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 21st October 2016, 09:53 AM   #201
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Bigfoot "babes" = military "music".
But seriously, the bigfoot babes aren't bad if they shave every day.
__________________
"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; 21st October 2016 at 09:55 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 21st October 2016, 01:43 PM   #202
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
Bigfoot "babes" = military "music".
But seriously, the bigfoot babes aren't bad if they shave every day.
Speak for yourself mister!

<meanwhile back at the ranch>

I memorized this bit when it came out in the early 70's. I think I got ninth in a seven man 'talent show' with it.

I'm aware that some stare at my hair.
In fact to be fair some really despair of my hair.
But I don't care, cause they're not aware
Nor are they debonair.
In fact they're just square.


They see hair down to there,
Say, "Beware" and go off on a tear!
I say, "No fair!"
A head that's bare is really nowhere.

So be like a bear, be fair with your hair!
Show it you care.
Wear it to there.
Or to there.
Or to there, if you dare!


My wife bought some hair at a fair to use as a spare.
Did I care?
Au contraire!
Spare hair is fair!

In fact, hair can be rare.
Fred Astair got no hair,
Nor does a chair,
Nor a chocolate eclair,
And where is the hair on a pear?
Nowhere, mon frere!


So now that I've shared this affair of the hair,
I think I'll repair to my lair and use Nair, do you care?
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 23rd October 2016, 08:56 PM   #203
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Oh, bother. I don't know why I even bother with you guys sometimes.
The answer is no, that's not what happened.
But you can keep on "surmising" and calling it skepticism forever, if you'd like.

BFBM, signing out.
Bye.

Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
I can't speak for the Crew there, but I am going to surmise the rediscovery effort would not have occurred but for Bill Munns and/or his work. If you look at the timing, it seems like people were saying "Hey, Munns can prove Patty is real if he can get measurements of the actual site." So it went on, they found it, and while they were waiting for him, they started this trail cam thing, which is now the main activity. I have no idea how long they will keep it up, but I can tell you this, there is a party being planned there, for the 50th anniversary, next year. Without some outside funding, and obviously without any bigfoots imaged, I would guess the whole thing will collapse after that. I could be wrong.
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 October 2016, 09:09 PM   #204
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Oh, bother. I don't know why I even bother with you guys sometimes.
The answer is no, that's not what happened.
But you can keep on "surmising" and calling it skepticism forever, if you'd like.

BFBM, signing out.
Bye.
Scepticism, imo, with regards to the PGF and all things Hairy, generally begin and end with it not being real and not being worth the bother of a simple tape-measure. But that's just me...I'm not one to get in the way of a harmless hobby.
__________________
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 23rd October 2016, 09:16 PM   #205
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,611
Although, I'd definitely have a beer in the general area, that'd be...for want of a better and more appropriately British word, cool.
__________________
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 October 2016, 07:16 PM   #206
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Oh, bother. I don't know why I even bother with you guys sometimes.
The answer is no, that's not what happened.
But you can keep on "surmising" and calling it skepticism forever, if you'd like.

BFBM, signing out.
Bye.
surmise is kind of like to speculate or suggest a provisional scenario. It has nothing to do with skepticism. This is a discussion. If you have information on the topic, why don't you share it? I don't get why you respond emotionally. That is definitely not rational.
Are you saying you guys would have found the spot had Bill Munns never gone on television? or what?
__________________
"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
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 October 2016, 08:07 PM   #207
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
surmise is kind of like to speculate or suggest a provisional scenario. It has nothing to do with skepticism. This is a discussion. If you have information on the topic, why don't you share it? I don't get why you respond emotionally. That is definitely not rational.
Are you saying you guys would have found the spot had Bill Munns never gone on television? or what?
Finding the site had nothing to do with Munns on TV.

This is not emotional. It's not very rational to presume, without evidence, or to randomly surmise. I know what surmising is.

I did post it, and now I'm done. All one gets here for trying is grief.

BFBM, signing off
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 25th October 2016, 11:16 AM   #208
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
=bigfootbookman;11555546] All one gets here for trying is grief.

