I stumbled upon the AARP website, and in it they talk about other potential squatches that are in the Patterson Gimlin film. I thought some of the proof they brought forth was interesting. What do you all think? Take a look at this link to decide for yourself.
http://www.trueseekers.org/yeti2.html
Full Version: Multiple Squatches in the PGF?
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Film, Video, Photo & Audio Discussion > Patterson / Gimlin Film
There are others that believe they see multiple bigfoot in the frames as well, but my own personal opinion is that they are simply shadow areas in patterns that allow our minds to play tricks on us. The first frame shot shown on the page you linked to, if you look at the top right and let your mind wander ya never know what you might see in the two darker shadowed areas. The one furthest to the right almost looks like a portrait of Jerry Garcia, and to his right and slightly behind looks like Cornelius(?) from "Planet of the Apes".
I bet if you let Mary Green and her red highlighter have a go at that film there would be no fewer than 30 or 40 various Sasquatchs of all sizes and shapes found and circled, lurking in the background. I bet she is good at them Find Waldo books! She's just got that God given talent to see stuff that normal folks can't see at all.
This film musta been shot before BF learned to use his esp to sense somebody fixing to pull a camera on him? Or maybe the one out front is the dummy in the family and all those she'll find in the brush were pulling a prank?
This film musta been shot before BF learned to use his esp to sense somebody fixing to pull a camera on him? Or maybe the one out front is the dummy in the family and all those she'll find in the brush were pulling a prank?
I think that the film is inconclusive at best due to the film quality. However, the behavior of the animal, and the supposed "doubling" back that it did after the film was shot, this does coincide with what an intelligent animal would do if it were trying to set a trap. I wonder if in time, as technology evolves, if we will ever be able to "tighten" the resolution in this film to give us conclusive proof one way or another. In the meantime, we can all scrutinize it to our hearts content.
QUOTE(olcowman @ Dec 21 2006, 12:27 AM) 
Or maybe the one out front is the dummy in the family and all those she'll find in the brush were pulling a prank?
Haha. I like that option.
Inconclusive.Although the supposed Bigfoot head in the backround does resemble pattys head and face. With a possible mouth also seen in the backround figure.
QUOTE(eldonkey @ Dec 20 2006, 09:42 PM)
I stumbled upon the AARP website, and in it they talk about other potential squatches that are in the Patterson Gimlin film. I thought some of the proof they brought forth was interesting. What do you all think? Take a look at this link to decide for yourself.
http://www.trueseekers.org/yeti2.html
http://www.trueseekers.org/yeti2.html
Ha, AARP. :biggrin:
This has been brought up very recently.
The trees and brush in the background are a lot further from Patty and the camera than you are inclined to believe when watching the film..
If that is the head of another Bigfoot in the background, Patty is probably about 3 feet tall...
The trees and brush in the background are a lot further from Patty and the camera than you are inclined to believe when watching the film..
If that is the head of another Bigfoot in the background, Patty is probably about 3 feet tall...
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Dec 21 2006, 11:11 AM)
This has been brought up very recently.
Recently??
This has been discussed back and forth for freakin' years...
And yeah, while maybe stills from the film show "squatchlike" shadows in the background (the one that got me was the one of the "male" on the hillside) but when you watch the actual moving film (thank you LMS) specifically for those shadows, it's pretty obvious that shadows is all they are.
Gotta love those red circle artists...
I wasn't aware that this had been discussed at length before. I find it an interesting proposition, and although the blobs in the background are more likely than not just shadows, I think it is very possible that other squatches may have been present. I never thought of the fact that Patty did not bolt into the forest when the film was shot, as you might expect. One might conclude that this was because she had backup waiting for her in the form of an ambush for anyone who decided to follow. Interesting stuff, what do you all know about the AARP? I have not heard of them before....
