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
 


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 , Bob Heironimus , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Reply
Old 22nd September 2016, 12:26 AM   #1
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,033
The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty - Part III

Mod InfoContinued from here.
Posted By:kmortis


Titmus said that he walked along Bluff Creek and it's tributaries looking for the site, so the bank should not have been a factor for him.
He also should have seen several other people's tracks.

Quote:
My first full day up near the end of Bluff Creek, I missed the tracks completely. I walked some 14 to 16 miles on Bluff Creek and the many feeder creeks coming into it and found nothing of any particular interest other than the fact that Roger and Bob's horse tracks were everywhere I went. I found the place where the pictures had been taken and the tracks of Bigfoot the following morning. The tracks traversed a little more than 300 feet of a rather high sand, silt and gravel bar which had a light scattering of trees growing on it, no underbrush whatever but a considerable amount of drift debris here and there. The tracks then crossed Bluff Creek and an old logging road and continued up a steep mountainside.

This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns. About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him. The distance would have been approximately 125-150 yards. His position was shadowed and well screened from observation from below. His tracks continued on up the mountain but I did not follow them far. I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar. It was not difficult to find the exact spot where Roger was standing when he was taking his pictures and he was in an excellent position.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by kmortis; 22nd September 2016 at 08:52 AM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 04:36 AM   #2
Cervelo
Graduate Poster
 
Cervelo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,444
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yes, if you actually just filmed bigfoot, you would certainly not immediately release control of the undeveloped film like that.

And at that point, what do you need DeAtley for?

You have a big gold nugget.
Well kinda.....DeAtley is the goose that lays the nuggets.
Cervelo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 07:32 AM   #3
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
You’re aware of the rebuttals to that claim . . .
There can be no rebuttal to the fact that this cryptid is absolutely absent from the fossil record of NA, and (other than retrofitted legend) its natural history
Quote:
. . . and it’s off-topic (Heironimus) . . .
On topic; absence of this creature means presence of someone in the pattysuit whether that person was Bob Heironimus or Bob Hope.
__________________
Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

Alec Baldwin
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 01:13 PM   #4
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Roger "Late" Knights View Post
Originally Posted by Harry "Spoof" Henderson View Post
No reason for that, but there was a reason to hang around for a tracking number. In 1968 if your **** got lost in the mail and you didn't have a tracking number you were SOL. Of course the hoaxing industry has changed a lot since then, but it's still all about tracking numbers at the post office. He's lucky the rocket scientists at the FBI didn't hear about the cancelled tracking dog order.

The More You Know™
The dog Patterson asked for was one that had been brought to the area to accompany Don Abbott, a scientist from BC, plus John Green, in the late August / early September track investigation on nearby Blue Creek Mountain (i.e., only seven weeks earlier). There's a photo of Abbott and the dog on page 39 of Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal. The dog handler may have been Canadian. He and his dog came down in a small plane with Abbott and Green (I believe) and landed at the small, little-used Orleans airport.

AFAIK, no tracking number was needed then. Are you alluding to something related to a hunting license? And what's with your link? If it is supposed to tell me about tracking numbers, your link needs to be more specific. It only took me to the home page.
Well that didn't work AT ALL!

Maybe I needed some keyword definitions: satire, absurdity, sarcasm, spoof, folly, ridicule, mockery, humor.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 07:05 PM   #5
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,240
Roger Knights from the last page of the second Heironimus thread...

Quote:
You’re aware of the rebuttals to that claim, I presume, and it’s off-topic (Heironimus), which I hope we’ll get around to when Kitakaze returns, so I won’t reply.
I'm just checking in now, I haven't been following any of the conversation since my last check in three weeks ago.

Fire away.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 12:53 PM   #6
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Of course, the above quoted Titmus story of the "perch" is not compatible with the Patterson and Gimlin fabrications, though Gimlin has in recent times "embroidered" his story to try and make it so.
Any credibility Titmus might have had in determining what was a bigfoot "trail" was exploded during his days with the Slick expedition. In this case, he mentions no actual bigfoot tracks, hairs or other reason to believe that what he followed was not, for example, the traces of Roger Patterson scouting a camera location.
Patterson had two models for a filmed encounter. One was the Roe model, with a guy on foot peeking through the bushes, the other was his cowboys and Indians mounted expedition. Both required the sun be behind him. Had Patterson chosen that high spot, he probably would have had Heironimus walk along the creek, to be close enough (but not too close) to get the shot he wanted.
Of course, Mr. Knights could posit the possibility that the Titmus perch was made by yet another bigfoot, perhaps "Patty"s youngster, father, or spouse. Perhaps it was usual meeting place for the bigfoot ladies' Friday afternoon coffee klatch. Unfortunately, we are not writing children's books here.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 23rd September 2016 at 12:57 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 01:02 PM   #7
comncents
Critical Thinker
 
