Monday, August 3, 2015

NEW UNEDITED The Complete Patterson Gimlin Film Footage!


Steven Streufert, owner/operator of Bigfoot Books and member of the Bluff Creek Project just posted this amazing and previously unreleased stabilized and color balanced, unedited, full roll one of the Patterson Gimlin film footage. This is a duplicate copy of the full roll that was in Roger Patterson's  Cine K-100 camera the day of October 20th, 1967. 

Most people have never seen this footage before.


87 comments:

  1. you shittin me right!
    o! and first you beaaaches.

    ReplyDelete
  2. too bad bob h. don't get much credit or respect for wearing those shoulder pads and extra diaper butt diapers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Nape of neck and furrowed back mid-scapular region would not look as it does with shoulder pads. Also, your "shoulder pads" are in fact a well-defined trapezius and deltoid muscle set.

      "Posterior from the shoulder, her scapula can be seen “winging” or becoming more prominent with the right arm swinging forwards, combined with the head turning back, away from the camera. This is a natural occurrence for the body, since the arm is attached to the triangular-shaped scapula, which is stabilized by several muscles. There is no bone-to-bone contact of the scapula/humerus unit with the rest of the body skeleton, with the exception of a small anterior pivot point provided by the clavicle. This allows for the significant mobility exhibited by the shoulder, and the protrusion of the medial border (“winging”) of the scapula. As with the above described triceps changes, this would be very difficult to replicate in a costume, and would not be a physical characteristic commonly known outside of the medical community."
      - O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S.

      The diaper butt is akin to human anatomy, page 15 here;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
      ... And please check this out "Girl Raised As Bushman Running And Playing With Dangerous Animals";
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/watch-girl-raised-as-bushman-running.html?m=1

      The subject was filmed in direct sunlight, the most unforgiving of costume lighting methods for any fur cloth technique of the day... And we don't see any suit anomalies.

      Delete
    2. ����������������

      Delete
  3. The only time this site gets any action is when joe is on a roll. My hypothesis is that joe is just trolling because he gets a cut of the click $.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beginning at 0:53, you can see someone leaned up against the log on the left. If that's Gimlin with the pack horse and Patterson filming, then three people were there. And the often told story that there were just the two of them isn't true.

    The PGF is a hoax. This reel one proves it. Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah and if you know where to look in the Zapruder film, you can see JFK's real assassin.

      Delete
    2. Wow. There is someone there leaning up against that log on the left. As Gimlin is going around counterclockwise with the pack horse, the film skips a few frames and he is standing by the guy for a fraction of a second.

      This doesn't look good for the validity of the PGF.

      Delete
    3. Yep. I see it too. Busted.

      Delete
    4. Busted is right. I see it too. Man, I've never seen this reel. This is going to blow the PGF away once and for all.

      Delete
    5. lol and you guys make fun of blobsquatches! that's a good one.

      Delete
    6. One person says a blurry thing is a person. One person says a blurry thing is a bigfoot. Who's been smokin the wacky tabacky?

      Delete
    7. Quick! Someone draw red arrows and circles!!! That's the correct way to prove something, right?

      Delete
    8. I definitely need the red circles for this one cause I can't see it.

      Delete
    9. Maybe thinkerthunker can do a reverse human breakdown analysis.

      Delete
    10. 8:10, Bob and Roger could not have run into any other human beings on that trip? Did they say they never saw another soul on that trip? If they ran into a few people who were not a part of their own expedition, and one of them appeared in some of the film, that = PGF is hoax and case closed?

      If they ran into strangers who appeared on the film, PGF = hoax, case closed? If any human being other than Bob or Roger appears in reel one, PGF = hoax, case closed? If they come across another human being, and film the person, PGF = hoax, case closed?

      Fascinating.

      Delete
    11. And these clown claim enthusiasts see things that aren't there?! Ha ha ha!! Anything but present a damn monkey suit.

      : )

      Delete
    12. This arguing is an example of why the pgf is worthless as proof. Only a specimen should be considered proof at this point.

      Delete
    13. Nobody's pedalling it as proof... The subject in that footage may have been one of the last of its kind and may have simply died out since then. While we do indeed require a body, the footage is relevant because it has stood up to scrutiny in 48 years and we are still accumulating physical evidence that's the same attained from the site of that footage in 1967.

      Delete
    14. I sure can't see what they are talking about IK. Only a twisted stump at 3:28. Maybe the object of their fascination is too blurry and needs red circles as 8:48 suggests. Maybe its a stump in a stump suit lol.


      ~ Chick

      Delete
  5. Just wait for the footers to claim that's a stump. Oh the irony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A stump wearing a hat.

      Delete
    2. Are you talking about the thing @ 3:28?