BFBM, signing off
Granted, I haven't been interested in the discussion surrounding the measurements of a bit of land where a hoax film was made beards ago...but, if I may ask, what is it exactly that you're trying to do here?
__________________
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 25th October 2016, 11:19 AM   #209
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,607
DennyT

How would Bill have helped to find the spot?
I really don't know how he would have helped, except bringing resources from the TV show to help locate it. OMG What if Bill Munns was the actual camera man for the hoax, and all this elaborate stuff, is just a major troll effort on his part? Wouldn't that be so cool? I swear he said he was a major user of that same type of camera in the late 60's
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2016, 11:21 AM   #210
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
DennyT

How would Bill have helped to find the spot?
I really don't know how he would have helped, except bringing resources from the TV show to help locate it. OMG What if Bill Munns was the actual camera man for the hoax, and all this elaborate stuff, is just a major troll effort on his part? Wouldn't that be so cool? I swear he said he was a major user of that same type of camera in the late 60's
Bill is the kind of weird guy who'd admit to farting in a lift even though it wasn't him...
__________________
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 25th October 2016, 12:20 PM   #211
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
People who visit the site never seem to do anything interesting, anyway.

They never check how long it might take to ride over and get plaster and return to the site, or see how long it takes to follow Patty for 3.5 miles and return to the site.

We know they said they did not go by road to get the plaster, for example. They went "across the hill".

What happens when you jump off of a stump at the site as far as the depth of your tracks? How much deeper do they get, if at all?

If I managed to get out near the place while doing something else, I suppose I might visit and try to decipher those answers.
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is online now   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 25th October 2016, 12:39 PM   #212
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
People who visit the site never seem to do anything interesting, anyway.

They never check how long it might take to ride over and get plaster and return to the site, or see how long it takes to follow Patty for 3.5 miles and return to the site.

We know they said they did not go by road to get the plaster, for example. They went "across the hill".

What happens when you jump off of a stump at the site as far as the depth of your tracks? How much deeper do they get, if at all?

If I managed to get out near the place while doing something else, I suppose I might visit and try to decipher those answers.
Good points.
__________________
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 25th October 2016, 02:37 PM   #213
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
DennyT

How would Bill have helped to find the spot?
I really don't know how he would have helped, except bringing resources from the TV show to help locate it. OMG What if Bill Munns was the actual camera man for the hoax, and all this elaborate stuff, is just a major troll effort on his part? Wouldn't that be so cool? I swear he said he was a major user of that same type of camera in the late 60's
I was surmising that Munns' MonsterQuest and NatGeo programs in 2008-9 gave PGF'ery a big shot in the arm, and that the Bluff Creek discovery project may have been one of the results of that hormone injection into the subject. I could go into detail on that for those who don't remember all the stuff about the lens, the "creature" height, the measurements, the helicopter into the area, the wrong site, all that. Then, it seems to me, that the Bluff Creek rediscovery happened shortly after that. I don't see how wondering about that would make BFBM get mad and leave. If it isn't true, that's fine. It's not an insult to suggest that Bill's work inspired them, or that I missed where BFBM previously discussed this. Is it somehow below someone's dignity to respond to that, even if it involves reposting some sentence or two? I mean this is such a minor point. But forget it, if it bothers you. Makes no difference to anything whether BFBM's crew had the idea independent of Bill or not.

Let me take this opportunity to ask you, BFBM, what the plan is for the game-cam project? specifically,
1) how many camera-days do you now have logged?
2) do you have a wildlife biologist evaluating your data?
3) do you plan to present your results in print, in journals or at conferences?
__________________
"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
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 27th October 2016, 05:36 PM   #214
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
my understanding is that the Bluff Creek crew has the largest bigfoot-related game-cam project, with something like 15-20 cameras, and that their camera-days greatly exceed those of the better-publicized Olympic Project/Derek Randles. Looking at the website of the latter, they seem to have little interest in game-cams these days. Not surprising. They have moved on to other nonsense, apparently audio recordings and some sort of 'nests' are their latest hopes. BTW, their vague ideas of "science" are laughable, were they not so pathetic.


If Meldrum were not a fraud, and actually a knowledgeable naturalist scientist, he would help these people to avoid looking like bozos.
__________________
"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; 27th October 2016 at 06:16 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 29th October 2016, 09:33 PM   #215
stanfr
Graduate Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,773
oh darn, I missed all the fun talk bout good ol Bluff Creek...