comncents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 271
Quote:
It's true that it seems ridiculous from the outside for him to have lied about the date. But, if the film couldn't have been developed at Technicolor on Saturday, and couldn't have been developed in a home lab, and if there was no record at the Arcata airport of planes flying from there to Yakima or Seattle that night (per Peter Byrne), and if the Post Office in Eureka closed before Patterson arrived (he was clocked into Willow Creek at 6:15), then fibbing about the filming date is the only explanation for what happened.
Roger, it is the only explanation for those who blindly want to hold on to the fantasy that Patty was real. Everyone else realizes that the development timeline is just another nail in the coffin.

regarding the "homebrew" excuse...why would anybody take the time and effort, even if it was possible, to learn how to develop the film at home. You certainly wouldn't risk this film (if it was real) on a first attempt.

Simple explanation:
P&G came to the area a week or more early. They found a good spot and made the film with whoever in the costume. They sent it to DeAtley (or someone) who had it developed. They checked back with DeAtley a few days later and were told it looked good. They then go back and stage the prints and ride into town for the rest of the "discovery" show.

Numerous things support this version, especially the development time-line. There is also a huge clue in the Green-McLarin re-enactment film. McLarin claimed to have followed the tracks, but he is way off when the two films are compared. The easy explanation is that the fake tracks didn't follow the same path Patty walked. Combined with the lack of ever finding a bigfoot anywhere...
__________________
WARNING - DO NOT FEED THE BLAARGers!
comncents is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 01:59 PM   #8
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
It's really too bad that absolutely no one thought it was important to document the film site.

If Laverty or Titmus could have just been bothered enough...

Pics of the trackway, the horse tracks, Roger's tracks...they'd have been so valuable.

Titmus and company really have no excuse at all. They had plenty of prep time and they knew they were visiting the site of an important event to bigfooters.
After the filming, Green left a message at Dahinden’s hotel in SF to contact Hodgson. After contacting Hodgson, Dahinden traveled to Willow Creek, where he met Jim McClarin, who was already there. (He may have been a resident then.) Patterson, on his way home, called Hodgson from Orleans and told him of events. Dahinden and McClarin then headed to Yakima to see the film the next day. (From Chris Murphy’s Bigfoot Film Journal, pp.35–36.)

Dahinden later said he regretted leaving Willow Creek and failing to examine the site while it was fresh. I suppose he could have gone back, but I guess he didn’t have enough money for that.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 02:10 PM   #9
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Mod InfoContinued from here.
Posted By:kmortis


Titmus said that he walked along Bluff Creek and it's tributaries looking for the site, so the bank should not have been a factor for him.
He presumably walked along Bluff Creek by means of the streambed road, the same one that Laverty & crew drove along. If the bank on the far side blocked Laverty's view from that road, it would likely have blocked Titmus's view too. The tracks weren't things that would have stood out--they were impressions below the surface, not above it.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
He also should have seen several other people's tracks.
Not on the hard-packed streambed road. And not on the bar, not only because of its height above the road, but because human footprints make little impression on it. It's not made of ordinary silica beach sand, but of shards or platelets of slate (rock). It doesn't compress when pushed down; noticeable tracks aren't made unless the weight is great and the foot or hoof also makes a horizontal or sliding motion.

Incidentally, Titmus's map has a little "N" on its left side, because the creek ran pretty much east/west at the filmsite and (I assume) Titmus was using a sheet of paper with more height than width. This might be most of the reason why Streufert & company's map looked unfamiliar to Parcher and others here.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 23rd September 2016 at 02:45 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 02:37 PM   #10
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Knights
You’re aware of the rebuttals to that claim
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
There can be no rebuttal to the fact that this cryptid is absolutely absent from the fossil record of NA, and (other than retrofitted legend) its natural history
Well, that’s a different (and more limited) claim from the two you originally made. You’re right this time, of course, and it is considerations like that one that make me mostly skeptical of Bigfoot’s existence. See my comment #3146 on page 79 of the continuation thread #2 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post11426305

