Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
danbell06

Patterson Gimlin Foot Tracks.

77 posts in this topic

Look faked to me. :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stride does seem to be a little short on those and they do have that......."set-there-on-purpose" look to them. Just a little too sharp and clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The toes are too pronounced. The distance from one track to another is ridiculously short, and at 20 seconds on the video there side by side as if the subject has jumped and landed on both feet.

Now I've never seen a bigfoot track in person but I know if I went and stood outside in the snow or mud It certainly wouldn't have as much definition as the toes, that are shown on this film.

Screams Hoax to me. Which in turn makes me re-think my views on the PGF. :unsure2:

The tracks are quite reminiscent of a fellow called Ray Wallace.

Edited by danbell06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not certain these are from the P/G site. The tracks do not appear to match the casts made from the P/G site, and in fact look more like the fakes reportedly made by Ray Wallace. The construction site that his brother owned/supervised, was on or near a long dirt road if I recall.

Also the same video appeared on Cryptomundo today, and the poster said it mysterious arrived by email, and said to be of John Green's investigation near Bluff Creek.

Both the Wallace construction site and the P/G site where at/near Bluff Creek, so just by the little info given so far, one cannot say which site it is of, though my guess is the Wallace.

Edited by Insanity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not certain these are from the P/G site. The tracks do not appear to match the casts made from the P/G site, and in fact look more like the fakes reportedly made by Ray Wallace. The construction site that his brother owned/supervised, was on or near a long dirt road if I recall.

Also the same video appeared on Cryptomundo today, and the poster said it mysterious arrived by email, and said to be of John Green's investigation near Bluff Creek.

Both the Wallace construction site and the P/G site where at/near Bluff Creek, so just by the little info given so far, one cannot say which site it is of, though my guess is the Wallace.

You've put it into perspective now. I thought the prints were very Wallace-esque. The fact that it has been put on another site allegedly mysteriously by email speaks volumes about the credibility of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At around 1:30 there 's a shot of a line of footprints that are 'way too aligned: go look at human tracks in the snow and you'll see the left and right footprints are staggered, not in a single line.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've put it into perspective now. I thought the prints were very Wallace-esque. The fact that it has been put on another site allegedly mysteriously by email speaks volumes about the credibility of it.

I am not saying it is not an authentic film of John Green doing an investigation, I think that perhaps the stated site is incorrect. The closeup of the tracks early in the film do look quite similar to those reportedly made by Ray Wallace, even the squarish toes and ball of the foot look darn close, at least from memory.

The video post at CM was titled, "The Missing P/G Film Footage", and the caption reads "This video mysteriously showed up in my email one day. It features John Green’s investigation of an area near Bluff Creek." I think perhaps the poster may have assumed Bluff Creek meant the P/G site.

Just my thoughts. I am sure someone with images at their fingertips will be able to point the same out if is such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

150693_323684461069057_813115856_n.jpg

Got this off Jeffrey Meldrum's Facebook page. I think it's rather interesting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen the same too it fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something else to consider, it you'd like. If this is a guy in a costume then the large feet would most likely not have had any real attention paid to it. Looking at the photo, those feet are believable......I mean, just looking at them......which is all we can really do. Then when you look at the footprint cast, you don't see a smaller foot print within a larger print, it's pretty uniform. I don't know if the film is real or faked, seems every time I look at it I find something new to make me wonder in both directions.

Then too, why put boobs on it in the sixties? See what I'm saying? It just makes me wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That cast is definately from that foot. Big-foot.

Edited by danbell06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly look like it did, but then it can be deceiving.....pictures all blurry and at a slight angle, but I have to agree it looks interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if an overlay of foot and cast would show a match.

post-126400-0-50787000-1359077943_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really strikes me as interesting is the second toe over from the big toe. Dimple underneath, the toe is slightly out of whack with the others and it seems to match up in the cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the hoax perspective: Why would you create an impression that differs from the foot of the costume?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the hoax perspective: Why would you create an impression that differs from the foot of the costume?

You wouldn't. But what could they have used on the feet to create the imprint they cast?

Providing it was a suit.

Edited by danbell06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the hoax perspective: Why would you create an impression that differs from the foot of the costume?

I get what you're saying, however consider that the feet most likely wouldn't have been thought of before the film was shot. We have the advantage of having read what others have written about it, thought about it, poured over it like water at a falls, digitized it, re-digitized it and looked at it with just about every new fangled software, imaging device that's come along since the film was first shown way back in '67.........when my old shriveled up butt was in the tenth grade.

