Sunday, July 26, 2009

Rare Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film Screen Captures, the BBC X-Creatures Documentary, and THE LEAP OF SKEPTICISM

In the 1998 BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/) production, "X-CREATURES: SHOOTING THE BIGFOOT," there is an interesting presentation of the Patterson-Gimlin film reel with John Green in his Harrison Hot Springs, Canada home. He is actually sitting beside his projector running a copy of the full film reel, not just the famous bigfoot segment. One can see how very small and brief the reel is and, though they don't show the roll from begining to end (they cut to Green talking and images of the host pondering and commenting), some of the rarely seen earlier footage taken before the famous apprx. 1-minute bigfoot segment is shown.
Here at left is Bob with the pack horse riding on a washed-out area.
This is revealing stuff, wherein one may get a larger picture of the activities of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in the area before the creature was filmed. Also, one sees the seasonal and landscape conditions of Bluff Creek that year pretty clearly. These bits were meant to be used as stock footage in a documentary film idea on which Patterson was working.
Here's another one, with a more rare instance of Bob filming Roger rather than the other way around. One can see the autumnal colors of the foliage probably shot that day, October 20th, 1967, or directly prior to it.
Here's an interesting screen-shot capture of Gimlin riding up the Bluff Creek creekside road. Not always known is the fact that at that time a leveled dirt logging road ran right up along the creek itself. Access to the film site from their base down by Louse Camp, about 2.5 miles away, would have been much easier than the hellish bushwhack, boulder-hopping creekwalk and bracken climb that it is today. These days it is a hike that could take one all day in the round trip, with many a scratch or twisted ankle. This image appears on the film reel just before a pan through the trees on the hillside. Then the film breaks suddenly into the famous Bigfoot sighting part. Heading upstream they, "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room," and they saw the hairy hominid "crouching beside the creek to their left."
Here we show the first two clear strides the creature takes in the film, and an image of just how high the sand bar was that Roger had to bound over to get his filming spot (this crossing is seen as a frantic white blur in the film). Then we see a blurry Patty entering the most well known part of film terrain, by the long, fallen log.

BIGFOOT SCREEN CAPTURES (click to enlarge images somewhat):
One frustrating thing with the P-G film is that it is difficult to catch the first glimpses of the Sasquatch creature as it moves off from the creek side right at the start of the film (and often these are edited out from documentaries). At this point Patterson is probably in a state of shock and extreme excitement (not to mention most likely some fear of this apprx. 7-foot cryptid creature), having just gotten away from the panicking horses. At the start of the film he is running up to and across the creek to get a better filming vantage point. We have endeavored to freeze-frame these moments, otherwise nearly totally lost in blur. The first creature image above shows the first clear glimpse of the film's subject. Here we may see the wet sand at the creekside, and then in following frames a fleeting glimpse of the water of Bluff Creek, to the left.
"Cover me!" Roger yells to Bob, as he races up the bank. Bob is trying to control the horses, while bounding off and readying his rifle, just in case the creature attacks.
Here follow the first clear stride, one from the begining of the more stable part of the film, and then an obscure image of the retreat of the creature at the very end of the film, at the east side of the film site.
Just before the film reel ends one can barely distinguish the creature as it retreats into the dark forest at the big bend in the creek at the east end of the film site, right up against the canyon wall. At next frame one can see the tail-end film leader when the roll expires. This is evidence that this is a direct copy of the original camera reel, presented in its original form.
In a subsequent part of the episode we can see John Green in his cast collection room. In another a brief segment of Green's film of 6-foot 4-inch Jim McClarin walking on the film site for comparison is presented. The creature is clearly taller and more bulky by far than the human figure when the two films are shown together.
One great feature of this documentary is a brief clip of Bob Gimlin from a filmed interview John Green did in 1992. Here's Bob, transcribed as best I may: "This particular day that we got the film footage, well, starting out early in the morning, I left early in the morning and Roger slept in. And my horse loosened a shoe up, and I come back in to tack the shoe on tighter, and Roger was gone when I got back and uh after a while.... I had covered that morning and I had told him, and he said why don't we ride up in this area that we had ridden in...."
And then the host Chris Packham actually calls Gimlin on the phone. The transcription: "When I first saw this thing well it was just like the adrenaline flew, you know I was shocked, excited, like all right then, THEY DO exist, you know. [clever filmmaker edit here, making it SEEM as if Bob has changed his mind]... Well I've thought about this many, many times over the years. At one time in my life right shortly after the film footage I was totally convinced that no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now, and I see a lot of things, and I think there could have been a possibility. But it would have to have been really well planned by Roger, and I feel that they would have had to have been very, very careful because I had a thirty-ought-six loaded with a hundred and eighty grain bullets. And if that thing had have turned and rushed me I would have shot it. So I feel that IF that was a hoax somebody was taking an AWFUL big chance with their life."
What follows is some rather spurious logic from Packham, and a high-budgeted, but failed, BBC attempt to recreate the film for this documentary using an original Kodak Cine-100 camera and a guy in a reddish-furred ape suit.
They intentionally use obscuring trees and bushes, blurry focus and distance, all of which are to some degree in the PGF; but the end result, and especially the manner in which it is presented (attempting to debunk by assumption rather than evidence) lacks greatly in the kind of detail one may see in the P-G Film. Anyone can shoot a blurry home movie; but will it contain the fascinating and subtle details of the PGF? This one does not, and is transparently a man in a suit. The PGF film has been questioned, but never proven to be a hoax, whatever Packham thinks he's shown.