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
. . . and it’s off-topic (Heironimus) . . .
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
On topic; absence of this creature means presence of someone in the pattysuit whether that person was Bob Heironimus or Bob Hope.
The “presence of someone in the pattysuit” is off-topic, because the thread’s topic is not whether there was someone in the suit—that’s (implicitly at least) the topic of the thread(s) about the PGF and its authenticity. I don’t care if someone else was in the pattysuit. Heironimus would still be making a false claim. In this thread the issue of the film’s authenticity is, or should be, moot. This thread’s title is not, “Was Someone in the Pattysuit,” it’s “Bob Heironimus and Patty.”
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 02:51 PM   #11
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
Incidentally, Titmus's map has a little "N" on its left side, because the creek ran pretty much east/west at the filmsite and (I assume) Titmus was using a sheet of paper with more height than width. This might be most of the reason why Streufert & company's map, with north at the top, looked unfamiliar to Parcher and others here.
That's not the problem. It's that the new map is densely cluttered with things that weren't there during the filming. It can cause visual and mental confusion. It seems that they could make a new copy of that map and remove (even using wite-out) the things that are not present in the film. For example, there are lots of new trees. Just get them out of there.

Present two maps. The one we have from them now, and another that erases new features. But do leave the creek the way it is now because you cannot accurately recreate its path at the time of the filming.

IMO, right now it's a freaking mess. The 3rd grade level spelling errors might be troubling too because it could suggest haste and lack of attention to details. We can't look at that map and really know if they made mistakes just like what we can see was done with the spelling.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 03:01 PM   #12
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Roger, this thread is a long continuation. Throughout it contains discussions which are not specifically related to Heironimus. This has been going on for many years here. The moderators largely tolerate it and so do the members. The same is true with our PGF thread. There are mucho plenty of discussions about Heironimus in that thread as well. It is simply not practical to always keep them strictly separate.

Having said that, anyone is still welcome to report any posts that are off topic. But the downside to that is that off topic posts might be sent to Abandon All Hope instead of being moved to an appropriate thread.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 23rd September 2016 at 03:02 PM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 03:06 PM   #13
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
The “presence of someone in the pattysuit” is off-topic, because the thread’s topic is not whether there was someone in the suit—that’s (implicitly at least) the topic of the thread(s) about the PGF and its authenticity. I don’t care if someone else was in the pattysuit. Heironimus would still be making a false claim. In this thread the issue of the film’s authenticity is, or should be, moot. This thread’s title is not, “Was Someone in the Pattysuit,” it’s “Bob Heironimus and Patty.”
Implicit in the subject "Bob H and Patty" is the question as to whether Bob H is in fact in the Patty suit. If he isn't, and there is a more probable candidate for the suit-wearer, the question as to who that is is relevant to the thread.

At the very least, showing that another person could have been in the suit addresses the thread question. So, yes, it is on-topic.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 03:17 PM   #14
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by comncents View Post
Roger, it is the only explanation for those who blindly want to hold on to the fantasy that Patty was real. Everyone else realizes that the development timeline is just another nail in the coffin.
“Everyone else” is a great exaggeration. The development timeline problem is, IMO, the result of Patterson’s and DeAtley’s attempt to improve the film’s credibility. I hope to improve the film’s credibility by undoing their “improvement.” The case for falsehood isn’t proved, because attempts to re-create Patty have been such miserable failures. (I’m tempted to say, “pix or nix.”)



Originally Posted by comncents View Post
regarding the "homebrew" excuse...why would anybody take the time and effort, even if it was possible, to learn how to develop the film at home.
Hypothetically, an employee at a development lab who had a home lab could offer customers a cheaper rate “off the books.” Another reason is given by Chris Murphy in his Bigfoot Film Journal, page 45:

Originally Posted by Chris Murphy
This conclusion would be especially true if the man was doing a lot of “personal” or “illegal” film processing. Keep in mind that back in the 60s there was likely a fair demand for such processing of what are now called “adult films.”
Originally Posted by comncents View Post
You certainly wouldn't risk this film (if it was real) on a first attempt.
DeAtley might have, not believing it was real, and being a tightwad.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 03:37 PM   #15
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
The development timeline problem is, IMO, the result of Patterson’s and DeAtley’s attempt to improve the film’s credibility. I hope to improve the film’s credibility by undoing their “improvement.”
You're going to do all that work just to improve the credibility of a film of a Tulpa.

I can imagine you talking to another Pattycake.