      Delete
  6. I'll wait for the M.K Davis director's cut/3d version/extended/smellovision/blnkifyoumissit/ stabilized / hairy palm/ ultra/ collector's edition tin box to come out on Blu ray !

    ReplyDelete
  7. I doubt any of you would call Gimlin a liar to his face.

    Haw !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would tell that lying piece of s hit to suck a monster c ock if I could. Been lying and cheating people for decades. Look what he has done to that dopey terd Itkomi. He's turned him into a complete joke.

      Delete
    2. Nwah... Chewie is upset because I made him look stupid the other day. He's so tough on a blog see, I think he's got small man syndrome, not to mention a knack of making himself look stupid. Nobody really needs to do that for him.

      Delete
    3. Why do u care so much about something u don't believe in?so much u would curse and slander a man for something he genuinely believes he saw...I saw Bigfoot on white top Mtn. In Va.had a witness with me...

      Delete
  8. Also, Patty would have to be the slowest bigfoot in the history of almost all other eyewitness accounts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look closely you can see Patty checking her watch for the time. Also she is wearing Chuck Taylor's.

      Delete
    2. She's a groovy casual kind of gal.

      Delete
    3. Actually... There are three whole database of reports that account for Sasquatch leaving calmly in one direction, and the witnesses leaving in the other.

      You would have to have a fool's guide knowledge of the topic to know this of course.

      Delete
    4. Three whole databases and zero proof. What are the odds?

      Delete
    5. Three whole database, physical evidence and no body, is what your actually stating.

      The odds are in line with a creature that evades in highly bonded, intelligent social groups, is largely nocturnal, has the wilderness awareness of five green berets and buries it's dead.

      Delete
    6. So make a prediction. What are the percent odds that Bigfoot will be proven in the next 5 years?

      Delete
    7. Three whole databases, huh? They hug the treeline, or walk out into a wide open space to get away?

      Delete
    8. Thats not what Patty was doing though, is it cherry picker? She is caught out in the open and then retreats to the wood line. This is no different from when Sasquatch are reported at river banks, etc. Yes, three whole databases, if you don't like it, get busy... Even though it's not in your nature.

      Delete
  9. There is a human leaning against the log at the left beginning at 0:53 in this reel 1 clip. Patterson and Gimlin have always said that it was just the two of them there. Someone is fibbing. Maybe that's Bob Heironimus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I see it too. As Gimlin is going around in a circle with a pack horse, there must have been a break in the film because some of that circle ride is missing. All of a sudden, the film jumps, and Gimlin goes from the back to being by the big log on the left. If you're able to freeze the clip right when the film jumps and Gimlin is by the log, you can see that the third person who was leaning back against the log beginning at 0:53 Is moved up right by Gimlin. You can only see it for a fraction of a second.

      In my mind, this confirms that there were three people there. Which would obviously go against Gimlin's repeated claims that there were only the two of them there.

      My friends, to me this seals the deal. Patterson and Gimlin created a hoax.

      Delete
    2. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!! You are the type of folk that see imaginary zippers too, right? Ha ha ha ha!!! The irony!

      You're a sad weirdo who wanted so much for the extended footage to show something that condenns it, you'll even persuade yourself that there are people there that arent.

      What a sad little psycho failure you are, ha ha!!

      Delete
    3. LOL Iktomi. The irony is that you're the one who is "a sad little psycho failure."

      Delete
    4. ...The idea of a third man in this clip was conceived a few years ago...I think Munns explained that it is Gimlin behind the log and a tough to spot edit or camera stoppage yields the illusion of a third man....

      Delete
    5. Of course footers have to explain away the evidence of a third man.

      Delete
    6. There... Is no... Third man... It's all... In your brain...

      Poor boy.

      Delete
    7. There is a third man. Bigfoot is all in your brain.

      Poor boy.

      Delete
    8. Actually, the "Bigfoot" is not a question considering this source. The shadow against a log that is.

      What was it like having another one of your arguments crumble? You've wanted to see this extended footage for so long, I hope it hurt...

      : p

      Delete
  10. I wonder if Erickson had any more footage besides Matilda?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...Back when anyone cared, it was believed he purchased the pancake footage and some other lousy blob squatches for inclusion in his documentary...

      Delete
    2. Rum... Erikson had some interesting footage that was revealed briefly in a news leak somewhere... I'll try and source it for you.

      Delete
  11. My God. There are two people seen in this clip, and Patterson is filming. You can see someone up against the log on the left wearing a cowboy hat. I've gotta say, this reel directly contradicts what Patterson and Gimlin said about it being just the two of them. Bob Heironimus claims that he was with them on this trip. It would seem that maybe Bob was telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same weirdo posting over and over again, ha ha!! You really needed it so badly didn't you? Tell me, were you the one that was demanding to see the extra reel all this time? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    2. See, "sad little psycho failure."