We now know to look for obvious problems with prints, then too, why would they have made the Bigfoot a female......at least they gave it boobs, that says, "Female" to me, but I don't know what the anatomy of a Bigfoot is supposed to be, I didn't see any male member swinging in the breeze. Now, yeah we think about this stuff, if you will excuse the expression because we're standing on the shoulders of the one before us who figured this all out ahead of us.

I seriously doubt any hoaxer.....in 1967 would have thought too much about these things before all the scrutiny, if you get what I'm saying. Now is one thing but then? Then? Seriously?

I'm just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't. But what could they have used on the feet to create the imprint they cast?

Providing it was a suit.

Examine the timeline from when Bigfoot walked across Bluff Creek to when the tracks were cast and see if "red flags" jump out at you. Then tell me how YOU would/could do it...

I get what you're saying, however consider that the feet most likely wouldn't have been thought of before the film was shot. We have the advantage of having read what others have written about it, thought about it, poured over it like water at a falls, digitized it, re-digitized it and looked at it with just about every new fangled software, imaging device that's come along since the film was first shown way back in '67.........when my old shriveled up butt was in the tenth grade.

We now know to look for obvious problems with prints, then too, why would they have made the Bigfoot a female......at least they gave it boobs, that says, "Female" to me, but I don't know what the anatomy of a Bigfoot is supposed to be, I didn't see any male member swinging in the breeze. Now, yeah we think about this stuff, if you will excuse the expression because we're standing on the shoulders of the one before us who figured this all out ahead of us.

I seriously doubt any hoaxer.....in 1967 would have thought too much about these things before all the scrutiny, if you get what I'm saying. Now is one thing but then? Then? Seriously?

I'm just saying.

Many hoaxes successfully dupe people because they simply cannot conceive of the duplicity involved. Consider Dr. Napier's comments on the (faked) "Cripplefoot" tracks just 2 years after Bluff Creek:

"It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so suble, so knowledgable - and so sick - who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it."

http://www.bigfooten...es/bossburg.htm

More on the "Cripplefoot" fiasco: http://home.yowieocalypse.com/amvpro/

Hoaxes and other llusions work because of how things seem. It is often difficult to conceive otherwise - that is part of the attraction...

Example: A line of large Bigfoot tracks were once found going up a steep hill in large, in-human strides with no signs of tampering around. Can you conceive how was it possible to fake those?

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I can admit I just don't get all this PGF analysis, and haven't followed it, and don't understand all the tech stuff.

I have to say, I just don't see how this close-up perfect foot shot out was taken off the original footage we all watched for years.

But that adds nothing, coming from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Example: A line of large Bigfoot tracks were once found going up a steep hill in large, in-human strides with no signs of tampering around. Can you conceive how was it possible to fake those?

Actually that one isn't hard to figure out at all. You put your fake feet on backward and then got from the top down using gravity to increase your strides. What will give it away will be any long landing marks from the top down, however most will miss those because everything else will appear to be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that one isn't hard to figure out at all. You put your fake feet on backward and then got from the top down using gravity to increase your strides. What will give it away will be any long landing marks from the top down, however most will miss those because everything else will appear to be correct.

Nice. I have quoted that example before though so I was hoping that you wouldn't remember...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say so, actually no one ever asked me that before and I haven't read it on here or anywhere else.

The VC used to put spare boot soles or sandal soles on backward to make it look like they were going in a different direction. A lot of guys got fooled but I learned quick to check which direction the stride originated from, you can do some funky thing to mess with people's heads but you can't fool everyone.

Kudos for having posted it up. Maybe sometime I'll check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Memory is a fickle thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. I have quoted that example before though so I was hoping that you wouldn't remember...

Maybe ken had the same thought on this as you did. Did coincidence ever cross your mind or did you just jump straight to the conclusion he got the idea from you because you posted it at one time? I'm just curious as to what your reasoning is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have real tracking skills. they're pretty rusty now, but it's like riding a bicycle, you pick them right back up quickly.

I learned most of what I know in Nam from a guy in our unit who was a real Apache Indian. Honestly, this guy could track men over smooth rocks I think, tell you how many there were. how much they were carrying, how many were wounded. The guy was amazing and really quickly I learned to shut up and pay attention to what he had to say, because he was like most Indians, he didn't get into idle chit-chat, when he spoke he had something to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.