Craig Woolheater has put the two images side-by-side for comparison (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/x-creatures/). OBVIOUSLY, this recreation does not replicate the creature, and is not even worthy of being put up against the original. Certainly it is not "proof" in any way that the film WAS hoaxed, even if it COULD have been.

Packham's absurdly illogical leaps of skepticism at the end of the film are truly laughable: "There's a hell of a lot of space in America, but it's trampelled all over. And in biolgical terms there is absolutely no chance at all that there's an unknown species of giant apes stalking around California, or for that matter Canada. You see the Bigfoot phenomenon isn't based on good science, it rests upon one thing: the Patterson film. And that is a hoax. We've shown you [OH REALLY] just how easily it could have been done [YEAH, RIGHT]. And now Bob Gimlin has broken his silence and confessed that he's not entirely sure of what he saw in the first place. And to me that is incredibly significant, because it's his word that has helped keep this hoax alive for over thirty years. But now it's over. Bigfoot isn't dead because it was never alive, only in the minds of the dreamers and the schemers. But then, good on them. You know if Roger Patterson were here today I'd shake him by the hand. I'm not saying I'd load his camera, but I'd shake him by the hand." This is logic worthy of, say, a third-grader; but anyway, more on that in my next post.

The X-CREATURES show does not seem to have been released on DVD, at least not in the USA. I couldn't find it anywhere save on YouTube. Here are links:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE3JlDgFbt4
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naTIP2R_hNo&feature=related
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7UUPpN7dPU&feature=related It was hosted by Brit, Chris Packham, and aired in a six-episode run in 1999. Check here for a list of episodes and other info.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X_Creatures.

My own analysis will follow later. Coming up soon: THE LEAP OF SKEPTICISM!

18 comments:

  1. My name is Leroy Blevins Sr. I am C/O of Blevins Biblical Investigation. I have done a 6 month research on the P/G film and I found things in the film that shows it was a hoax. In my research I have even made a copy of the costume Patterson used in the film. Like they say seeing is believing well that is what I do for at BBI we not only tell the truth WE SHOW IT
    www.freewebs.com/pgbigfootdebunked

    ReplyDelete
  2. EGADS, Mr. Blevins! You "prove" nothing. You are conflating images from earlier shots of a fictional bigfoot hunt Patterson filmed in YAKIMA, and BEFORE the P-G Bluff Creek Film. There is no "hat brim" in the footage of Bob Gimlin on Bluff Creek Road--that is a rock and wood, and is blurred. YOU ARE LOOKING AT FILM BLOBS, not real things. The footprint cast you say was the one they "took to town" is IN FACT ONE FROM HYAMPOM (see John Green's "On the Track of Sasquatch!), taken in 1963. It is a 17" track, of a different shape, too, not the 14.5 inch one from Bluff Creek. The two guys took turns filming on that trip, so some of the footage before the bigfoot segment is of Roger, some of Bob. John Green, who knew the men personally, confirms this. Frankly, so far, your stuff looks like the work of M.K. Davis of late, or the late Beckjord. And what does Bigfoot have to do with "Biblical Investigation," anyway? MORE LATER. I will do a thorough blog post DEBUNKING your "DEBUNKING." Look out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My new site is www.freewebs.com/pgfilmanalyze
    If you like to know the truth and even see the truth go to this site for the best research ever done on the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well folks, take the above with a grain of salt. I spoke with Mr. Blevins for a couple of hours on the phone, and extensively discussed these matters via email. He is a good guy, personally, but I think his ideas are a bit out there, and not really substantiated by the film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His web sites keep disappearing too. If he had all this "proof" there'd be a lot more interest in it.

