ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 27th February 2012, 07:37 AM   #7921
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
Will someone who understood that please give us the condensed version?

Thanks
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 08:14 AM   #7922
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,363
Leroy, very nice run-down of your belief. However, unless you can show us some evidence, you just sound like another footer making a claim without anything to back it up.

Just because you say it, does not make it true.

You need to intersperse your statements with photo evidence, or, a link to your study showing the films were shot by the same camera, etc...
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 09:00 AM   #7923
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
I would say [citation needed] but I'm sure I'd just get [pulled from nether orifice].
Hitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 09:01 AM   #7924
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
As a matter of fact I will be showing this and a lot more very soon. At this time I am putting it all in order so when it is shown there will be no question asked.
You will see films and images and letters and even emails that was send to me by the people I talk too.
As you know I shown somethings in the past and as you know people came up with some off the wall stuff about my research and what I have shown.
But like I said no one has really given me the time in showing them and pointing out the things I found.
So this time it will all be different. I am going to show it all.
I have the proof to show for the last 5 years however I have not shown it because of something that would really hurt the Bigfoot world.
Let me explain:
The main people that started this whole Bigfoot thing was John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, Ray Wallace, and Roger Patterson.
Now what do you think if everyone knew that all of these men that stared the whole thing was the same people that pulled off this Bigfoot film hoax.

You see I am not out to prove Bigfoot does not exist. For I have really seen 1 in 2002 face to face.
And I am the only researcher that did research on this film that has seen a real Bigfoot.
But, I am out to show who are the hoaxers.

Now I am not asking people to believe me when I tell them I have seen a real Bigfoot. However I do have to tell and show what I did find and what I did see.
I will put together a new website on this and on this site I am posting everything.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 10:32 AM   #7925
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5615

Here is a image of two frames from 2 different films.
The top frame is from John Green film from 1968 of Jim McClarin walking the path of the Bigfoot at the bluff creek film site.
The bottom frame is frame 352 of the PG film.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5616

Here is the same image again but in this image you will see the things I point out that are different in the two frames. And by these things I found shows that The film by John Green of Jim McClarin walking the path of the Bigfoot was not filmed in 1968 it was filmed before Roger Patterson filmed his Bigfoot.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 10:41 AM   #7926
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
The right foot of the Bigfoot in the film.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5617

This is a close up of the right foot of the Bigfoot in the PG film.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5618

Here is that same image but emboss of the foot to get more details in the right foot. And next to it is the right shoe made by Ray Wallace.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5619
Here in this image I did the outlines of the foot and shoe. They match.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5620
Again the bottom of the right foot of the Bigfoot and the shoe that they used for the Bigfoot feet.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5621
This image I point out the nail holes on the side of the shoe where they nailed the fur too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=5622
This image here is a frame from the tracking dog film and this track also matched the shoe made by Ray Wallace and this same track the bottom foot of the Bigfoot.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 10:55 AM   #7927
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
I just posted just a little more of my research on these films.

It's funny that these researchers over looked these thing as the years go by. And if they look at more of what can be seen in the frames and not just the subject itself they may find more information in what the film really holds.

Just like the John Green film of Jim McClarin. As you see in the image I posted the bark is hanging on the down fall tree but, in the PG film it was gone. Both images does show a dog print in the same location. Then one of the tree branch can be seen in the John Green film but in the PG film it is gone.
Now if it was the other way around and the bark was hanging down and the branch was there in the PG film but, gone in John Green film then yes that film was filmed after the Bigfoot film. But with these things seen in the John Green film and not in the PG film this shows that John Green film of Jim McClarin walking the path of the Bigfoot was filmed first and before the Bigfoot film.

Just like the right foot of the Bigfoot. If you emboss any image you will get all the details that image holds. It give it that 3D image.
If they would have done this from the word go then they would have seen the bottom feet on this Bigfoot match the shoes made by Ray Wallace.
Again this is just a little more of my research.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:05 AM   #7928
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
I like to add 1 more thing.
How did Jim McClarin or John Green knew the path the Bigfoot was going to walk when the Bigfoot was not even filmed at the time they film this film.

