NASI Report: Toward A Resolution Of The Bigfoot Phenomenon

Analysis of 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film by the North American Science Institute

The 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film, photographed on
October 20, 1967 in Bluff Creek, California by
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin is one of few
pieces of photographic imagery that has not yet
been proven to be a forgery. This film was
evaluated by the author to see if it may be excluded
from the set of Bigfoot phenomenon observations
by demonstrating it is a forgery.

Highlights: (2:44+) Mathematical analysis (ratio using pixels and a known height) assigns a height of 7' 3 1/2" (plus or minus one inch) to the figure in the film. (3:24+) The figure's waist is calculated as 81.3 inches (3:38+) The figure's chest perimeter is calculated as 83 inches (4:33) The figure's arm length is calculated as 43 inches (4:48) "The arm length of the subject is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean which is in the 99.9999981 percentile or is present in one out of 52.5 million people." (4:58) The subject's leg length is calculated as 40 inches (5:19+) Morphology, or appearance, of the subject's hand, foot, and face all put it between the human and gorilla in Glickman's opinion. (8:00) "There are several ways the subject may be differentiated from traditional forgeries: non-uniform hair texture, non-uniform coloration, and non-uniformity of hair length." (8:17) "The appearance and sophistication of musculature as seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film has not yet been reproduced in costumes in the entertainment industry." (9:40) Differences between the human knee cycle and the figure's knee cycle. (10:15) Discussion. "To date the Patterson-Gimlin film has defied explanation, and it continues to do so after three years of rigorous forensic examination."

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• bigfoot
• sasquatch
• yeti
• almasty
• 16mm
• kodak
• film
• patterson
• gimlin
• footage
• bigfootage
• bluff
• creek
• analysis
• scientific

[GA040607]

didnt sum1 already come foward stating it was a hoax?

[PostToastie]

@GA040607

Yep, many people have come forward claiming to be "the brains behind the hoax". None of them are believable.

[PostToastie]

@CosmicTruthify You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching.

[Ammobarer]

I couldn't read this film. kit's going too fast.

[rntonp]

The main thing that bothers me about this film is Why was it spliced between :41 and :42 seconds. If you look at the stump in right bottom corner it suddenly disappears, and the 'angle' that the person filming changed from an approx. 30 degree angle to approx 10 degree angle (if you plot a line from where Pattie was first seen to entering the woods and draw another line from cameraman position to Patty's line of travel) Anyone ever mention this ??

[Arcticfox36]

@Parasite10000000 -I agree with you about attempting a hoax, and getting lucky in the process. Patterson had been called a "liar" and a "conman" by some. It's very possible that the "conman" was in the right place at the right time on that day.

[montotosk]

Thanks for posting real forensic data!

[fretman411]

@simpeable Right.

[crazycatlady68]

I believe.

[MultiKez2010]

Good vid well done.

[fastwalker100]

I have always believed that the case for big foot will be made by the evidence and proved or disproved by the evidence. I totally respect the forensic analysis presented in your video and hope that those of a similar academic background will debate the the facts with you. It is only through the careful assembly, analysis and testing of the data that the truth will finally emerge.

[drmrdude1965]

its real all right

[MisterNifty]

It isn't what can be seen clearly by the eyes that bothers me, but what can't be seent. While the female creature does seem to have a buttocks to sit down upon, it doesn't seem to have an opening which curves up into the anus forming the crack normally needed to elimate waste out of. All primates do possess these necessary things.