      Delete
  5. If you don't mind I like to add on my site I show still photo of John Green and Bob Titmus that they took 9 days after Patterson filmed his movie of the Bigfoot. However as you will see the Bigfoot prints they show is prints on the raod that Patterson filmed Bob Gimlin on. Now in the story Patterson or Gimlin never claim there was prints on the road or seen these prints. However you see these in still photos by John G. and Bob T. Plus it was told that it rain that night after Patterson shot the film but as you will also see the track are like new. For these tracks are the same track was left by the Bigfoot that Patterson filmed.Now think of this, this 1 Bigfoot was seen by two men and ever ran after it why would this same Bigfoot come back to a location days after when it knows that other people will be there for Patterson and Gimlin was there. Sorry but the only away for Patterson to film this Bigfoot and with John G. and Bob T. to also film and take photos of the prints before it rained or even seeing the same print from 1 Bigfoot this show that the film by Patterson and even the film by John G and Bob T was taken on the same day. For even the tracks left by the horses still can be seen on the road like they are new. take a look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1 Bigfoot was seen by two men and ever ran after it why would this same Bigfoot come back to a location days after when it knows that other people will be there for Patterson and Gimlin was there."

      Interesting, because others have cited as proof of the film's being a hoax the "fact" that Patterson never returned to the location after making the film (which, by the way, he actually did).

      Seems like no matter what P&G did, the debunkers smell a rat. I'm not 100 percent convinced, but the hoaxers who say it's "obvious" this is a fake given themselves quite a burden: if it's so obvious it's a fake, and easy to do, why don't they do it and post the side-by-side comparison on someplace like YouTube. Then they'd go down in history as the famous debunkers of the great Roger Patterson.

      James Randi cites as proof psychic phenomena don't exist the fact that he's laid aside a million dollar cheque (courtesy of the MacArthur Foundation) for anyone who can demonstrate some sort of psychic phenomenon under controlled conditions that he can't debunk, and no one has ever taken him up on it. Well, the P&G film presents the opportunity in reverse: here's an opportunity for deniers to prove the believers wrong, if it's so easy to fake it with a suit. So where are the takers? If any idiot could make a fake this bad, why don't people go out there and do it and gain publicity for the skeptic side and maybe make some bucks off their debunking as well?

      Delete
  6. Blevins is totally off base,may be a good guy but he in NO WAY proves Patty to be a hoax,in fact,after listening to some of his arguments and proof,I am more convinced that Patty is 100 percent Sasquatch.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The film that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin made in 1967 of Bigfoot was real. The creature they filmed was half man and half gorilla. If you don't believe that humans and primates can reproduce hybrids, then watch this new closeup video of Bigfoot.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHVFE02NTgU

