The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[Kurokage]

I’m not the one that keeps pushing videos of people that claim Bigfoot but never can produce a flesh and bone specimen.  So, there is no validation of anything they claim.  Where bears and mountain lions are captured every year.  And bear and mountain lion research can be validated.  

So.  Either everything they think they know about Bigfeet is wrong and erroneous.  Thus why they are incompetent at capturing a flesh and bone specimen for examination.  In a world where even giant squids wash up on shore, yet not even a confirmed Bigfoot corpse.   Or Bigfeet aren’t flesh and bone like mountain lions and bears.

So you have absolutely no evidence that I've stated I'm a believer, Thanks for confirming that for me!! 
   

[putnam6]

Straw man?

I don’t do magnet fishing because I wonder how any of the guns found were used in a crime.

Why would Patterson keep the suit if it was part of a hoax?  

Where my parents were born in the 1940’s.  Where I seen how items that had adhesives broke down with heat and cold over the years, especially if stored in a garage or attic.  Condensation working on items, and things get mildewed.  Where mice have made nests in things and pooped over everything. Seen that in numerous settings.  Home and industrial.  Little critters chew on things.  Where my parents smoked all their lives and things would be ruined with nicotine stains.  

That’s just reality.

Which is just anecdotal evidence, and while interesting and defining for you, it actually proves or disproves nothing...

Anecdotally, some of our Halloween costumes from the '70s survived just fine in a leaky, moldy shed. 

 it was rumored that Gimlin was offered a million bucks to prove there was a suit/hoax and refused


Thats the reality...

[Kurokage]

Which is just anecdotal evidence, and while interesting and defining for you, it actually proves or disproves nothing...

Anecdotally, some of our Halloween costumes from the '70s survived just fine in a leaky, moldy shed. 

 it was rumored that Gimlin was offered a million bucks to prove there was a suit/hoax and refused


Thats the reality...

I think that's why this film and the people around it draw so much discussion, So many ups and downs for and against Patty. It's why I've followed it as long as I have.

[WallFlowerActive]

So you have absolutely no evidence that I've stated I'm a believer, Thanks for confirming that for me!! 
   
[Image: https://denyignorance.com//images/addsmi...na-021.gif]

Quote where I said you did.

i just post actual obvious things.  Then you go about you didn’t watch my videos?

Which has nothing to do with my stance.  In a world where mountain lions and bears are captured and tagged every year.  Where I can go to the zoo and see these animals in flesh in blood.  In a world where Smurfs exist in video.  Where in addition to people obviously getting confused by bear sightings, Bigfoot very well might be supernatural.  Where it’s known and proven the Bigfoot community is inundated with frauds.  Until they produce a flesh and blood Bigfoot, you only have faith in a select few.  Where not one blood and bone Bigfoot has been verified shot or captured in all the history of North America.  Where there is not even a fossil record of evolution to show Bigfeet might exist.

No flesh and blood Bigfoot specimen means only faith.

[WallFlowerActive]

Thats the reality...

The reality is the Bigfoot community is known to have its frauds and cons.  With scores of books written with supposed knowledge of Bigfoot.  Obviously it must be erroneous, because it hasn’t helped any Bigfoot hunter produce one flesh and bone Bigfoot as a specimen for examination.  But you do have things like knuckleheads buying gorilla suits in ice.

So.  Bigfeet hunters just stupid, incompetent, or both.  Only a Bigfoot hunter can be called hunter, or investigator, and yet not capture one living or dead flesh and bone Bigfeet in a world people even find giant squid washed up on shore.  

What’s the chances of finding a washed up giant squid, but it happens.  And yet, not even one confirmed flesh and bone Bigfoot corpse.

[Maxmars]

You know, despite the continuous contentious confrontational exchange, this thread has been very informative, and even in contention... meaningful points have been made.

I think perhaps, that some visitors and new comers might get the impression that this was ever about the reality of "Bigfoot"... but frankly, it's about the footage offered as the single most focused-upon piece of "proof" ever debated this way... save maybe the Zapruder film, or the infamous "9/11" collections.