Other Pattycake: Roger, you sure have done a lot to show that Bigfoot really exists.
You: Thanks, but I've really shown that Tulpas exist.
Other Pattycake: What?
You: Yes, you see if Bigfoots really exist then they are Tulpas.
Other Pattycake: What the hell is a Tulpa?
You: Well, I'll explain it if you will lend me your ear for an hour.
WHOOOOOOOSH
You: Hey where are you going? I didn't tell you about the Tulpa yet.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 03:51 PM   #16
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Knights
Incidentally, Titmus's map has a little "N" on its left side, because the creek ran pretty much east/west at the filmsite and (I assume) Titmus was using a sheet of paper with more height than width. This might be most of the reason why Streufert & company's map, with north at the top, looked unfamiliar to Parcher and others here.
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That's not the problem. It's that the new map is densely cluttered with things that weren't there during the filming. It can cause visual and mental confusion. It seems that they could make a new copy of that map and remove (even using wite-out) the things that are not present in the film. For example, there are lots of new trees. Just get them out of there.

Present two maps. The one we have from them now, and another that erases new features. But do leave the creek the way it is now because you cannot accurately recreate its path at the time of the filming.

IMO, right now it's a freaking mess. The 3rd grade level spelling errors might be troubling too because it could suggest haste and lack of attention to details. We can't look at that map and really know if they made mistakes just like what we can see was done with the spelling.
Here’s what Stephen Streufert e-mailed me on Sept. 13:
Quote:
the site itself has not flooded over since 1964, and . . . the landmarks even down to the piles of old-growth wood and stumps, plus the big trees in back, are all still there. Also, the creek has eroded down into its bed, so the "berm," or bank, rather, is about seven or eight feet high nowadays.
And on Sept. 16:
Quote:
The map IS the site, surveyed foot by foot. North is the top. We removed all objects from the survey that were younger than some 40 years, leaving behind only the old artifacts, trees and stumps. The creekbed course is largely the same as 1967, due to geological restrictions.
And on the 17th:
Quote:
Why don't you point them in the direction of our mathematical proof in comparison with the Dahinden "aerial" photograph? [ http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...atically.html]
That is the film site exactly as it is, as I said, taken in a survey using ten-foot squares on a grid. It makes no difference what they think of Robert's spelling difficulties or his artistic abilities. The maps were made as tools to show what is present at the site. They do that, regardless of the mental image Parcher, who has NEVER BEEN THERE, might have. . . . The question should be, Are they accurate? And yes, they are. And that is with certainty the film site. Bill Munns, for example, signed off on all of these things, confirming our work.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 04:08 PM   #17
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Knights
The development timeline problem is, IMO, the result of Patterson’s and DeAtley’s attempt to improve the film’s credibility. I hope to improve the film’s credibility by undoing their “improvement.”
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You're going to do all that work just to improve the credibility of a film of a Tulpa.

I can imagine you talking to another Pattycake.

Other Pattycake: Roger, you sure have done a lot to show that Bigfoot really exists.
You: Thanks, but I've really shown that Tulpas exist.
Other Pattycake: What?
You: Yes, you see if Bigfoots really exist then they are Tulpas.
Other Pattycake: What the hell is a Tulpa?
You: Well, I'll explain it if you will lend me your ear for an hour.
WHOOOOOOOSH
You: Hey where are you going? I didn't tell you about the Tulpa yet.
Funny. But I’m not a believer-by-preference in a supernatural explanation. It’s my last-ditch attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance. Chris Murphy came to give the possibility of a supernatural explanation some credence too, in Chapter 12 of his Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot, pp. 294–303.

An early Internet Bigfoot pioneer, Henry Franzoni, has a 2-page article reprinted there, “Beyond Rationality.” It contains this sentence, which I doubt has been a sig-line of anyone here: “After you’ve eliminated all the possible explanations, what’s impossible must be true.”
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 04:16 PM   #18
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Quote:
We removed all objects from the survey that were younger than some 40 years, leaving behind only the old artifacts, trees and stumps.
Is that legal?

Quote:
Why don't you point them in the direction of our mathematical proof in comparison with the Dahinden "aerial" photograph?
Dahinden's photo doesn't show the area we would like to see. He's shooting too far to the right (east?). We can't see the logjam at the beginning of the PGF, nor the creek in that area because he shot only a partial section of the area seen in the PGF. It's a damn shame that he didn't move to the left and shoot another picture.