In other words this is what is called a practice run. They did this practice run to see what would be the best angle and how far they need to be to get the Bigfoot in the film without showing any details in the Bigfoot suit. And who knows maybe Jim McClarin was the man in the Bigfoot suit. He knew the way the Bigfoot walked and he knew the path the Bigfoot took before the Bigfoot itself was filmed.
Think about it.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:21 AM   #7929
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
Leroy,
You still haven't posted any evidence that Green and McClarin made a practice run before the PGF.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:26 AM   #7930
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,363
Leroy, none of those links go to a picture. I just get a blank webpage
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:35 AM   #7931
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
Here you go Drew.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5615_1330363432.jpg (84.5 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5616_1330363432.jpg (84.5 KB, 10 views)
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:38 AM   #7932
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
And a few more.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5617_1330363619.jpg (10.9 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5618_1330363619.jpg (38.4 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5619_1330363619.jpg (40.4 KB, 2 views)
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:40 AM   #7933
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
And the last three.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5620_1330364281.jpg (41.5 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5621_1330364281.jpg (90.1 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg user48077_pic5622_1330364281.jpg (19.5 KB, 2 views)
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 11:50 AM   #7934
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,592


Leroy, did you see the mermaid chillin in the creekbed?

Sorry man, I'm just at a blank for words right now.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 01:04 PM   #7935
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
Leroy, good to hear from you again. I wanted to ask you what sort of padding you used with the suit you made. Shoulders? butt? arms or legs? what do you wear under the costume?
Thanks,
parnassus
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 01:31 PM   #7936
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,592
Alright, so I checked out the images and the email and tried to take you seriously on these claims Leroy. That said, I don't see the things you're pointing out and find it all incongruous. You're making assumptions based on bad graphical interpretation in my opinion. The broken twig isn't, and numerous other errors. Instead of beating around the bush anymore - simply put these claims are laughable at best. The only one I can somewhat concur with is Patterson may have copied Wallaces stomper design. I do not believe for a second that the film subject made the imprints that were represented as coming from it.

Last edited by River; 27th February 2012 at 01:35 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 02:16 PM   #7937
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
Parnassus- At first I used shoulder pads with pillows for the buttocks. I used these things in the suit before I made changes to the suit. Then I just used padding and sewing it to the inside to make it look more like real muscles.

River- You talk about the track way like you know all about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMCQ...nxShgYhN2hk5S9

Above you will see a video by Bill Munns.

In my first research I have done on this trackway I point out that the part of the film that shows Roger Patterson making the cast print it was filmed at another time and another place. Now the part of the film that shows the trackway that was filmed at Bluff Creek and that was not Roger Patterson cast print that he made.
This trackway part of the film and Roger Patterson making the cast print are from 2 different films and 2 different site.
As you will see in this video even Bill Munns point this out now.
As for my research on the two film. The surroundings can give more inside information on what took place.
The trackway they are showing in the PG film was filmed when they filmed the tracking dog film and that cast was made by Bob Titmus. And Bob Titmus is the one that had this cast that is seen in the trackway part of the PG film.
You have to understand when you look at the PG film you are looking at a remake of the film done by Ron Olson and ANE in 1968. The original film was only 30sec long. Just like the first part of the Bigfoot walking was not even in the original film that first part of the walk was added to the film in 1968 by Ron Olson.
Think about this and look it up. When they first started to talk about this film they talked about 30sec of film. It was not until 1968 is when the Bigfoot walk gone from 30sec to 57sec.
Then look this up. The copyrights to the film was Roger Patterson and John Green. And Rene Dahinden had the rights to the frames.
Now if John Green and Rene Dahinden had nothing to do with it then Roger Patterson would be the only person with the rights to the film and to the frames of the film. John Green and Rene Dahinden only got the rights to 30sec of film. But John Green has full rights to the whole film and Rene Dahinden got the full right to all the frames.
So I hope you understand that the trackway is nothing more then the trackway made by John Green and Rene Dahinden and the cast that the film shows is the cast made by Bob Titmus.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 03:46 PM   #7938
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
Thanks Leroy.
Sewing wads of padding to the inside seems like the easiest way to create bulges that look like muscles. And of course these will be placed over your own real muscles, and will thus move a little bit when your real muscles move. Could you possibly post an image or two of these muscle-pads? from the inside?
Thanks
parnassus
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 06:01 PM   #7939
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
Leroy,
Didn't Rene purchase the rights from Gimlin?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 07:28 PM   #7940
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,592
Leroy: I've seen Munns video before. He emailed me about it just before posting as a courtesy. (very nice guy, Munns despite our differing opinions I respect his doing so) I appreciate your email on it too Leroy.