The idea that someone is "pushing" this as real, is as incorrect as presuming we are "pushing" that it is a hoax.

Even if the author and maker of the thread insisted it were real... it is just an affirmation... and repeatedly using the same counters to different arguments does not really add to the dialogue.

No one should waste their time or breath to perform activism, to preach, to proselytize here, even in dissent.

This is a conversation... not a stage... 
what we offer to each other here is exactly what you simply cannot get anywhere else... peaceful discussion.  Actual answers. Honest questions.

Within this thread might appear a thought or notion that members find 'new'... thank you for those.

[ArMaP]

So. It comes down can you prove they were lying.  And why?

There's no need to prove they were lying or not to know that someone's word is not physical evidence.

[ArMaP]

How about trying to take into account that the remastering of the footage more recently, still hasn't been able to dismiss it straight out?

Garbage in, garbage out.

If we only have bad copies we cannot get more detail from where it doesn't exist.

People may use AI to create new versions that, at first sight, look better, but they are not real copies, they are recreations based on probability that may or may not be similar to the original.

[ArMaP]

it was rumored that Gimlin was offered a million bucks to prove there was a suit/hoax and refused

Thats the reality...

Even a real rumour is not proof that something is real.

[putnam6]

The reality is the Bigfoot community is known to have its frauds and cons.  With scores of books written with supposed knowledge of Bigfoot.  Obviously it must be erroneous, because it hasn’t helped any Bigfoot hunter produce one flesh and bone Bigfoot as a specimen for examination.  But you do have things like knuckleheads buying gorilla suits in ice.

So.  Bigfeet hunters just stupid, incompetent, or both.  Only a Bigfoot hunter can be called hunter, or investigator, and yet not capture one living or dead flesh and bone Bigfeet in a world people even find giant squid washed up on shore.  

What’s the chances of finding a washed up giant squid, but it happens.  And yet, not even one confirmed flesh and bone Bigfoot corpse.

Never said, suggested, or inferred that the Bigfoot community did not have frauds and cons; that reality doesn't mean Patterson and or Gimlin were frauds. 
 
Tell me about all the alleged Smurf footprint casts.... do Smurfs footprints contain a mid-tarsal break thats absent in a human footprint too?


Because it's that mid-tarsal break indicated in so many footprint casts that is the sticking point.

The mid tarsal break was evident in the video and in the casts made at Bluff Creek

who faked these prints in various areas that have been found certainly since the 50s, and faked them well enough to fool so many, including a few college professors. 

 

Overview of Bigfoot Footprint Casts in North American Institutions
Bigfoot footprint casts—plaster replicas of alleged tracks left by the cryptid—form a key part of the physical evidence collected by enthusiasts, researchers, and institutions since the modern Bigfoot phenomenon began in 1958. These casts are primarily held in specialized museums dedicated to cryptozoology or folklore, with fewer in mainstream universities or natural history museums due to skepticism in academic circles. Mainstream institutions often treat them as cultural artifacts rather than scientific evidence.
No comprehensive census exists, but based on documented collections, the estimated total number of Bigfoot footprint casts in North American universities and museums is 400–600. This includes:

• Universities: Primarily research collections by individual anthropologists, with limited institutional integration.
  
• Museums: Mostly small, themed facilities in Bigfoot "hotspot" regions like the Pacific Northwest, California, and the Appalachians. Larger museums may have 1–5 casts as historical curiosities.
  

This estimate accounts for duplicates (e.g., copies of famous tracks like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin site cast) and focuses on unique or first-generation casts. Private collections (e.g., by researchers like Cliff Barackman) number in the hundreds but are not included unless archived in public institutions.

Thousands of tracks have been reported since 1958, but only a fraction result in casts, and even fewer end up in formal collections.