Quote:
The question should be, Are they accurate? And yes, they are. And that is with certainty the film site. Bill Munns, for example, signed off on all of these things, confirming our work.
Accurate because Streufert and Munns say so. That has to count for something!
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 04:23 PM   #19
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Roger, why are you constantly quoting yourself in posts? It's really rare for anyone to do that anywhere in this forum. What makes you so different with that?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 04:34 PM   #20
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Six reasons for doubting an October 20th film-mailing date

Here are three more reasons (#4–6) why I doubt that the PGF was mailed to DeAtley on the 20th, beyond the three I supplied in my comment #3443 on page 87 the other day. Because a new continuation thread has been started, I’m reprinting the first three reasons below.

1. The contradictory stories about whether the film was sent from the Eureka post office (which anyway would have been closed by that time (7 PM)) or the Arcata airport.

2. The inconvenience of driving some 80 (?) miles from the Bluff Creek Road roadhead to Arcata vs. eight miles to the airport at Orleans, whence their package could have been picked up and shipped. It seems to me that the main "advantage" of going to Arcata was to obtain witnesses in Willow Creek to his (Patterson’s) doing so on the date he claimed the filming had occurred.

3. Patterson's failure to drop in to the Eureka newspaper office (only six or so miles from Arcata) when he was in the vicinity. Patterson was a publicity hound and would have wanted his mug in the paper, along with a photo of his casts. Instead, he called the paper at 9:30 when he was back near Willow Creek, at the ranger station. I suspect the reason he didn't go to the paper was that he didn't drive to its vicinity at all. Instead, I suspect he drove a few miles in its direction and pulled off into a roadside bar, restaurant, movie theater, or pull-off and waited three hours, then turned around to go to the ranger station, claiming the film had just been sent off.

4. Dennis Jensen, Patterson’s assistant after 1967, said that one day when he was in Patterson’s house and Patterson was cleaning out his desk and files, Patterson tossed a piece of paper into a wastebasket, saying that it was the registered mail receipt from when he shipped the film from Bluff Creek. A mailing couldn’t have happened on the 20th, because the post office in Eureka closed at either 5 or 6 PM, and he couldn’t have arrived there until 7. (Given that he was at Al Hodgson’s in Willow Creek at 6:15.) (I can’t find where I read the Jensen quote now, but I presume some other Bigfooter will know where it was.)

5. Gimlin would have had too little sleep if the filming, the mailing, and the drive home all occurred on the 20th and the 21st. Consider what Gimlin’s schedule in the preceding 36 hours would have looked like:

· Friday, 10:30 AM: Awake, eat, mess around camp, Patterson goes off exploring on his own, etc. Saddle up and head upstream.

· Friday, 1:30 PM–4:30: Encounter Patty, retrieve horses, track Patty, retrieve plaster, cast tracks, return to camp.

· Friday 4:30 PM–12 PM: Drive 100 miles to Eureka, yak with Hodgson on the way there and Syl McCoy et al. at 9 PM on the way back.

· Saturday 12 AM–1 AM: Talk between themselves at the campsite.

· Saturday 1 AM–3:30 or 4:30 AM (It’s unclear how long Gimlin slept—he has made various statements on times.): Sleep (2.5 or 3.5 hours for Gimlin; Patterson slept 4 hours until 5.)

· Saturday 5 AM to 6AM: Get the truck across the creek and up Onion Mountain, Gimlin pulling it with a front-end loader. He’d located the loader on foot in a driving rain and gotten soaked. At this point he was suffering hypothermia (shivering violently).

· Saturday 6 AM–8:30 PM (Chris Murphy somewhere gives a later arrival time: Late night on Saturday or early Sunday): Drive to Yakima (14 hours), with Gimlin at the wheel the whole time. Chris Murphy wrote, in Bigfoot Film Journal, p. 36, “Bob Gimlin was not present [at the projection at DeAtley’s on Sunday, the 22nd]. He was at home resting, having driven the entire way home.” In another source (which I read two days ago and can’t locate now) it was said that he wouldn’t let Patterson drive, because he was a bad driver. And I’ve seen (but can’t immediately locate) a transcript of one of Gimlin’s talks in which he said that he drove the whole way home.

So, following weeks of riding in rough country, Gimlin had only 2.5 or 3.5 hours sleep in 34 hours or more of sometimes demanding work, while suffering half the time from hypothermia as he drove all the way home. That schedule is superhuman.

So it seems unlikely to me that the filming and the actual film-shipping occurred right before the drive home. I think that only a phony film-shipping event occurred before the drive home, which was not preceded by a day full of intense activity. And, during the phony shipment event, Gimlin and Patterson could have snoozed for three hours parked somewhere while they were supposedly driving to Eureka and back. So no superhuman endurance was needed.