I do know about the trackway as much as anyone that wasn't there. I have access to the best scans currently available for that footage. The casting scene, and the pan of 4 imprints (with a possible partial 5th at the end) are indeed the same location. There are many ways to verify it. The right foot cast Patterson claimed came from the film subject was the 3/4 imprint that was cast. The left was the 2/4 imprint.

Your assumptions about Green, McClarin and Dahinden being involved in the hoax, and that they were filming before the PGF was shot are baseless. The evidence you're trying to say places them there before or relating to the timing of the Green footage of McClarin and Pattersons footage is lacking any merit.

Last edited by River; 27th February 2012 at 07:30 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2012, 09:18 PM   #7941
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,167
Yeah the pads in the suit, Leroy. Worth seeing. Hey, don't forget that your contributions here may weigh differently to you than they do to some of us. That suit is old hat to you now because you already put it together, so now on to other things for you. Way ahead as usual.

So if some of us are a little slow about it, just be patient.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 08:19 AM   #7942
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
I like to bring this up if everyone don't mind.
Looking at the fact about the PG film.
What I am pointing out here is some of the facts that has been shown by me and other people.

No one today has the rights to the PG film.
As it was told Roger Patterson had the rights to the film.
However the right to the film Roger owed was the rights to the original film that was called Bluff Creek Bigfoot registration number 158 filmed in 1967.
Now in 1968 Roger Patterson gave this film and other films to Ron Olson of ANE and he took this film and remade it and they marked it with a new name and called it American Bigfoot and the new registration number 767. Date of the film Nov 7, 1968. They also marked it as a Science Fiction Subject.
Now after this film was remade there was 2 copies of it made. 1 copy gone to Roger Patterson the other copy gone to John Green and Rene Dahinden got copies of each of the frames.
What people don't know is the remade film people see today is copyright by ANE and Ron Olson.
The film is not really owned by John Green or Miss Patterson.
Now the rights on the film has expire on this film so now today anyone can look over the film and show the film without asking to show it.
Now what may me look into this and it was by John Green word that made me look into it.

John Green told me this when I ask him can I get a copy of the film.

John Green
I don't have the facts myself but I am told that the original film was left in storage with the company that made the first documentary. Roger, of course, died.That company later folded and the film passed into possession of another company, which also went bankrupt. A third company now has the film, but ownership is in dispute. I don't know any way that you could get a copy.

When he told me "ownership is in dispute" I had to look into who has the true rights to the film and what I found was this.
Original film.
Bluff Creek Bigfoot registration number 158 date:1967
Owed by Roger C. Patterson.
Now the remake of the film.
American Bigfoot registration number 767 date Nov.7, 1968 film Science Fiction Subject.
Owed by Ronald D Olson /ANE

And the 1968 film they show and we see today is the 1968 remake film. Now when ANE gone bankrupt and another company took over then they gone bankrupt and then another company took over they forgot to up date the rights to the films and now the Bigfoot film we see today has not ownership to the film and it's up to public viewing now.
The original film that was owned by Roger Patterson was added to the remake film and with him doing this the original ownership and rights to the film was then terminated.
You see these are things people don't point out or show as for me I show everything I find and I do point them out. Now there will be people making claims no Miss Patterson has the rights to the film or John Green has the rights to the film. But in all realty NO they don't. Look it up for yourself don't take my word for it.
Just like at the end of the PG film look it up and here is what you will find at the end of it.
R 767 11-7-68 SFS/American Bigfoot
registration 767
date Nov7 1968
SFS Science Fiction Subject
name of the film American Bigfoot.
I know I point this out before and some of you put down a lot of BS on SFS but the true fact is marked on the film Science Fiction Subject.
Now if this film was so real as they have claim then why Roger Patterson did not say hay this is a real Bigfoot so don't mark as a Science Fiction film. But he did not do that did he.
Just like John Green and Rene Dahinden for years after this film they still gone out looking for this creature and even in some old TV show you will see and hear them talk about they need to find the proof that these creatures are real. But if the Bigfoot in the PG film was so real as they claim then why keep looking for something when they have real film on one of them.
One other thing to look at
The first viewing of the Bigfoot film. The only people that was there to view it was Roger Patterson, Al DeAtley, John Green, Rene Dahinden and Jim McClarin.
Now why was Jim McClarin there, when he was going to Humboldt State at the time. Jim McClarin also called Ivan Sanderson the same night that Roger filmed the Bigfoot on October 20, 1967. Now how did Jim McClarin knew that?
Jim McClarin knew the path the Bigfoot walked at Bluff Creek before the Bigfoot was filmed. Jim McClarin was there with John Green and Rene Dahinden when they was at Blue Creek Mount. When they filmed the tracking dog film. And Jim McClarin also started to make that statue of Bigfoot at around the same time.
Look at this.
Roger Patterson, John Green, Rene Dahinden, Jim McClarin within 2 month time. made 4 films in that location
The tracking dog film
The trackway film.
The John Green film of Jim McClarin
And the Bigfoot film.
Plus Jim McClarin started the Bigfoot statue.
Now within these 2 months only 1 time that Bigfoot tracks was reported and that was after labor day weekend. Other then that soon after the report of the Bigfoot being filmed all the report and tracks in that area stopped and nothing more has been seen. And Al the tracks found in that area match the same Bigfoot shoes made by Ray Wallace and even the feet on the bigfoot in the film match the shoes made by Ray Wallace.
Think about it.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 09:56 AM   #7943
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
Leroy,
Please provide evidence that the rights to the film have expired.