Anyhow, FWIW I don't believe in BF, but I had a load of fun visiting the PG site as part of the necessary trips I made in writing my book on hunting down BF (using sitings as an excuse to make all sorts of cool trips! ) in 2005. Book is outta print but I held onto some copies so if you want one id be willing to let a copy go for say... $25,000

It's actually a cool spot to visit, and skeptic or believer you'd have to be an idiot not to track it down if you're in the area. I didn't see any Squatch or people when I was down there, just some grasshoppers as I recall. There were some campers' caches in the woods. I went up and down the creek and did some exploring. Quite overgrown at that time, I was unable to find anything that would have made a fruitful comparison to the film. I think some peyote may have made the trip slightly more interesting. Although it was a bit psychedelic even in my sober state. If I have some free time maybe ill dig up some of my ol pics in the name of nostalgia...
stanfr 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 30th October 2016, 06:35 PM   #216
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
I see that there are still questions.

We began looking for the site before we'd ever heard of Munns. I first looked in 2001, and the other Bluff Creek Project founder, Ian C. went there in 2006, only to be puzzled to find Daniel Perez there unable to locate the site (it was shown marked on the map in his booklet, sourced through Dahinden). In 2003 the International Bigfoot Symposium held in Willow Creek was unable to locate the site with many of the old-timers there. Gimlin, at the end, told Bobo privately that he thought he had identified the area of the first sighting, after seeing the following straight and narrow canyon just upstream. That feature had not changed, but still, no one had located the trees, stumps, and other aspects of the site seen in the film which ought to still have been there. In 2009 I met Ian C., and we determined to establish a project to clarify these matters. We were joined by Robert Leiterman late that year, and in 2010, when he began video recording the quest. We had a fairly long list of locations identified by various "expert" sites, and we figured that the of course could not all be the correct one. We narrowed these down through process of elimination, investigating all of them, until settling on the one upstream from the others on which to do a survey investigation. Many told us that it could not be the site, as it "wasn't big enough" (MK Davis, et al.). In 2010, we were actually at the site when the National Geographic helicopter landed there on the gravel bar. We walked out of the woods and they were shocked to see anyone, thinking that it was impossible to get there save by air, or a long hike. We told them our vehicle was just a few hundred yards downstream. They were on the wrong location, and we told them that it almost certainly was the wrong spot, based on our current studies, but they proceeded to LIDAR scan it and use it in that silly documentary they did. Munns was on that, but only in regard to his copying of the film that Patricia Patterson has, and stabilizing it for the show. He did release an animation of the film action, as derived from the film itself, around then. This visualization of the camera action as it moved in relation to the moving film subject really helped us see how the movement of the film COULD happen within the confines of this upper part of the sandbar. With this in our minds, causing a changed image of the film action, we were able to return to Bluff Creek and really SEE the film site for the first time. We found a bunch of old-growth stumps still there, buried under ferns, vines, debris and brush. We then looked at the trees in back, in an area we'd previously thought was too far away from the film action to have really been the right spot, and we found the Big Tree. It had been there the whole time, but somehow "hiding" in the forest, because our preconceived views were making us look elsewhere. From there we found the other big trees, the broadleaf maple and the vine maple shrub trees still there. Bill Munns animations helped significantly with this, but we didn't really have much association with him until the next year, when he came up here to have us show him what we'd found.

And no, I don't "get mad" about things here, so much as it becomes tiresome to try to contribute objective information, only to be met with sardonic scoffing and "Footer" accusations rather than true skeptical curiosity.

In regard to the Bluff Creek Project as it carries on as a camera survey, that is mostly under the guidance of Jamie Wayne, the geologist who did the mathematical analysis of our film site data in order to prove the location. He is keeping records of the results and has written many field reports. Eventually, as this is our fifth year now of continuous 24-7-365 coverage by up to 20 cameras (normally less, due to failure and malfunction of some), a paper will be written by Jamie in the formal scientific form. We have so far gotten many grand images of wildlife. The null hypothesis seems to be confirmed every year, but of course we can't just come out and say that Bigfoot does not exist. We can say, We haven't seen any sign of it here in our study area, which is the most famous historical area for claimed Bigfoot habitation. I suppose it is possible that the Bigfoot have all moved over the hill to the Blue Creek watershed. Jamie is a busy guy, but I do think he intends to write the paper and publish it in 2016. We do present our images to science and environmental people, as well as to the USFS who are in support of the Project. We have had success in photographing and identifying the endangered and rare Humboldt or Coastal marten, and made it onto the news and various web pages for this. We have good video of the Pacific fisher, also proposed for the endangered species list. We've gotten other cool animals on camera, such as the ringtail, and of course innumerable bears and deer, and many mountain lions including a mother with two young over a three-year period.