Robert Morgan, at one time, commaned some respect from many, including me, but his insistence there's 35 1/2 separate Pattys™ in the PGF blew it. There's absolutely no evidence in that film there are other Bigfeet™ in those frames and if you watch the moving picture film closely, not even a twig moves in those 'suspect areas'. Shadows are great for creative thinking (or is it wishful thinking?) but they do not constitute reality. Sadly, I think Morgan was so obsessed with being on the 'cutting edge' of Bigfoot Research™ he went ahead and cut himself right out of the picture. Another one bites the dust.
In another edition of Flashman forgot where he saw it, we bring you mention of an animated gif of the PGF that he saw on a BF research soc web page. In those few frames, the blobsquatches looked a bit more convincing than in the stills. Can't say if there was movement there, but they looked quite good to me. It was a low res gif though and I was hoping to come across a better version of that section some day. Unfortunately for this enquiry most of the enhancements we can get a look at are zoomed in on Patty.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif who knows -maybe :popcorn2: :popcorn2:
interesting, it would make sense & I still think this frame shows a male bigfoot hiding in wait observing patterson, just waiting to jump out & charge them
This is a perfect example of the paradox that is called bigfoot research. On one hand you've got an entire faction of people, including those producing network television material, who are spewing tons of evidence (collaborated or not) that this video is hoaxed and even have a parade of individuals claiming to be participants.
On the other hand, rather than concentrate on maintaining the integrity (in the eyes of the public) of what is argueably the single most important piece of evidence in the enitre history of BF research, we got folks flying solo and going public with blog-squatch shadows behind every bush.
Ever wonder why the general public is so easily convinced that the PG video was a hoax, and why most folks out there kinda take a step back anytime anyone tries to present legitimate evidence? We have painted us a corner and now nothing short of a dead specimen will ever be considered plausible proof of the BF.
On the other hand, rather than concentrate on maintaining the integrity (in the eyes of the public) of what is argueably the single most important piece of evidence in the enitre history of BF research, we got folks flying solo and going public with blog-squatch shadows behind every bush.
Ever wonder why the general public is so easily convinced that the PG video was a hoax, and why most folks out there kinda take a step back anytime anyone tries to present legitimate evidence? We have painted us a corner and now nothing short of a dead specimen will ever be considered plausible proof of the BF.
Patty's around AARP age. I remember reading all this speculation that there was more then one "sasquatch" in the "Sonoma Footage" :doh:
QUOTE(S. Conrad @ Dec 22 2006, 05:24 AM)
interesting, it would make sense & I still think this frame shows a male bigfoot hiding in wait observing patterson, just waiting to jump out & charge them
I must say that is very convincing :new_hmmsmiley02:
QUOTE(S. Conrad @ Dec 22 2006, 04:24 AM)
interesting, it would make sense & I still think this frame shows a male bigfoot hiding in wait observing patterson, just waiting to jump out & charge them
It's called Pareidolia.
QUOTE(S. Conrad @ Dec 22 2006, 03:24 AM)
interesting, it would make sense & I still think this frame shows a male bigfoot hiding in wait observing patterson, just waiting to jump out & charge them
The background flora is MUCH farther away than the subject. Ergo, if that is a face, that face must be at least 5 or 6 feet long.
The Zapruder film went thru similar claims - the "badgeman" behind the barrier on the grassy knoll. Analysis of scale proved it could not possibly be what the "analysts" hoped (and convinced themselves) it would be. It was just noise that - if you looked and wished hard enough - became what you wanted to be.
Clicking your heels three times doesn't work either. Does anyone on this site have any critical thought at all?? Jeez, people critisize the critics but then suck in ridiculous claims like pablum.
QUOTE(Bigfoot2007 @ Dec 22 2006, 09:25 PM)
I must say that is very convincing :new_hmmsmiley02:
I must say you are very gullible.
QUOTE(mike2k1 @ Dec 22 2006, 10:46 PM)
It's called Pareidolia.
FYI:
QUOTE
Pareidolia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Pareidolia (pronounced /pɛɹaɪˈdoliə/ or /pæraɪˈdəʊliə/), first used in 1994 by Steven Goldstein, describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, seeing the man in the moon, and hearing messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- – amiss, faulty, wrong – and eidolon – image, the diminutive of eidos – appearance, form.