Is this the copyright for the original film or the ANE film?

Thanks

http://lccn.loc.gov/92506200

It was renewed in 1996 for another 28 years.
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwe...14193014&SID=1
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 28th February 2012 at 10:12 AM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 10:08 AM   #7944
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
I like to show this part of my research on the Bigfoot tracks.



Here is tracks I made with one of my shoes I made with the Bigfoot suit.



Here is a cast I made from one of my Bigfoot shoes I made for the suit. As you see in this cast there is a break in the middle of the foot. now they claim that no one can fake a track with a break in the middle of the foot. However I did.



Here is another image of the cast I made and you will see in this image Dermal ridges, again they claim no one can fake a track with Dermal Ridges. But, again I did it.

You see When it come to claims I do test on these claims just to make sure if it can or can not be done.
For years people been faking Bigfoot tracks however by these top bigfoot researchers making claims Like this track is real by the break in the middle of the foot or Dermal Ridges that is why this track is real. However I did a test on this claim and as you see this cast print was made by me and cast by me and this track and cast is 100% fake.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 10:37 AM   #7945
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
GT/CS


Here is my proof the end of the PG film.

As you see by the markings on this film states
767R 11-7-68 SFS/ American Bigfoot.

Now the statement you show is marked
Bluff Creek Bigfoot the date 1967 registration number 158

Now what you don't understand is the film that Miss Patterson has and the copy of the film John Green has is marked at the end of the film as
767R 11-7-68 SFS/ American Bigfoot.
And this is the same film that researchers has been researching on.

The film that is register that you are showing is the original film from 1967 and copyright for that film.
now that film is no more for they took that film and added to the new film that is called American Bigfoot and the date is 11-7-1968.

If you look at the very end of Miss Patterson film you will find the marking of
this 767R 11-7-68 SFS/ American Bigfoot.
You will not find any films or copy of the film that shows at the end
158R 1967 Bluff Creek Bigfoot.
The only thing you will find these marking on them is that document that you point out.
Now you find the film that shows this name and register number then that is the film that Miss Patterson and Bob Gimlin has the rights too. But the film they show today and the film that she has and the film researchers have been researching is a film that is marked 767R 11-7-68 SFS/American Bigfoot and they don't have the copyright for that film.in other words.

Miss Patterson and Bob Gimlin has the right to a film that is marked
158R 1967 Bluff Creek Bigfoot.
This is the film that they have the rights too.

But the film she has and the film they show and do research on is marked
767R 11-7-68 SFS/American Bigfoot.
And they do not have no documents or files that shows Miss Patterson or Bob Gimlin having any rights to this film that is marked 767R 11-7-68 SFS/American Bigfoot.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 10:45 AM   #7946
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
Is the film housed at the Library of Congress the 1967 film or the 1968 film?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 10:51 AM   #7947
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
No, not one of them are there. I called them up to see and they don't have no films with these register numbers or names.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 10:57 AM   #7948
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
GT/CS

When I call them I was trying to find out if they had the films so I can go there to look over both film. This way I can see what was all on the original film and then look at the remake film and do research on the two and find the difference between the two films But, like I said they don't have any copies of these films.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 11:24 AM   #7949
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
You asked for RE0000718448 / 1996-04-01 ?