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regarding the above YouTube link: IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS A CHIMP. This surely WAS NOT shot with a game cam in the Klamath area. Read the COMMENTS below the video for more viewpoints. Humans and "primates" producing hybrids? Humans ARE primates, for one. If there is a possibility of hybrid breeding why has it not happened over the years in zoos? Come on!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a good blog. I also greatly appreciate Mr Blevins and the time he took to investigate and research these different points he makes. It was a very interesting read. Some parts did make me smile though I have to admit. I mean there is a close up of a monstrous ape leg with strained and bulging muscles and the arrow is pointing underneath labelling where 'some fur has come out'! Classic. What about the giant leg muscles?? And check out the pendulous breasts, the nipples, it all looks just too real to be a hoax. Interesting work though, we need both sides of the debate to fully conclude.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In my opinion, Leroy Blevins is an undeducated man looking for attention. He boasts about having the "best" bigfoot research ever done. Yet, he can't construct a simple sentence. His tag-line is "we show it"....yes, you "show it" alright...you show how stupid and lame you are. Blevins "research" and "conclusions" suck much ass.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mikey D is right!!! You have to look at all possibilities as far-fetched as they may sound. The subject of Bigfoot is in the "far-fetched" category. Mr. Blevins's research and opinion are part of this subject. I wish I had the time and commitment to research the subject but I don't. I am just glad there are persons out there that do research on the subject because it keeps the subject fresh in our minds. I will read anything on the subject of Bigfoot, good or bad, because it interests me. Keep up the good work guys and keep the info coming.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I used to be a believer in The Patterson film. No longer, after I checked into Patterson's background, the fact he illustrated a female BF years prior in one of his short books. Blevins seems to show Gimlin in the bushes as well. People with a bias either way can see a seem in a suite, or muscles moving, etc. Films can be faked. I look at Patterson's character, and under scrutiny, it does not hold up, and in almost any court of law, his character issues would disqualify him as a credible witness. I believe BF exists, and I also believe if I had the resources, I think I know how to find them, or better said. have them FIND ME. And if I did, I would take the real evidence to a credible scientific source, and not care about fame or money. It appears Patterson wanted to always make the "big score" I believe when people take away their bias as I did, they will come to the most logical conclusion on this film, which I believe is a hoax. thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy and the supernatural. In those regards he was way off base, maybe even a kook, but I'm not going to disbelieve his Laws of Motion because of it. People with odd or questionable character can still be right or make a discovery or breakthrough. It's interesting that you don't cite one relevant fact in your post. You just go on about the man. Oh, and you mention something about Belvins seems to show Gimlin in the bushes as well...I'm not even sure what that means. Could you clarify? That's my problem with the debunkers: their statements are filled with innuendo and vague personal attacks that have nothing to do with science—the very thing they hold against the believers. If you'd like to present an analysis of the FILM and discuss body motion, muscle mass, anatomy, facial features, etc., then I'll listen. A number of researchers have done this, and most seem to come away if not saying the film is genuine, it at least can't be dismissed or debunked either. The debunkers, meanwhile, hide behind statements like "Patterson is obviously a con man" (true; in fact he conned Gimlin out of his rights to the film, to G's bitterness, but G, while not being pleased with his colleague's behavior, has still maintained he believes the film is not of a man in a suit; he is able to separate his feelings for Patterson from his feelings about what he witnessed that day) or "The film is so fake anyone can see it's a man in a suit." If *anyone* can see it then it should be easy to debunk. Very high-quality images now exist thanks to computer restoration and image stabilization. You have the floor. Debunk the FILM. I don't care about the man. Ad hominem attacks are for people who don't have an argument based on the facts.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous, surely you can see that you cannot debunk a film from 1967 based upon the purported character of the filming agent. It's been said before: even the most screwed up individual could still make an authentic film. What Blevins says about Gimlin in the bushes is clearly absurd and an obvious example of pareidolia. The mere fact of the distance from the creature/subject to the trees in the background would make the "Gimlin" a true giant of about 10 feet tall. Ridiculous. The fact that Patterson drew a picture of a female Bigfoot based upon the William Roe sighting and others means NOTHING... his sighting/filming of a female Bigfoot could simply mean that yes, indeed, the species has females in it. If you want to prove that the PGF is fake you have a LONG, LONG way to go... and I don't mean the Greg Long way, man.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I cannot prove it is a fake, just as you cannot prove it is real. What I can do is offer reasons why I BELIEVE it is a fake, and you can offer reasons why you think it is real. Fact = no real tangible PROOF that Bigfoot exists. I believe it does, but that is only a belief. Eventually, I am going to head out into the field to research this as I believe I know a way to find this thing if it does truly exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What I can do is offer reasons why I BELIEVE it is a fake, and you can offer reasons why you think it is real."

      The difference being, of course, that the reasons offered for why it's fake have no bearing on the film. They are character assassination, which honestly are true—but not relevant. The reasons many believe it's real have to do with analyses of the film itself—motion studies, image stabilizations, etc. The astronomer who discovered Neptune may have been a creep. That's no bearing on whether or not Neptune really exists.

      Understand the difference? No, I didn't think so.

      Delete

Hello! Speak your mind. Let me know someone is actually reading all of this stuff! We moderate the comments here, but will let everything through that is not either blatant Spam or vile hate speech. Don't worry if your comment doesn't appear immediately--it is just under review. Thanks!