As a survival technique, Human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify the human face. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility, but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces . Skeptics assert that sightings of religious or iconic figures in everyday objects, such as Marian apparitions, are examples of pareidolia, as are some cases of electronic voice phenomena. The Face on Mars is a phenomenon that succeeded the Martian canals, both eventually attributed to pareidolia, when the "seen" images disappeared in better and more numerous images. Many Canadians thought they saw the face of the Devil in the Queen's hair on a dollar bill in the 1954 series, adapted from a photograph. The bills were not withdrawn from circulation, but the image was altered in its next printing.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Pareidolia (pronounced /pɛɹaɪˈdoliə/ or /pæraɪˈdəʊliə/), first used in 1994 by Steven Goldstein, describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, seeing the man in the moon, and hearing messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- – amiss, faulty, wrong – and eidolon – image, the diminutive of eidos – appearance, form.
As a survival technique, Human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify the human face. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility, but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces . Skeptics assert that sightings of religious or iconic figures in everyday objects, such as Marian apparitions, are examples of pareidolia, as are some cases of electronic voice phenomena. The Face on Mars is a phenomenon that succeeded the Martian canals, both eventually attributed to pareidolia, when the "seen" images disappeared in better and more numerous images. Many Canadians thought they saw the face of the Devil in the Queen's hair on a dollar bill in the 1954 series, adapted from a photograph. The bills were not withdrawn from circulation, but the image was altered in its next printing.
wufgar Posted Yesterday, 11:33 PM :
QUOTE
Clicking your heels three times doesn't work either. Does anyone on this site have any critical thought at all?? Jeez, people critisize the critics but then suck in ridiculous claims like pablum
Yep, ALOT of us do utilize critical thought.
QUOTE
I must say you are very gullible.
I agree with you.....
QUOTE
I must say you are very gullible.
Nah just optimistic about the authenticity of the film.That is the most convincing evidence ive seen for the 'Multiple Sasquatch" theory yet.Im not exactly implying this is concrete proof of more than one Sasquatch but im aware of the possibility, As other Apes such as Chimpanzees and Gorillas tend to travel and live in groups.
QUOTE
Nah just optimistic about the authenticity of the film.That is the most convincing evidence ive seen for the 'Multiple Sasquatch" theory yet.Im not exactly implying this is concrete proof of more than one Sasquatch but im aware of the possibility, As other Apes such as Chimpanzees and Gorillas tend to travel and live in groups.
Being optimistic of the film is one thing, but seeing things in the backgroud isn't optimism..... it's reaching. More like way over-reaching. Morgan's theory is just that.....an idea with no proof or way of proving. Just because other animals travel in groups; doesn't mean squatch do. I'll stick with the one lone subject of the film.
Well to be honest....I have watched the PGF numerous times over and over, from the LMS video simply because it's in slow mo....I see absolutely NOTHING in the trees, on a log, in the branches....NOTHING!!! It's all make something out of nothing IMHO.
Isn't that Jimmy Hoffa behind that tree?
QUOTE(Husker1911 @ Dec 23 2006, 10:25 AM)
Isn't that Jimmy Hoffa behind that tree?
No, it's not him...umm...like duh, he's totally like buried under Giants stadium, bro.
No, it's not Jimmy Hoffa in the trees.... Geez.... its Jimmy Hoffa in the suit!!!
All funnyness set aside, I had not idea this topic would cause such controversy. Interesting points of view, I would have to agree though, after second thought, it may be best to focus on proving the subject in the film as real, and not worry about blobsquatches in the film....
All funnyness set aside, I had not idea this topic would cause such controversy. Interesting points of view, I would have to agree though, after second thought, it may be best to focus on proving the subject in the film as real, and not worry about blobsquatches in the film....
QUOTE(wufgar @ Dec 22 2006, 10:33 PM)
The background flora is MUCH farther away than the subject. Ergo, if that is a face, that face must be at least 5 or 6 feet long.