Does it affect your theory to know that the copyright was filed in 1983?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 28th February 2012 at 11:33 AM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 11:41 AM   #7950
Kilaak Kommander
Critical Thinker
 
Kilaak Kommander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins View Post
GT/CS

When I call them I was trying to find out if they had the films so I can go there to look over both film. This way I can see what was all on the original film and then look at the remake film and do research on the two and find the difference between the two films But, like I said they don't have any copies of these films.
Leroy,

The Library of Congress has this: http://lccn.loc.gov/92506200. It's the standard Patty walk sequence we all know and love, nothing more. Note that the title is two words - "big foot" - if that helps in your searches.
Kilaak Kommander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 11:56 AM   #7951
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
GT/CS
No I knew about the copyright dates of 1983 and from the 1990's.
The copyright date of 1983 happen when Bob Gimlin took Miss Patterson to court for the rights to the film. When he got the rights that is when they refile and that was in 1983 so they can put Bob Gimlin name on it as one of the people that has the rights to the film.
When I called to see if they had copies of the film for copyright use They checked under the numbers and names of the people that copyright the film and all. I was on the phone for about 4 days, hours at a time and on hold a lot talking to this person or that person. They check all the records on all bigfoot files and reports and even images and all other films. They don't have no films of photos or frame from Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin or Miss Patterson or John Green or Rene Dahinden or Ron Olson or ANE. Now they do have other films by ANE but this one film they don't have.
Now what I find so funny about this is under copyright laws they would have to have a copy of any films or photos and books to give them full copyright to that film or photo or book.
But the Library of Congress does not have no copies of any films or photos or books from Roger Patterson.
Now they do have copies of old newspapers and other books that has Roger Patterson in them and talked about his film. But for the films themselves there is none.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 12:04 PM   #7952
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
Kilaak Kommander-

The Library of Congress does have a file on the film as you point out. And the file does talk what is on the film and there was only 1 reel of film. However for the film itself they do not have a copy of that film. They have it on file and copyright to Bob Gimlin and Miss Patterson but all they have are documents but no film.
Now what I don't understand about the document they have on file they place Bob Gimlin name on it first then Roger Patterson name as second.

Now you would think they would get a full copy of the reel to keep on file for copyrights but they don't they only have paperwork on the film.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 12:24 PM   #7953
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,098
So are you saying that because there is no actual film in the Library of Congress there is no longer any active copyright and anyone can use any version of the PGF for any purpose?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 12:56 PM   #7954
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
Ok think about this one.

If the Library of Congress had a full copy of the original film then why is all these people doing research on the film from a copy made by Ron Olson that Miss Patterson has when all they got to do is go to the Library of Congress and look over the original film and not just a copy of the film.

Look at it this way.
If anyone can take a look at the original film then there would be no question asked about the film. You can show what is on the original film and show people what is on the original film and how it was filmed and everything that in on that 1 reel.
But, there is no more original film and there is no copy of that original film.
The only film that shows the Bigfoot is now a remake of the film that was done by Ron Olson and a filming company.
The original film had no sound on it. But the film they research and show today has sound on it.
Now you have to look at this. The more and more people research this film and the more and more copies they make from this film and the more details and color they add to the film to clear it up. The more this film looks real then what may have been on the original film.
So who really knows who add what to the film and who knows who added more color to the film.
If the film was so real as they claim then just show that film without doing any work on the film or stabilize the film and just show what is on the film. and if there is nothing to hide then even play the sound on the film.
What people don't understand to stabilize the film they would have to over lap the frames to stabilize the Bigfoot walking. And by doing this you will get images from the frame behind that frame and you will see movements from images behind that frame and then people will make more claims about muscle movements and more when all it is are double images on what is on the frame behind that frame.
Take a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-R4Bus5Cs

Here is a video from youtube. As you watch this video you will see how MK Davis overlapped each frame to stabilize the Bigfoot walking.
What you do is take 1 frame and line it with with the frame behind then take a image. Then over lap another frame on top of that frame and take a image of it.
By doing this you will get images from the frame behind that frame. Now you have muscle movements in the Bigfoot. So you see by stabilizing the film by doing this you are not really seeing what the film is showing. by doing this you are not really getting the full account on what is on this film by going over it frame by frame.
Here is a test I done and I like for other people to do this same test.
Get a clear image frame from a old film. Now take that frame and scan it and make 3 copies of that one frame.
Now take the 1st image and don't mess with it. Then take the 2rd images and add more color to it. Then take the 3nd image and darken it. Then take the dark image and place it on the bottom. Then take image 2 and over lap it on number 3 image. Then take the 1st image you did not mess with and over lap it on top of the other 2. You will get more color and more details by doing this.
Look at this.