      Iktomi, get some professional help. There are prescription meds that can help you.

      Delete
    3. Wow, I guess that insult must have hurt... What's the matter psycho nerd?

      Delete
    4. Gotta point out to everyone on here that after the skip the guy seen next to the tree is Gimlin - you can't find him or the horses after the skip because it is him you are seeing behind the log. Pause it and take a look

      Delete
    5. Of course you have to rule out the third man because that would mean that Patterson and Gimlin lied and created a hoax. And you could never entertain that idea, can you.

      Delete
    6. 6:51, the presence of a third man in reel one = the PGF is a hoax?

      Again:

      The . . . presence . . . of a . . . third man . . . in reel one . . . = . . . the PGF is a hoax?

      That's fascinating logic you've got there. Rippingly gripping, in fact.

      I understand they teach that form of "logic" in certain quarters, which have been referred to on this blog many times.

      Thanks for the demonstration of such. It's interesting, and pitying, to see it in action.

      Delete
    7. Sad your clearly hallucinating.. prove it and re do a video clip yourself and prove your irrational theory for the whole world to laugh at..

      Delete
  12. Telling the truth? No @$!# Sherlock. Numerous people have corroborated Heironimus's story that he was a buddy of Patterson's. And unlike Gimlin who has repeatedly refused to take a polygraph test, Heironimus has taken two, and he passed them both.

    The truth is that Patterson was a con. He tried to make money with bigfoot BEFORE his famous 1967 footage with a low budget bigfoot movie in which Bob Gimlin plays an Indian guide helping a group of cowboys track down a bigfoot.

    There is no reason to believe that "Patty" wasn't just another attempt by Patterson to make money with bigfoot (which he did with the PGF). This hoax happened to turn out better than Patterson could have ever dreamed.

    Patterson has been dead for over 40 years and his hoax turned out so well that 40+ years later he's still fooling people like Iktomi and Jeff Meldrum and untold millions of bigfoot enthusiasts around the world. So much so that many people seemingly can't even entertain the notion that bigfoot is nothing more than folklore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Lie detectors: Roger Patterson passed the test: Prior to publishing an April 1968 article about the Patterson-Gimlin film, National Wildlife Magazine’s editors — not wanting to run a story about a film that might prove later to be bogus — requested that Patterson submit to a lie detector test. He agreed, and the test was done “by a reputable and retired New York City polygraph expert,” according to George Harrison, who became the magazine’s managing editor in 1972. Patterson passed the test, and the magazine ran the story.

      So did Bob Heironimus: Heironimus was given and passed a lie detector test by Jim McCormick, a Yakima police polygraph expert (since deceased). Heironimus also passed a similar test on the “Lie Detector” television program.

      And what can we make of that: Both the National Wildlife editor who requested Patterson’s polygraph and the expert who administered it are deceased, so a peer review or a second look at his results are impossible.

      Heironimus’ results are equally problematic; McCormick died in 2009 and Heironimus’ attorney, Barry Woodard, did not respond to requests from another local polygraph expert for a peer review of the test results. The ‘Lie Detector’ show’s credibility also took a hit when host Ed Gelb was accused of exaggerating his own academic credentials and the show was victimized by a guest who made up a story, aced Gelb’s polygraph and then bragged about it in a magazine."

      Delete
    2. Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low
      budget documentary about the subject. He organized some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his association with Roger. Hieronimous is, in fact, one of Bob Gimlin's neighbours, but Gimlin had little social contact with him over the years. Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbours. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967. If Hieronimous had felt left out of Patterson's project by 1967, it would have added insult to injury to learn that his own horse was used by Gimlin on the horse trip that made them both famous. Yakima folks say Bob Hieronimous, by contrast, was always an under-achiever, since he was young. His bare-minimum
      work ethic won him no admirers in the community. He didn't have many friends, compared to Gimlin. Gimlin had a rather large circle of friends in the Yakima Valley. Compared to the Hieronimous property, the Gimlins seem to have done nicely for themselves. The Gimlins' home has always been well maintained, and nicely painted, and the landscaping nicely manicured. The Gimlins always had nicer, newer vehicles in their driveway too. The Hieronimous family could never keep up with those Joneses. It was a formula for envy in a small western town. Hieronimous had been telling people in Yakima bars for years that he would someday find a way to make money off the Patterson footage, like his famous neighbour did. So you see... Even if Bob H was telling the truth, he was either participating in a documentary (not the PGF) or merely had his horse in the film. Lastly... And this is courtesy from John W Jones, why would the horse go nuts if it was his owner in a suit?