For now, here is the blog for the Project, with all the links to videos, images, field reports, the funding page, and other things of interest.
http://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/

BFBM

Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
I was surmising that Munns' MonsterQuest and NatGeo programs in 2008-9 gave PGF'ery a big shot in the arm, and that the Bluff Creek discovery project may have been one of the results of that hormone injection into the subject. I could go into detail on that for those who don't remember all the stuff about the lens, the "creature" height, the measurements, the helicopter into the area, the wrong site, all that. Then, it seems to me, that the Bluff Creek rediscovery happened shortly after that. I don't see how wondering about that would make BFBM get mad and leave. If it isn't true, that's fine. It's not an insult to suggest that Bill's work inspired them, or that I missed where BFBM previously discussed this. Is it somehow below someone's dignity to respond to that, even if it involves reposting some sentence or two? I mean this is such a minor point. But forget it, if it bothers you. Makes no difference to anything whether BFBM's crew had the idea independent of Bill or not.

Let me take this opportunity to ask you, BFBM, what the plan is for the game-cam project? specifically,
1) how many camera-days do you now have logged?
2) do you have a wildlife biologist evaluating your data?
3) do you plan to present your results in print, in journals or at conferences?
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 30th October 2016, 06:49 PM   #217
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
We've done many of those things, including testing whether tracks could last over the winter (they do). We have tried jumping into the sand with boots, and sure, one can make a dent that goes in deeply. The conditions have changed, and the sand has settled since 1964 and the Flood. We don't like to climb on the old stumps, as they are fragile artifacts of that era, and tend to crumble apart just from leaning upon them.

The roads issue is complicated. There is no longer a plowed road along the creekside. There are only vague traces that there was one. The process up and down the three miles or so from camp to film site is one largely of walking in the creek and over its gravel bars. The concept of a "shortcut" is fairly questionable, as the walls of the canyon there are very steep. I've speculated where this shortcut "over the hill" or "through a meadow" could be, and really, it's already rather close to the film site, and might present more problems in the time of travel than just sticking to the plowed road would.

You can see from the map I'll attach below that heading 3.5 miles upstream to "track Patty" would be fairly implausible and long. I don't think the plowed road went all that way up the creek. The distance takes one way back into the headwaters of Bluff Creek, and the canyon at that point starts to rise steeply to the north and east as one approaches Lonesome Ridge and the GO-Road. It seems very unlikely to me that P&G went that far upstream. I just adds way too much time onto their already tight timeline of the event. Think about it... that's about seven miles for tracking, added to about ten miles for getting plaster from camp (where Gimlin says it was) and returning again, all on horseback through rough terrain.

The problem of replicating all these things that LTC8K6 mentions still remains. At best, we can only speculate or look at maps and the current changed environs and imagine what it was like back then from scant sources and those who remember it.

BFBM

(Each square on the attached map is a mile. Click to enlarge it.)

Film Site Camp Tracking Distance.jpg

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
People who visit the site never seem to do anything interesting, anyway.

They never check how long it might take to ride over and get plaster and return to the site, or see how long it takes to follow Patty for 3.5 miles and return to the site.

We know they said they did not go by road to get the plaster, for example. They went "across the hill".

What happens when you jump off of a stump at the site as far as the depth of your tracks? How much deeper do they get, if at all?

If I managed to get out near the place while doing something else, I suppose I might visit and try to decipher those answers.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 30th October 2016 at 06:51 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 31st October 2016, 12:20 PM   #218
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Well, you don't actually need to jump off a stump...anything about the right height will do.

Have you publicly gone over this info about the time line and the difficulty of following Patty and/or getting plaster?

If you discussed it before somewhere, I did not see it.

This is the first time I have heard of how difficult it might have been to do either of those things. I have always based my skepticism of those events simply on time, assuming that the journey itself was not difficult, and that the main problem was simply the typical speed of horseback riding and the overall timing.
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is online now   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 1st November 2016, 12:18 AM   #219
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Thanks BFBM,
sp 2017 should be a big year for visitors, yes?
__________________
"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
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 1st November 2016, 06:26 AM   #220
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,607
Wow BFBM that looks like it's about 3 miles, straight line, from the campsite to the filmsite.

