Sep 21

Watch: Case For 7ft Tall Patterson-Gimlin Creature

ThinkerThunker writes “Do you believe in measuring? Here, using the width of two aspen trees, I do some size comparisons on the infamous Patterson Bigfoot, to determine his\her\it’s relative size.

**UPDATE**
I’ve since learned that Patty’s tree might be an alder and not an aspen. However; you can see the similarities; both are tall, slender trees with white or grayish bark, and both have a mature width ranging from 20″ to 30″. And it’s the width we’re interested in, not the name.”

 

10 Responses to “Watch: Case For 7ft Tall Patterson-Gimlin Creature”

  1. Perry M

    I don’t know who told TT that the tree is an alder. Alders grow in wet areas and I have never seen one remotely close in height or diameter close to the one in the PG film.

    • David R

      Well Perry Here in WA we get huge alders, but he said aspins. I don’t know how big they get, but I have seen huge alders down by the rivers here. I really think Thinker was thinking alder!

  2. Steve W

    I’m certainly no botanist, but I was under the impression Aspens didn’t grow below a certain altitude. Only place I’ve encountered them is in the Eastern Sierra in the Inyo-Mono area above 7000 feet. I believe they’re related to the cottonwood which grows all over including the desert and lowlands. More than likely what Patty strolled by were alders, which grow along and adjacent to creeks and rivers. Their leaves are also distinctly different from an aspen. Unfortunately there isn’t any foliage in the Patty film to definitively settle that matter.

    Alder or aspen though, I think TT is using a false premise on the width of the tree. One doesn’t correlate to the other. I’ve seen some pretty tall skinny mature alders, as well as some short squattier ones. Only way you’re going to get a proper correlation is to have measured the Patty trees within a year or two of the film. If those were 10″-16″ widths its going to give you a far shorter Patty, or if it was a 20″-24″ a way taller one. Anyone can resize a photo to match widths, but it doesn’t mean its apples to apples.

    TT may very well be correct in his ballpark height for her, but if so its more luck than mathematics based upon false premises.

  3. Perry M

    I am no botanist, either–LOL. We have aspens growing pretty low–close to sea level. I know there are several types. Must be a different species of alder, as well. I hunt among them often and have never seen one more than 8″ in diameter, and they have very dark, shiny bark. Oh, well. I will leave it to the experts, such as they are.

  4. michael n

    Hey all, I watched the show where the guy (can’t remember his name) got the actual film from Mrs. Gimlin, steadied it and figured out a rough measurement of 8’6″ for her. He also shows the muscles when she walks. She actually has a rupture on her right thigh which would have been impossible to fake back then. Also, the reason they put clothes on the planet of the apes actors is that the fur suits in 67 didn’t look real at all let alone being able to show muscle movement under the costume. Not my words, that came straight from the documentary! Watch her right leg when it lands after each step and you can see real and working muscles. My .02 cents. I understand that when I put in my two cents I end up owing money but I still do it????

Leave a Reply