6. Here’s what Gimlin said recently
Quote:
At that point in time being as Roger fell down, we had no idea that we had any good film footage at all. Naturally we got the cast made and the pictures made of what we had to do there for what evidence we could get. Then we went in to mail that to Yakima or wherever he mailed it to. There has been a lot of controversy on where that film was processed and where it was mailed to. I never paid that much attention to it because I was very tired from being down there two weeks, riding horses every day long hours and driving the truck at night.”
—Gimlin Interview and Gimlin talk-Transcript from Sasquatch: The Search for a New Man (2013), ISBN 978-1490587848, CreateSpace publishers (Amazon), by Thom Cantrall (pp. 4–24) It in turn is quoting from: “Presentation from Bob Gimlin Concerning the Origin of the Patterson-Gimlin Film” By Thom Cantrall; From the 2010 Ohio Conference
https://kindle.amazon.com/user_annot...our_highlights
The use of “mail” supports Jensen’s observation about a “registered mail receipt” in item 5 above.

The use of “two weeks” suggests that the filming occurred on the 14th, because in a recent interview by Connie Willis on Coast to Coast AM radio (a late-night, often paranormal talk show) on April 16, 2016, Gimlin said that he and Patterson went down to Bluff Creek “on the last day of September or October first.”

BTW, not knowing if their footage was good (see the first sentence) would have been a reason to send it off for development before announcing it.

A revision of the Standard Shipping Story is needed for the sake of the PGF’s credibility. I suspect Gimlin went along with Patterson’s story to avoid making waves, not because he wanted to fool anyone.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 04:39 PM   #21
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Where is the power button on this machine?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 04:42 PM   #22
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Roger, why are you constantly quoting yourself in posts? It's really rare for anyone to do that anywhere in this forum.
Dwight MacDonald wrote that the best piece of advice he got from an editor was, "Put everything on one topic in one place." I like to provide full context to make it easy on readers. If I omit lead-in material, they may suspect I'm misrepresenting what preceded what I DO quote.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
What makes you so different with that?
Oh, I get it. You’re being snarky. Well, I don’t just quote myself; I quote others too.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 23rd September 2016 at 04:45 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 05:00 PM   #23
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,082
Quote:
Patterson tossed a piece of paper into a wastebasket, saying that it was the registered mail receipt from when he shipped the film from Bluff Creek..
Oh really? That proves what, exactly?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 05:27 PM   #24
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
Well, that’s a different (and more limited) claim from the two you originally made . . .
Roger, this isn't a claim, but a matter of fact. There is no substantiating evidence for the cryptid known as bigfoot.

Quote:
The “presence of someone in the pattysuit” is off-topic . . .
In accordance with the above, since there is no good reason to believe there is a corresponding creature to that which is represented in the pgf, there necessarily must be the presence of a person in the pattysuit and the speculation of exactly whom is entirely on topic within this thread.
__________________
Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

Alec Baldwin
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 07:28 PM   #25
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
You guys, it is accurate because we were there, standing in each carefully marked ten foot box, and we documented what was found there. We did not document any younger trees or other growth. We are amateurs, but we were exact as we could be without professional surveying equipment. We found old growth trees and old stumps from the post-flood salvage logging of 1965-1966. We recorded all such items, excluding the many new trees. What was left were items that were there in 1967. We did tree bores on the trees that were close to that age. When we were done we found an exact match with what can be seen in the Dahinden "aerial" photo, and the other ones too.

If you want to talk about the film site I'm happy to do so. Since I've been there dozens of times I know it very well. If you just want to make derogatory comments about Robert's spelling I'd suggest that is a non sequitur. If you have a mental image of the site without having been there on the ground, I'd suggest that it may be wrong due to perspective illusions in the film and possible erroneous presuppositions on your part. The drawings by others before us don't tell the whole story, and some like the Titmus drawing were only sketches. What we did was show what was really there on the site, and we did so successfully. You could learn from that resource and our experience there, if you'd drop the arrogant attitude of scoffing dismissal.

BFBM

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 23rd September 2016 at 07:31 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 07:45 PM   #26
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
You could learn from that resource and our experience there, if you'd drop the arrogant attitude of scoffing dismissal.

BFBM
Do you have a bigfoot, bigfootbookman? Do you know where one could find a bigfoot? Could you estimate how much longer it might take to establish footie as a species?