The Zapruder film went thru similar claims - the "badgeman" behind the barrier on the grassy knoll. Analysis of scale proved it could not possibly be what the "analysts" hoped (and convinced themselves) it would be. It was just noise that - if you looked and wished hard enough - became what you wanted to be.
Clicking your heels three times doesn't work either. Does anyone on this site have any critical thought at all?? Jeez, people critisize the critics but then suck in ridiculous claims like pablum.
I must say you are very gullible.
The Zapruder film went thru similar claims - the "badgeman" behind the barrier on the grassy knoll. Analysis of scale proved it could not possibly be what the "analysts" hoped (and convinced themselves) it would be. It was just noise that - if you looked and wished hard enough - became what you wanted to be.
Clicking your heels three times doesn't work either. Does anyone on this site have any critical thought at all?? Jeez, people critisize the critics but then suck in ridiculous claims like pablum.
I must say you are very gullible.
Correcttion - it wasn't the Zapruder film, but another photo taken of the JFK assn from a different angle. Theorists claimed to see a man with a gun and a badge behing the grassy knoll... measurements demonstrated that it was impossible - - people were seeing what they wanted to see in the photo noise.
Ahhh... but like the Zapruder film... the head is back, and to the side... back, and to the side... back, and to the side...
I know this thread is more or less dead, but I could not let it rest.
What is more interesting with the article by AARP than the blobsquatches, is the pointing out of the irrational behavior of the PGF subject. OK, assuming it's an animal, why would it turn it's back on a dangerous predator known to be able to kill from a distance? She's presumed to be an pretty intelligent animal.
I think, she either doesn't see them as a threat, or she's deliberately exposing herself.
Not only does she walk calmly in from of them, but she also turn her back on them and walk slowly away, not looking back again. I wouldn't do that in front of a lion or a bear. Or even a moose.
What is more interesting with the article by AARP than the blobsquatches, is the pointing out of the irrational behavior of the PGF subject. OK, assuming it's an animal, why would it turn it's back on a dangerous predator known to be able to kill from a distance? She's presumed to be an pretty intelligent animal.
I think, she either doesn't see them as a threat, or she's deliberately exposing herself.
Not only does she walk calmly in from of them, but she also turn her back on them and walk slowly away, not looking back again. I wouldn't do that in front of a lion or a bear. Or even a moose.
Oh for the love of God! There is a face on the surface of Mars too. :new_tiredsmiley:
Regarding the issue of Patty's action that Isbjörn has just raised; it seems to me that it could largely be reasonably explained as a creature leaving the area as rapidly as possible without running. Running after already seen could be thought of as too provocative. So the notion is to keep the tension as low as possible.
Regarding the issue of Patty's action that Isbjörn has just raised; it seems to me that it could largely be reasonably explained as a creature leaving the area as rapidly as possible without running. Running after already seen could be thought of as too provocative. So the notion is to keep the tension as low as possible.
The tracks indicated she did run later. The stride lengthened out.
The area was ajacent to 17,500 sq. mi. that had only been mapped from the air. There were events when new logging operations were pushing into the territory. It's not likely the "Bluff Creek three" had a lot of experience with people, and probably little to none with hunters. Sasquatches seem to be active mostly at night and hunters during the day.
Patty, big as she was, would have had little reason to panic, IMO.
The area was ajacent to 17,500 sq. mi. that had only been mapped from the air. There were events when new logging operations were pushing into the territory. It's not likely the "Bluff Creek three" had a lot of experience with people, and probably little to none with hunters. Sasquatches seem to be active mostly at night and hunters during the day.
Patty, big as she was, would have had little reason to panic, IMO.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 28 2007, 04:15 AM)
The tracks indicated she did run later. The stride lengthened out.
The area was ajacent to 17,500 sq. mi. that had only been mapped from the air. There were events when new logging operations were pushing into the territory. It's not likely the "Bluff Creek three" had a lot of experience with people, and probably little to none with hunters. Sasquatches seem to be active mostly at night and hunters during the day.
Patty, big as she was, would have had little reason to panic, IMO.