      Delete
    3. Oh, and I almost forgot... Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    4. Iktomi is sick in the head. He's got bigfootidas.

      THERE IS NO BIGFOOT!!!!!!!!

      It's myth!!!

      It's folklore!!

      100 years from now they still won't prove it's existence.

      Delete
    5. Myths don't leave tracks... And here's your diagnosis, psycho nerd;

      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html

      : )

      Delete
    6. horse would go nuts if it were to have a rodeo harness on it..as any good horseman knows...iktomi people may take your drivel a bit more serious if it were your own words not others,you seem to plagiarize every thing you post

      Delete
    7. Not with its owners, as anyone with common sense would tell you. If you don't like the truth, however way it gets kicked at you, then you'd better find somewhere else to self reassure... Being around me ain't too conducive to your self esteem preservation.

      Delete
    8. haha, once again Joe gets owned
      Give up Joe, a name change and superb copy/paste skills won't save you from getting patty smacked every time you post on here

      Delete
    9. What I don't understand is if Joe Iktomi is soooo convinced that bigfoot exist, what the 4@ll is he doing over there in Wales and not over here looking for sasquatch.

      Delete
    10. 4:03... Tell me this, where are your heroes to support your ideas of a third man? Where are any of your heroes to support any one of your arguments on this blog post? Funny... Wouldn't Dmaker and Daniel Campbell have a rush of blood for this stuff? Those copy and pastes ruined your arguments, they do every time... Openly pleading for me to stop? Music to my ears. Cry me a river sweetheart, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    11. So, you admit that there could have been a third man there.

      Delete
    12. No.. I'm saying you're a desperate loon that see's things that aren't there, and nobody with half a brain would run to support such a joke.

      That's what I'm saying son.

      Delete
    13. So, what you're saying is that you're a desperate loon?

      Delete
  13. WELP! I don't see a guy in a hat up against a stump, I can hardly make out the guy on the horse and the horse isn't much better! As far as the subject goes....I've always wanted it to be real and have always thought it was probably fake. I know! I know! He passed a lie detector test, there are footprints, the muscular structure of the...Blah! Blah! Blah! The only real certainty about this film is that back in the day our photographic and especially video capabilities really sucked!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Streufert doesn't deserve credit for this; it had been released previously on YouTube. Right Steven?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm old enough to remember playing with a Super 8 FILM (analog) camera. Filming on actual film will render jittery shots & scratchy playback that is part & parcel of the medium. I see nothing extraordinary in the video, aside from Patty if course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 0:53 GOD you blithering asshats, don't you recognize it? it's a TROLL! That so called "person leaning against a log with a hat" is perhaps, because of a trick of light and shadow, may LOOK like a man wearin' a hat leaning against a log, but looks far more like a TROLL to me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I looked through frame-by-frame at the figure that appears at 0:53 and I can't see how it's anything but the shadow at the end of a stump. No legs, and far larger than the other person on horseback right next to it.
    There's no person. That, however, has nothing to do with whether this film shows us a bigfoot or a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Its all about knee angles and film speed. The creature lifts its legs at quite a high angle at the knee after each step. The lower leg is almost horizontal to the ground. A person doesnt walk like this unless they are walking at high speed or running. Patterson said he was filming at 18fps although his camera (cine kodak100 16mm)has speeds of 16,24,32,48 & 68fps. The lowest setting of 16fps was usually adjusted in the factory to be more like 18fps. If the film is shown at about 24 or 32 suddenly we have a creature almost running. The high angle of the leg below the knee makes sense. If this is walking at high speed ig is entirely consistant with a man in a suit. Filming at a slightly higher speed has the effect of slowing the action down slightly when shown at normal speed,and gives an impression of mass and power, 6million dollar man, chariots of fire being extreme examples. Patterson was a very clever little man, he would have kniwn this. If it was filmed at 24fps but shown at 18fps that would
    Mean the creature was walking 33 percent faster than it looks on all the videos. If im right and the knee angle indicates a high speed walking pace, then the creatures walk looks comleteley human when speeded up and most of the arguments about a walk that is inhuman start to dissapear. Plus dont those foot prints look very clear and well defined like they were stammped vertically into the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry for the typos, small tablet little touchscreen.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Real Story. Roger Patterson was going to Bluff Creek to do Patty. When Patty saw he was bringing Bob Gimlin along she said to herself no way and stormed off. She was a one man woman and did not believe in group sex. All was not lost though as Roger had a 5 finger lid of good weed and a quart of Jack Daniels in his saddlebags along with plenty of plaster to make cast of Patty's feet. I was told this by a person who knew Roger very well and the kind of person he really was.

    ReplyDelete