Do you have a bigfoot story you'd like to share?
__________________
Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

Alec Baldwin
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 08:04 PM   #27
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,291
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Roger, this isn't a claim, but a matter of fact. There is no substantiating evidence for the cryptid known as bigfoot.
.
Exactly. I simply cannot understand how this simple fact is not the final punctuation point in any bigfoot discussion. There is such a paucity of evidence for the existence of bigfoot that the only conclusion one could make, after careful examination, is that bigfoot does not exist. How this does not render moot any discussion of the pgf, be it who wore the suit or when the footage was filmed, or even even decades old weather reports, is well beyond me.

Proponents like to pretend there is a persisting mystery. There simply is not. History has answered the question. I understand that reality checks are anathema to bigfoot discussions. Not a single biological survey, such as the Cascades Carnivore project, has ever even hinted at the existence of such a creature. Studies performed in the very heart of purported bigfoot habitats have successfully reported on virtually every mammal--large, small or exceedingly rare--that dwells in the study range. Yet, not a shred of supporting evidence for bigfoot is ever brought forward by anyone other than bigfoot enthusiasts. If that does not scream bias, I don't know what does.

Bigfoot persists in the minds of those that want the creature to be real. As such, sadly, bigfoot becomes immortal. Myth cannot be plaster casted into being.

Last edited by dmaker; 23rd September 2016 at 08:19 PM.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 08:36 PM   #28
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Roger Knights
Patterson tossed a piece of paper into a wastebasket, saying that it was the registered mail receipt from when he shipped the film from Bluff Creek..
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Oh really? That proves what, exactly?
It proves that the film wasn't shipped by air from Arcata, but was mailed instead. (And, as I mentioned a few days ago, no air shipment from Arcata then occurred either, because Peter Byrne checked all the flight records and interviewed pilots from there.)

This supports my argument that an October 20th film-shipment didn't occur, since it couldn't have been mailed on that day, the Eureka post office being closed by the time P&G arrived. It suggests that it was mailed earlier--maybe a week earlier, as I believe, based on Gimlin's statements (see above) that the filming occurred two weeks after he'd arrived, and that he'd arrived on Sept. 30 or Oct. 1

EDIT: PS: BTW, one of the persons who might have known if the film had been shot before the 20th was René Dahinden. Here’s Greg Long questioning him (TMoB, p. 292):
Quote:
Long: Can you say that the film was shot on October 20, 1967, with 100 percent certainty?
Dahinden: No, I don’t.
Long: So it may not have been?
Dahinden: “So it vas shot a week earlier,” he said off-handedly.
My October 14 hypothesis hangs together nicely, I think.

PS to Parcher: My inclusion of my quote at the top of this reply made things convenient for readers, by providing context. This is the reason I do it. If others don't do so, tant pis.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 23rd September 2016 at 09:47 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 09:44 PM   #29
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Do you have a bigfoot, bigfootbookman? Do you know where one could find a bigfoot? Could you estimate how much longer it might take to establish footie as a species?

Do you have a bigfoot story you'd like to share?

DUDE, I AM A SKEPTIC.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 10:00 PM   #30
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,291
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
DUDE, I AM A SKEPTIC.
LOL
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 10:00 PM   #31
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
PGF SITE MAP, more simple version

MAP 11-1 REVISION LARGE.jpg

IMG_6616.jpg
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 10:05 PM   #32
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
LOL

LOL what, buddy? Do you really think that I am a gullible true believer? You really don't even know what you're LOLing about, I guess.

Seriously, I don't know why I even bother with you guys. I'm easily the best current source you could have on the area of the PGF site and Bluff Creek, and you'd rather smirk and giggle like little girls about how some silly people believe in Bigfoot. Let me guess... now you're going to start making Gimlin Guard quips, right? Jeez, ask Kitikaze why don't you? I've had many good, productive conversations with him.

Oh well, I guess. Your loss. Or ask me something, with actual sincerity. Perhaps you'll learn something. I recall last time I was in here (JREF) many of you guys wouldn't even believe me that the PGF site is covered in sand.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 23rd September 2016 at 10:07 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 12:04 AM   #33
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,291
Bigfootbookman, perhaps you did not read my previous post. I find it difficult to comprehend, given the lack of evidence, how anyone can seriously profess a belief in bigfoot. For me, it's a slam dunk that there is no bigfoot. I honestly do not understand how any thinking person can have any other opinion. When you say that you are a skeptic, that is understood by me to mean you weigh more heavily on the side of existence, but concede that the evidence does not support that conclusion. If that misrepresents your position, now is the time to correct me. But I'm pretty sure that I got that pegged.