How bad would the terrain be there? Up and down hills and around trees, what do you think the multiplier would be for actual miles through that terrain? 1.5x? 2x? 3x?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2016, 09:34 AM   #221
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Soon after the PGF, Gimlin stated that the last moment he saw Patty was when she was heading up the logging road and she was 300 yards (900 ft.) away from him. That's a very long distance and I've always wondered if it was even possible given the topography of the canyon, and the road layout and all the trees, etc. It may have been another Gimlin lie.

We've never seen a map drawing showing the road and layout "beyond" the large creekbed clearing.
__________________
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 1st November 2016, 12:03 PM   #222
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
This is the way folk lore is created.
Gimiin has a way of taking the reality of what occurred the day the film was made, and subtly twisting it around to make it sound heroic. Particularly in recent years he has tried to "blur" certain impossible/conflicting parts of the story.

How about this for the reality basis for his statement: The last time Gimlin saw the Patty costume being worn was when Bob H. jumped in the hole created by a deadfall, about 300 feet away from where Gimlin was standing. Alternatively, the last time Gimlin saw "Patty" (Bob H.) was as Bob H. was driving away in his mother's Buick, about 300 feet DOWN the logging road from their campsite. BFBM is the expert, but I doubt there is any place in that canyon where a person could have seen 300 yards up or down that road.

As for the topography of the canyon above the film site, it is called the "bowling alley" because it is straight and narrow. Obviously the foliage has changed over the years, but you can see from the topo that at 300 yards a primate would have to have been actually in the creek itself, in order to be seen. Not to mention the fact that the logging road was on the other side of the creek; Gimlin absolutely could not have seen 300 yards up the creek or the logging road if in fact he was in hearing of distance of Roger, (who was on the sandbar on the north/west side of the creek on foot and without his rifle), when Roger supposedly told him "don't go and leave me alone here!" You can see from the film that there is a stand of timber beyond where the subject is last seen. One has to go through this timber to even get to the bank of the creek. To get to the logging road, Gimlin would have had to then go down the bank, across the creek, and up the other bank.

Debunking any one version of the various stories is sort of a fools errand, as Gimlin has others to take its place; perhaps it is reasonable to assume that his memories are faded and contaminated now, and his latter-day apologists are only too happy to make up new stories based on that assumption...but one must remember that the stories were conflicting and unreasonable even at the beginning. That is one of the key features that demonstrates the lies.
__________________
"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; 1st November 2016 at 12:46 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 1st November 2016, 12:53 PM   #223
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
BFBM,
I was not trying to say that Bill spoke with you or had any direct hand in your project. If i am reading you correctly, you say that your friend approached you in 2009. His motivation came from somewhere. How did the bee get in his bonnet at that time, many years after the 2003 trip to the Creek? The bigfoot show on MonsterQuest season 3 episode 19, aired 8 July 2009. Without knowing the exact date of your conversation, it is not unreasonable to suggest that his motivation might have come from that film. if your conversation was prior to and without any knowledge, on yours or his part, of the upcoming MonsterQuest show, that's fine, it was just a coincidence.

I think that the two Munns "documentaries' had a large role in the resurgence of the bigfoot myth. Perhaps someone could tell us whether bigfoot reports spiked in response to the MonsterQuest and NatGeo shows. Bill spoke in pretty certain terms that bigfoot was real and huge, and the film in general and the supposed film site in particular were used to support his position.

This is a discussion. It's not an attack.
__________________
"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; 1st November 2016 at 01:08 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 1st November 2016, 02:41 PM   #224
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 992
I, for one, really enjoy and appreciate BFBM's contributions here.
jerrywayne 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 1st November 2016, 07:15 PM   #225
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,930
Quote:
We have so far gotten many grand images of wildlife. The null hypothesis seems to be confirmed every year, but of course we can't just come out and say that Bigfoot does not exist.
Allow me: Bigfoot doesn't exist. Neither do mermaids, unicorns, dragons nor Nessie. If noting the obvious makes me a "scoffer" then so be it. I am also a scofftic concerning leprechauns, chucabras and relict Apatosaurs in the Congo.
__________________
This is not the America I know and love. We're better than this.

Chesley B. Sullenberger III

Last edited by Resume; 1st November 2016 at 08:02 PM.
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 2nd November 2016, 04:02 AM   #226
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Quote:
I watched her until she went up the road about 300 yards, and she went around a bend in the road and that was the last I seen of her.
Bob Gimlin, November 1967.

Thinking of the 300 meter target in the military, Patty would be a pretty small target at 300 yards, and pretty hard to spot in the woods at such a distance.