The area was ajacent to 17,500 sq. mi. that had only been mapped from the air. There were events when new logging operations were pushing into the territory. It's not likely the "Bluff Creek three" had a lot of experience with people, and probably little to none with hunters. Sasquatches seem to be active mostly at night and hunters during the day.
Patty, big as she was, would have had little reason to panic, IMO.
On the other hand, being a curious primate, one would expect her to take some time to study these strange people on horseback.
Or she might not have distinguished them from the horses, being only aware that could never catch a horse and therefore being uninterested.
How do the other great apes react to new phenomena?
I still find her too demonstative in turning her back on them.
QUOTE(Isbjörn @ Feb 28 2007, 04:13 PM)
On the other hand, being a curious primate, one would expect her to take some time to study these strange people on horseback.
Or she might not have distinguished them from the horses, being only aware that could never catch a horse and therefore being uninterested.
How do the other great apes react to new phenomena?
I still find her too demonstative in turning her back on them.
Or she might not have distinguished them from the horses, being only aware that could never catch a horse and therefore being uninterested.
How do the other great apes react to new phenomena?
I still find her too demonstative in turning her back on them.
It's been suggested they got so close because they were on horseback (scent-masking, for one thing).
I don't know what a standard great ape response would be in such a situation, but everything from attempted murder by falling tree to rape have been reported. Male Orangutans attempt to look very large.
Roger described her look as the kind the referee gives you when he's about to kick you out of the game. Her mate may have been nearby and the two could have been in serious trouble if he showed up. That was one reason Roger didn't want to be left behind when Bob started out after her.
QUOTE(Mystical Hominid @ Feb 27 2007, 07:05 PM)
Oh for the love of God! There is a face on the surface of Mars too. :new_tiredsmiley:
Regarding the issue of Patty's action that Isbjörn has just raised; it seems to me that it could largely be reasonably explained as a creature leaving the area as rapidly as possible without running. Running after already seen could be thought of as too provocative. So the notion is to keep the tension as low as possible.
Regarding the issue of Patty's action that Isbjörn has just raised; it seems to me that it could largely be reasonably explained as a creature leaving the area as rapidly as possible without running. Running after already seen could be thought of as too provocative. So the notion is to keep the tension as low as possible.
I've had black bear do that once. But the bear was more intrested in getting her cub out of the area. I'm not saying Patty was doing that too, though others have suggested she was distracting Roger and Bob from a young one.
QUOTE(Isbjörn @ Feb 27 2007, 02:38 PM)
I know this thread is more or less dead, but I could not let it rest.
What is more interesting with the article by AARP than the blobsquatches, is the pointing out of the irrational behavior of the PGF subject. OK, assuming it's an animal, why would it turn it's back on a dangerous predator known to be able to kill from a distance? She's presumed to be an pretty intelligent animal.
I think, she either doesn't see them as a threat, or she's deliberately exposing herself.
Not only does she walk calmly in from of them, but she also turn her back on them and walk slowly away, not looking back again. I wouldn't do that in front of a lion or a bear. Or even a moose.
What is more interesting with the article by AARP than the blobsquatches, is the pointing out of the irrational behavior of the PGF subject. OK, assuming it's an animal, why would it turn it's back on a dangerous predator known to be able to kill from a distance? She's presumed to be an pretty intelligent animal.
I think, she either doesn't see them as a threat, or she's deliberately exposing herself.
Not only does she walk calmly in from of them, but she also turn her back on them and walk slowly away, not looking back again. I wouldn't do that in front of a lion or a bear. Or even a moose.
How would she know they were dangerous predators known for killing at a distance?
Bindernagel points out in his book the many cases of Sasquatches in select areas that steal hunters kills, and he speculates that some of these animals who have not been shot at come to associate gunfre witha free meal. I think he is probably right on target.
And, as Lu mentioned, her tracks do indicate her running as she went out of site.
I'm not saying she was with a child, but she did have rather large breasts and may have been lactating.
Mystical Hominid (
) also bring up a good point, a lot of animals do back away slowly while in sight of a threat. We even do it.
QUOTE(FredSneakers/David @ Mar 1 2007, 04:11 AM)
a lot of animals do back away slowly while in sight of a threat. We even do it.
