a pigeon toed person walking? The toes point inwards. Ever noticed that a person with bad posture or the beginnings of a hump tends to walk with their toes pointing slightly outwards?

The comment on the feet being lighter, thus “could” be fake is also silly. The color on the bottom of the feet is an exact match of the sand it is walking on (kudos on whoever pointed that out). As the story goes, they came upon the creature in a creek, and when it spotted them, it WALKED quickly away on the sand bar into the woods. So, if it was in the creek and walked across the dry sand, naturally enough the sand would stick to the feet. Ever walked on the beach with wet feet?

Another point. All this bickering over how the prints “look”. Did you take into consideration that the prints are in a SAND bar? Again, ever walked on the beach? Ever noticed how your prints look odd?

Finally, and this is the kicker, and the one that convinced me that there was something beyond a hoax in this film, I challenge you to find a seam, or a zipper on this “costume”. In 1967, velcro was not invented, so the only way to seal someone up in a monkey suit was with a zipper, or to sew them into it. Also, while you are at it, I challenge you to explain away the muscle ripple that is obvious while she walks away. Explain away the natural movements of the body (no way a human being could so perfectly mimic the arm swing, for example, when their arms would be vastly shorter, and that little bother of not having an elbow in the same place).

In other words, if you are going to scream hoax, do so with at least some sort of logical means to back up your statements. Truth be told, I first saw this film way back in the day when I was a kid, and thought it was the coolest thing ever. As I grew up, I doubted it (of course, if this animal did exist, why hasn’t anyone ever produced one scientifically?). After seeing a similar discussion on another board, I downloaded the film and watched every single frame one by one on my computer.

-I found no zipper.
-I found no seam.
-The mechanics of walking, ie the arm swing, swaying of the body, etc… were authentic…easily proven by viewing the motion of the muscle under the hair, something that could not be duplicated until just recently and only on a computer. It was a natural walk.

In short, I believed nothing until I ran out of excuses. The film cannot be duplicated on anything short of computer animation.

You’re saying YOU can’t duplicate JP. Obviously. You’re one guy. Plus, you’re not as good as the guys who did it. (“Pretty talented” does NOT do a film like that.)

NOBODY on Planet Earth – including the best in the world at precisely what we’re talking about – has touched P/G.

Oh, we know just what we’re talking about here. And so do they.

TWICE?

As with many attempts to capture the logic, your argument misses it.

Ever see the sets for JP? For any movie? Ever see the budget? The crew? The time they take? And someone could tell you, shot for shot, how the film was made. Plus, any human with experience seeing real animals could tell the dinos were fake at a glance. Good fakes, but very obviously just that.

Patty moves like a real animal, looks like a real animal. And no one has offered so much as an educated guess that holds water how ANY part of it was done.

Two vastly different settings. Two vastly different jobs.

And JP was easier.

“I disagree…could be fake feet”

Well they ‘could’ be fake feet, but just because the feet are light it’s no evidence that they are. And are you disagreeing that there is no way wet feet could account for substrate clinging to the soles?

“I don’t think they tried to prove anything”

Yes they did. They tried to prove the P/G footage was a hoax and they sold that premise to the BBC executives.

“I think they were more interested in selling advertising slots during the showing.”

The major market was the home market. The U.K. The BBC doesn’t have advertising slots during it’s shows. It’s a commercial free broadcasting company. There are no commercials on the BBC. It’s paid for by the t.v licence payer in the U.K and they don’t have advertising slots. There were no advertising/commercial breaks during that show in the U.K. It ran right through.

“It certainly wasn’t a well done documentary.”

It was actually a pretty decent documentary in the sense that it visited actual locations of famed sightings (Glenn Thomas, Mike McDonald, Tom Seward) and money was clearly spent on it. They obviously went to a lot of time and trouble to find those locations. However, you are right in the fact that beyond the locations visited it wasn’t a good documentary with regards to proving the P/G footage was a fake or in fact that bigfoot as a whole is just a myth. On the contrary it didn’t do the skeptical side much service at all.

“Evidence is not proof that something exists…”

No, but it is still ‘evidence’ that something exists. We do not have similar evidence for werewolves and leprechauns in contrast.

“I always wondered why the soles of the feet were light? Maybe the feet were made of wood.”

Lyndon offers a possible explanation. Occam’s Razor offers an even simpler one.

Humans’ tend to be. Why not the same with the sasquatch?

(Actually – at least from our anthropocentric standpoint – you can come even closer than that. The great apes’ feet are similarly shaded. Point being: they’re the color you’d expect.)

It should be noted that both the subject’s gait and the clear toe-lifting visible in closeup during the only good look at the right foot strongly militate against wooden feet. YOU try walking that casually, on any substrate much less a rocky riverbed, with wooden feet. And what would have to have been an enormously bulky and cumbersome suit.

Or you could just duplicate the Patterson film, which might be simpler.

dontmean2prymate: I think that’s the point people are making with regard to duplication (and I see it made again above). The biggest myth in squatchery is The Legend Of The Omnipotent Hoaxer. The history of hoaxes indicates that they don’t last for too long, particularly when the hoaxer tries something like faking an animal.

If someone duplicated P/G using technology demonstrably not available in 1967, we might not be satisfied. But at least we’d know it was humanly possible. A duplication using 1967 makin’s would still leave open the question of how it was done in a way that put the “animal” in front of the searchers at the opportune moment. But the film’s case for legitimacy would be substantially weakened, for sure.

But those of us who say do it strongly suspect the reason it hasn’t been: because it can’t be.