At any rate, I must retract my words about there not being anything for me to learn at the PGF film site. However, the problems with the stories told by P/G seem not to matter to bigfoot believers.
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is online now   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 2nd November 2016, 04:10 AM   #227
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
I think it also indicates that Patty, a supposedly wild creature, basically went well over 300 yards without really seeking cover/concealment, after being startled by P/G.
If you believe Bob, that is, since he was able to watch her all that way, until a bend concealed her.
__________________
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 LTC8K6; 2nd November 2016 at 04:12 AM.
LTC8K6 is online now   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 2nd November 2016, 04:13 AM   #228
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,930
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
At any rate, I must retract my words about there not being anything for me to learn at the PGF film site. However, the problems with the stories told by P/G seem not to matter to bigfoot believers.
You could debunk it beyond question and it wouldn't matter much. Gimlin could tearfully confess and ditto. There is a surfeit of bigfoot entrepreneurs lined up to sell footie to the credulous.
__________________
This is not the America I know and love. We're better than this.

Chesley B. Sullenberger III
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 2nd November 2016, 09:10 AM   #229
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
I agree that the debunking of the PGF will not deter a large percentage of believers.... Google "When Prophesy Fails." Many people believe they have seen bigfoot, and will say that encounter did not depend on the film. Others will continue to believe because "so many reports couldn't all be wrong." This latter rationalization is in fact what Gimlin apparently now relies upon, to justify to himself his refusal to come clean.
__________________
"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
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 2nd November 2016, 09:25 AM   #230
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I, for one, really enjoy and appreciate BFBM's contributions here.
is Bruce Wayne any relation?
__________________
"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
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 2nd November 2016, 02:10 PM   #231
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
I think visiting the PGF film site would be fun. At a bare minimum, the forest hike and exploration would be fun. I do that stuff normally anyway, so doing it at a historic (an historic) site would make it that much better. And of course, I'm pretty geekish about the hobbies I'm fond of, and bigfoot is one of those. You really don't have to be a believer to be a fan of bigfootery.

Because modern bigfoot lore owes pretty much everything to the PGF, it is the grand-daddy of the whole hobby. Yeah, yeah, there are those who try to disconnect from the PGF, to cut the umbilical and lie through their nose that they never even heard about bigfoot when they had their own personal encounter, but whatever. I think anyone who thinks clearly can recognize that were it not for the PGF there would be no bigfoot in popular culture now.

And as the grand-daddy of all bigfootery, the PGF holds a special place in history, and in at least my own timid heart. And by PGF I mean the short, partial roll of film that makes up the Patty sequence. Within that short clip of film there is Patty, the bigfoot, the dude in a suit, and the scenery that he walks through. That's it. To me, that's the PGF. The other scenic clips, the track casting sequence, the stump jumping heel stomp sequence, the stories told by P&G, all those are secondary in my mind.

And so, investigation and analysis of the subject, the suit, and the site scenery is really the primary interest of mine. The site is kind of sacred in a sense, because it was the setting for the whole hoax, it was part of it. But it is only the setting, and beyond its use as a set piece it has very little value in my mind. It's not like there was residual value remaining there once the show packed up and left town. It's not like the people who were planting tracks there, prepping the scene for a hoaxed film, who were now no longer there, with no future use for the site, left some kind of memorabilia there. Unlike a Hollywood set, there'd be no old lights, props, costumes, or other artifacts at the site to swoon over.

The big deal was the suit. Without the suit, there'd be no film. The suit could have been filmed anywhere, but just anywhere would not have worked without a decent suit. While I would love to visit Bluff Creek just to say that I had been to the historic site where the film was shot, it really doesn't hold much more value to me than that. It's not as if the ghost of Patty might still be wandering the woods there, or that there might be some distant chance that a bigfoot would walk out and spook the beejeezus out of me.

That's why I am SO adrenaline free on all the Bluff Creek kerfuffle, or any other traipsing around in the woods with bigfoot on the mind. I don't believe that he woods hold any bigfoots, any evidence of bigfoots, or any hope of bigfoots. The woods are fun all on their own, separate and independent of bigfootery.