What I LOL at is your very position. There is no keeping a foot in the door for the existence of bigfoot and still maintaining any kind of "skeptical" stance. At least insofar as how proponent and skeptic have come to be defined within bigfootery. Surely, if you want to pretend to adhere to some dogmatic definition of skeptic, of this or any other topic, then the simple fact that any "true skeptic" would never declare belief or disbelief may allow you to call yourself a skeptic. In the case of bigfoot, I think it is safe to declare disbelief while still adhering to any definition of skeptic.

In other words, I think you're full of it. As I think Roger is just as full of it with his 2/3 this and one third Tulpa, but never actually saying bigfoot exists. Yet who is the first to pick up the flag and rush to the defence of the PGF? Anyone who labors to defend the PGF while attempting to maintain an air of skepticism, is going to get a LOL from me. The two are just not congruent. Sorry.

You can have all the productive conversations with Kit that you want. Maybe you two can discuss what flavor of cheese the moon is made of. I don't care. Any discussion of the pgf is a moot point, in my opinion. There is no bigfoot, ergo the pgf is a hoax. Why discuss topology, weather, etc? It makes no sense. When you come to the defence of the pgf, you forfeit all pretense to skepticism in my opinion.

Last edited by dmaker; 24th September 2016 at 12:22 AM.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 06:19 AM   #34
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman
We did tree bores on the trees that were close to that age.
Is that legal?

This is now the second question I have asked about the legality of your activities.

Six Rivers National Forest.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 07:25 AM   #35
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,837
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
DUDE, I AM A SKEPTIC.
Dude, I'm skeptical.
__________________
Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

Alec Baldwin
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 08:46 AM   #36
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,082
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
It proves that the film wasn't shipped by air from Arcata, but was mailed instead. (And, as I mentioned a few days ago, no air shipment from Arcata then occurred either, because Peter Byrne checked all the flight records and interviewed pilots from there.)

...

Let me make sure this is your idea of proof of something being mailed:

" Someone threw a piece of paper in the trash, and when asked what it was, said it was a receipt. "


I have to respect your brass, Roger, if nothing else..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 09:59 AM   #37
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Steven and his crew have indeed done excellent work there, and spent considerable amounts of time, money and energy. The diagram is a huge advance. And their camera network is unsurpassed as far as I know, putting other, more publicized projects in the shade. That said, any result raises more questions, and results in more "demands" for higher accuracy, implications, calculations, and conclusions. This is normal in any field. No one who hasn't been there will fully understand what they are seeing in the diagram, and will make pleas, demands, requests, etc for clarification. Further, there will always be mistakes, overlooked items, poor technique, miscalculations, mismeasurements, etc.
Members here should not be over-critical of the diagram, and Steven should not be defensive, and no one should be name-calling. There are mistakes in the diagram. I don't think that Steven wants to imply that Bill Munns signed off on everything in the diagram...devotees of bigfootery may recall , for example, that hilarious time after his visit to the film site, when Bill was busy designing a hanging porch swing with patio chairs to be slung below a helicopter to obtain better measurements.
I personally do not understand why the multiple spelling mistakes have been allowed to persist. These are not Robert's fault, yet he takes the heat. He did his part, which is strong on measuring and not so strong on spelling. When a team undertakes a project, and signs it, and takes credit for it, then the team members with various skills should pitch in and use those skills for the good of the team. Those mistakes should have been corrected at the draft stage instead of allowing Robert to take the heat, and cause everyone who has looked at the diagram for these several years to be distracted and possibly put off by them.

I would also add that their team is scrupulously careful about what they do at the site, in terms of being on the same page with the responsible agency. In case it wasn't clear, Steven was talking about removing things from the diagram, not from the site.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 24th September 2016 at 10:04 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 11:41 AM   #38
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
Funny. But I’m not a believer-by-preference in a supernatural explanation. It’s my last-ditch attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Translation:

"Funny. But I’m not a believer-by-preference in a supernatural explanation. It’s my last-ditch attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance. cling onto this silly belief in any way I possibly can."
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 11:46 AM   #39
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
DUDE, I AM A SKEPTIC.
Mate, I am baffled.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

Last edited by Gilbert Syndrome; 24th September 2016 at 11:48 AM.
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 12:32 PM   #40
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
Well that didn't work AT ALL!

Maybe I needed some keyword definitions: satire, absurdity, sarcasm, spoof, folly, ridicule, mockery, humor.
NOW I get it. It was a play on words: tracking dog, tracking number. D'OH!

Edited by Agatha:  Edited breach of rule 0 and 11. Do not discuss your ignore list in threads.

Last edited by Agatha; 25th September 2016 at 09:17 AM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 10:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.