 
Key Collections and Numbers
The table below summarizes major documented holdings. Numbers are approximate, drawn from researcher statements, museum descriptions, and analyses (e.g., by experts like Jeffrey Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt).
Institution
Type
Location
Estimated Footprint Casts
Notes
Idaho State University (Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum's Lab)
University
Pocatello, ID
200–300
Largest academic collection; includes detailed anatomical studies of dermal ridges. Meldrum, a primate bipedalism expert, argues many show non-human primate features.
Arizona State Museum
University Museum
Tucson, AZ
2–5
Holds replicas from 1967 Bluff Creek and 1970 Colville sites, obtained via anthropologist Grover Krantz; cataloged as historical artifacts with authenticity notes.
Washington State University (Grover Krantz Collection, archived)
University (legacy)
Pullman, WA
50–100
Krantz's personal archive of casts from 1970s–1990s expeditions; now partially integrated into university holdings for anthropological study.
North American Bigfoot Center
Museum
Boring, OR
50–100 (dozens on display)
Largest public Pacific Northwest collection; includes global comparisons and hand/foot casts from expeditions. Founded by Finding Bigfoot researcher Cliff Barackman.
Bigfoot Discovery Museum
Museum
Felton, CA
50–100
Extensive archive of casts, maps, and memorabilia; owner Michael Rugg has collected since 1952, focusing on Northern California tracks.
Willow Creek–China Flat Museum
Museum
Willow Creek, CA
30
Dedicated "Bigfoot Capital of the World" exhibit with plaster casts, including a 16-inch track; tied to 1958 Jerry Crew discovery.
Expedition Bigfoot (The Sasquatch Museum)
Museum
Blue Ridge, GA
20–50
Appalachian-focused; claims one of the largest artifact collections, with casts from U.S. Forest Service reports (e.g., 1982 Washington tracks).
International Cryptozoology Museum
Museum
Portland, ME
100–150
Archives 150+ casts, including Patterson-Gimlin replicas; world's only dedicated cryptozoology museum with global cryptid ties.
Other Regional Museums (e.g., WV Bigfoot Museum, Sasquatch Museum & Research Center)
Museums (various)
WV, WA, etc.
10–30 each (total ~100 across 5–10 sites)
Smaller collections emphasizing local sightings; e.g., WV holds state-specific casts and hair samples.
Basis for the Estimate

• High-End (600): Aggregates upper bounds from major sites (e.g., Meldrum's 300 + museum totals of 300+), assuming some overlap in shared replicas.
  
• Low-End (400): Adjusts for duplicates and non-public holdings; forensic expert Jimmy Chilcutt analyzed ~150 from Meldrum's lab alone in the early 2000s, suggesting growth since.
  
• Challenges in Counting: Many casts are second- or third-generation copies of iconic tracks (e.g., 10+ from the 1967 Patterson site). Institutions like the Smithsonian have none, viewing them as folklore. U.S. Forest Service holds a few (e.g., 3 from 1982 Blue Mountains) but not in public museums.
  
• Trends: Collections have grown with public interest (e.g., post-Finding Bigfoot TV show), but academic skepticism limits university acquisitions. About 70% are in the Pacific Northwest, aligning with ~50% of BFRO's 5,000+ North American sightings.
  

If you're seeking specifics on a region or cast (e.g., the "mid-tarsal break" track), more targeted research could refine this. These artifacts fuel ongoing debate: believers cite anatomical details like sweat pores, while skeptics point to hoaxes (e.g., 1958 Ray Wallace carvings).

 

Do the bluff creek casts contain mid tarsal break
 
Yes — the best-documented Bluff Creek casts (especially those from the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film site) show clear evidence of a mid-tarsal break (also called midfoot flexibility or transverse tarsal joint flexion).\
 
This feature is central to the debate over their authenticity and is most prominently analyzed in casts collected by Roger Patterson, Bob Titmus, and later Dr. Jeff Meldrum.
 
Key Bluff Creek Casts with Mid-Tarsal Break Evidence
Cast / Track
Date
Collector
Mid-Tarsal Break?
Details
Patterson-Gimlin Site Casts (Tracks #1–16)
Oct 20–21, 1967
Roger Patterson, Bob Titmus
Yes
Track #10 (left foot) shows pronounced flexion line across the midfoot, with the forefoot angled upward relative to the heel. Titmus cast this in 1967.
Titmus Cast #10 (replica)
1967
Bob Titmus
Strongest Example
Preserved at Idaho State University. Shows deep transverse crease, elevated lateral forefoot, and flexible sole pressure ridges. Meldrum’s 3D scans confirm ~15° dorsiflexion at mid-tarsal joint.
Bluff Creek 1958 (Jerry Crew)
Aug 1958
Jerry Crew
No
Original hoax (Ray Wallace admitted using carved wooden feet). No mid-tarsal flexibility — rigid, flat impressions.
Bluff Creek 1960s (various)
1963–1966
John Green, René Dahinden
Some Yes
Several tracks show partial flexion, but not as pronounced as 1967.
 