But she didn't back away; she turned her back at the potential danger, after no more than a glance. Of cause she might have studied them from a distance in advancing through the forest, but then why would she reveal herself at all? Are there explanations in the topography of Bluff Creek?
QUOTE(APEBAIT @ Mar 1 2007, 03:24 AM)
I've had black bear do that once. But the bear was more intrested in getting her cub out of the area. I'm not saying Patty was doing that too, though others have suggested she was distracting Roger and Bob from a young one.
This is what the AARP-article suggested. I believe that is likely.
QUOTE
I don't know what a standard great ape response would be in such a situation, but everything from attempted murder by falling tree to rape have been reported. Male Orangutans attempt to look very large.
That is what I would think too. Absents of some kind of hostile response is suspicious IMO.
QUOTE
Roger described her look as the kind the referee gives you when he's about to kick you out of the game. Her mate may have been nearby and the two could have been in serious trouble if he showed up. That was one reason Roger didn't want to be left behind when Bob started out after her.
LOL.
Strange what we can intuitively percept. I believe her behaviour do suggest she was not alone.
OH COME ON NOW!! For starters just because a Native American says Sasquatch never travel alone in the forest dosen't make it so! First of all nearly every sighting, film and photo ever taken of these things has been a single creature or a single set of tracks. But PGF having other creatures present is streaching things to the breaking point. There's an old saying that goes figuers don't lie but liars can figure. With enough manipulation, wishful thinking and cleverness anything can be created out of grainy non descript photo frames. I'm willing to bet that if you wanted to see the remains of a wrecked airplane in the woods you could enhance this and than on PGF to make a wrecked airplane seem to be part of the scene. I don't by any of there beeing additional creatures present.
That frame does show what looks like a bigfoot face? But it seems to close to the tree to convince me? 
Are we actually having this discussion?
Look at the film, not the stills. Count the bigfoot. Roughly speaking, I see one. Just one.
Look at the film, not the stills. Count the bigfoot. Roughly speaking, I see one. Just one.
I see what your saying but you have to look at the stills too. You cant js=ust count something out because its not all that visible in the video.
I'm with Bipto, this discussion is still going on? I guess one of the flaws of this type of forum is PURE SPECULATION based solely on one's IMAGINATION is also allowed - albeit it is not always 'accepted'. A more perfect example of such 'speculation' here on this forum cannot be found.
All I see are shadows, wrapped in an enigma, surrounded by a riddle.
All subjective
QUOTE(KINDABIGFOOT @ Jun 19 2007, 09:59 PM)
I see what your saying but you have to look at the stills too. You cant js=ust count something out because its not all that visible in the video.
Sure I can. Watch.
Look at two consecutive frames. Better yet, look at three or four. If you see your extra bigfoot in the same place in more than one, then we can talk. However, if you see nothing but trees and underbrush, focus on the great big sasquatch in the middle of the frame.
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Dec 21 2006, 11:11 AM)
The trees and brush in the background are a lot further from Patty and the camera than you are inclined to believe when watching the film..
If that is the head of another Bigfoot in the background, Patty is probably about 3 feet tall...
If that is the head of another Bigfoot in the background, Patty is probably about 3 feet tall...
God help me for saying this, but SG is 100% correct.
QUOTE(eldonkey @ Dec 20 2006, 11:42 PM)
I stumbled upon the AARP website, and in it they talk about other potential squatches that are in the Patterson Gimlin film. I thought some of the proof they brought forth was interesting. What do you all think? Take a look at this link to decide for yourself.
http://www.trueseekers.org/yeti2.html
http://www.trueseekers.org/yeti2.html
I think it's the kind of thing that makes all bigfooters seem like fools -- unable to distinguish basic reality and prone to seeing things that aren't there. Check out episode #11 of Skeptoid podcast titled: Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science
ok Bipto you can look at what ever you want. 
and im not saying that i think that is another sasquatch, im just saying that it looks like one.
and im not saying that i think that is another sasquatch, im just saying that it looks like one.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.