Here is a image I recolor of all 6 men


Here is a image I recolor of frame 352



As you see in this image I took the Bigfoot out of the frame.
Now to do this I did what they was doing in films from the 1920's all the way up today in films.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 01:00 PM   #7955
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
GT/CS
Yes that is what I am saying. Anyone can use the film footage for there is no copyright on the film marked 767R 11-7-68 SFS/American Bigfoot.

As for the original film that is marked 158R Bigfoot Bluff Creek 1967 this film is no more.For it was added to the film that is now American Bigfoot.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 01:11 PM   #7956
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368


As you see from the original frame of 352 and the frame I recolor you can see more details in the surroundings and even up in the hillside. You can get a clearer image of the Bigfoot as well.
The time frame to recolor this frame took me about 5min to do.



Now to take the Bigfoot out of the frame only took another 5mins.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 01:50 PM   #7957
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,167
My understanding is you just say "copyright" on it, and it is yours.

Roger generally sold more than 100% of the "rights" to his work. Long shows he did that with his various bigfoot enterprises. Newsletters, clubs, films, a book...He stiffed Gimlin for any money at all for years. They (DeAtley and Roger) took someone else on the road with him. A stand-in Indian Tracker.

So Roger stiffed Gimlin out of any copyright share until the suit. I thought Dahinden gave cash to Gimlin so that Gimlin would yield all rights he had been promised by Roger Patterson.

How exactly has this trailer with the SFS been positively identified as attached to the PGF? To verify that you have to visually inspect someting and see it there, unspliced - the original film.

The original film has never been yielded up. Roger and Al DeAtley made a bunch of copies. They showed them simultaneously in numerous theaters. They swept into a city, after having four-walled the advertising: Print, Radio, Television, Flyers/posters - and rented every theater, high school auditorium, or other venue they get their hands on. It was this juggernaut hitting one city after another. Seattle took them a number of days, but they could do it in one or two days at most places.

So there are dozens of copies by early 1968. I can't remember if Greg Long gave a number, but it is dozens.

The road tour ended abruptly because of the Minnesota Iceman Hoax. DeAtley had hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising already spent when the Iceman Hoax was exposed. I can't remember the dates but this film Leroy is showing us was dated 11/7/1968. So it was more than a year after Roger filmed the PGF, and I think before the Minnesota Ice Man hoax was exposed. But the timing was horrible for them. Nobody showed up to the theaters, and they had all this labor being paid to man the theaters. So they had to cut their losses, and cancel the road tour.

It would have been like Roger to sell rights to someone, anyone, everyone! On 11/7/68. Leroy is a little scattered. Can you source this for us Leroy?
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 02:46 PM   #7958
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,592
Just because a copy is made, or edit is made it does not null the original copyright. (speaking from someone that has many copyrights) The new work could then submitted for copyright under a new working title and copyright issued on that form of the work. It does not null the original copyright.

Last edited by River; 28th February 2012 at 02:48 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 03:34 PM   #7959
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins View Post
I like to show this part of my research on the Bigfoot tracks.....

Here is another image of the cast I made and you will see in this image Dermal ridges, again they claim no one can fake a track with Dermal Ridges. But, again I did it.

.
Leroy this is good stuff, on the dermal ridges. Can you tell us what material you used for the sole of your "shoe?" did your toes go into the toes of your "shoe"?

And please show us the inside of the suit where you sewed in the the muscle pads.
Thanks,
parnassus
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 03:45 PM   #7960
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
AlaskaBushPilot-

This image here was send to me by another researcher however after I got this image I then looked over it and match it to the end of John Green



Here are frames I pieced together from John Green film. As you see they match.

Now as I was going over The Bill Munns report He shows the end of the PG film on his site in the Munns report. And you see this same makings at the end of the PG film he analyzed that Miss Patterson has.

Here are frames done by Bill Munns he gets all the credit for this image and frames.

So with this in mind both copies of the film John Green copy and Miss Patterson copy both have the same markings.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.