What is a Mid-Tarsal Break?

• Anatomical feature in non-human primates (e.g., gorillas, chimps) allowing the forefoot to flex upward at the transverse tarsal joint (between talus/navicular and calcaneus/cuboid).
  
• Humans lack this due to a rigid longitudinal arch — our footprints show a straight, stiff midfoot.
  
• Bigfoot tracks with this feature show:
  • A transverse pressure ridge or crease ~40–50% from heel to toe.
    
  • Lateral forefoot lifted, medial side depressed.
    
  • Toe bases flexed upward in deep substrate.
    

 
Scientific Analysis (Meldrum, Chilcutt, etc.)
Expert
Finding
Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Idaho State University)
3D laser scans of Titmus 1967 cast show dynamic midfoot flexion not replicable with rigid fake feet. Published in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (2006).
Jimmy Chilcutt (Police fingerprint expert)
Dermal ridges on 1967 casts flow around the mid-tarsal crease, indicating real skin folding during flexion — not carved or stamped.
Dr. Esteban Sarmiento (Primate anatomist)
Acknowledged mid-tarsal break but argued proportions inconsistent with known hominids.
 
Counter-Arguments (Hoax Claims)

• Ray Wallace family (2002) claimed all Bluff Creek tracks were hoaxes using carved wooden feet.
  • Problem: Wallace’s feet were rigid — cannot produce mid-tarsal flexion in soft soil.
    
  • 1967 casts show asymmetric pressure, toe curl, and dermal flow impossible with static stompers.
    
• Rigid fake feet leave flat, uniform depth — 1967 tracks show heel deep, midfoot shallow, forefoot deep again = classic mid-tarsal break pattern.
  

 
Visual Evidence
 
 
 
[Heel] ----[Midfoot Crease]---- [Forefoot Up]
      ↓         ↑↑↑↑↑           ↓↓
   Deep       Shallow         Deep again
This "double-ball" impression is diagnostic of mid-tarsal flexibility.
 
Conclusion
Yes — the 1967 Bluff Creek casts (especially Titmus #10) contain clear, anatomically consistent evidence of a mid-tarsal break.
This feature is not present in known hoaxes (e.g., 1958 Wallace carvings) and is difficult to fake convincingly with rigid prosthetics.
It remains one of the strongest physical anomalies cited by researchers like Meldrum, though mainstream science dismisses it due to lack of a type specimen.

 

 
=829Patterson-Gimlin Film Subject
In October 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured on film a female Bigfoot retreating across a loamy sandbar on Bluff Creek, in northern California. The film provides a view of the plantar surface of the subject's foot, as well as several unobstructed views of step cycles. In addition to a prominent elongated heel, a midtarsal break is apparent during midstance and considerable flexion of the midtarsus can be seen during the swing phase. The subject left a long series of deeply impressed footprints. Patterson cast single examples of a right and a left footprint. The next day the site was visited by Robert Laverty, a timber management assistant and his sales crew. He took several photographs including one of a footprint exhibiting a pronounced pressure ridge in the midtarsal region. This same footprint, along with nine others in a series, was cast two weeks later by Bob Titmus, a Canadian taxidermist. A model of inferred skeletal anatomy is proposed here to account for the distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and "half-tracks" in which the heel impression is absent. In this model the Sasquatch foot lacks a fixed longitudinal arch, but instead exhibits a high degree of midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint. Following the midtarsal break, a plastic substrate may be pushed up in a pressure ridge as propulsive force is exerted through the midfoot. An increased power arm in the foot lever system is achieved by heel elongation as opposed to arch fixation.

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/evalua...quatc.html