But wait! What about all the trees, the geometry, the photogrammetry, the lens issue, the distance between the camera, the trees, the bigfoot, and all that? Uh, really? I think all that is moot if one truly believes that Patty was a dude in a suit, except for those who need to put the final nails in the coffin of the whole story. Because there are those who still believe that Patty was real, that Patty was almost 8 feet tall, that Patty actually walked the path where the tracks were, there will be a need to very accurately recreate the precise geometry of the site, the location of the trees, the location of the trackway, and the location of the path that Patty walked. That will prove that Patty did not make the tracks, and further debunk the whole hoax, but as stated it won't convince believers at all.

As an example of how important a film site might be, Patterson and crew did some filming just down the road from his house, outside of Yakima. The bigfoot chase scene, for example, where the guys are forging their horses down an embankment staging a simulated chase of a bigfoot for Patterson's bigger movie. And the site where he had all his posse lined up for the promo shot where Gimlin is dressed up like an indian scout. Those places also exist to this day, and yet who's out there collecting sand from them, or measuring them, or documenting them as historical sites where some Patterson footage was shot? What's the difference? At one site he has his buddies acting in front of a camera, and at another site he has his buddy acting in front of a camera. One site is less important because his buddies are in cowboy outfits, and another is more important because his buddy is wearing a bigfoot outfit? What really makes either a big deal is the outfit worn, and to me that says less about the site and mote about the outfit.

Digging around one site because of the outfit worn there, and ignoring all the other sites because other outfits were worn at those, just seems a bit humorous.
Tontar 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 2nd November 2016, 02:24 PM   #232
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Quote:
the stump jumping heel stomp sequence
It's not apparent that this film sequence exists or was seen by anyone.
__________________
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 2nd November 2016, 02:28 PM   #233
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I heard that IS- Bigfoot Forums are having a gathering at the film site during the 50th anniversary celebration. There will be bigfoot suits, howling, wood knocking, craft-beer, well-aged Bourbon, and babes.
I have no doubt that there will be a big 50th anniversary party at Bluff Creek. However, I suspect there will be no bigfoot suits in attendance. Bigfoot suits are sort of a taboo thing in bigfoot proponent circles. It's a sort of blasphemy. You don't see a bunch of Jesus or Mary costumes at Christian parties, and you REALLY don't see any Muhammed costumes at Islamic events. Bigfoot proponents really don't get into wearing bigfoot costumes because it hits a little too close to home, hints too much of "dude in a suit", or "Patty was a dude in a suit". It's a very slippery slope between people donning an ape suit and Patty being labeled a hoax. It's just not done.

Similar to bigfoot researchers avoiding at all costs putting on fake feet to test the validity of bigfoot tracks, experimenting to see how easy or how hard it is to actually fake tracks. It's just not done, because it is too close to what hoaxers do. Proponents are not advocates of experimentation, unless it can be conducted in a way that confirms their pro-bigfoot bias, but even then it is a practice that is best left to those more experienced and more likely to produce favorable results, which are harder to debunk than most amateur experiments.

And so, while there will likely be a BIG bigfoot party come October 20th, my bet is that there will be zero ape suits on hand, nor stompers for playing around. It will be a somber, solemn affair, with hushed reverence while people take in the magic and mystery of the domain of the one and only bigfoot ever recorded on film. The someone will scream out some crazy "WOOOOOP!", take three cracks at a tree with a baseball bat, and the Jack Daniels will begin to flow freely. My prediction is shaved, or unshaved, someone is getting laid out on that sandbar. And that is the best reason of all to have a thermal camera on hand!
Tontar 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 2nd November 2016, 02:31 PM   #234
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
It's not apparent that this film sequence exists or was seen by anyone.
Ah yeah, I was not trying to imply that it did exist. Just referencing the stories told, not trying to lend validity to any of them.

Because, if there WAS such a film clip showing Gimlin jumping off a stump and stomping his heels into the sand to see how deep he could make a dent, I think we'd see some fairly deep dents. The "story" of doing such a test are what's important to the fable, not the actual act of doing it, or a film showing him doing it. They were attempting to add value and validity to their claims of a huge monster ape-man (or ape-woman), and to qualify for monster status she needed to be huge and heavy, heavy enough to make monstrously deep tracks. Just like the monsters in Lost In Space, in The Abominable Snowman, in Half Human, and so on. Monsters always leave deep tracks, and so do bigfoots because, well, they are monsters. And P$G had to impress upon their audience that this monster qualified as a monster by leaving classically deep tracks. How else would they be able to paint that picture unless they had some frame of reference. They couldn't just say the tracks were deep, they needed to be able to say they were deeper than anything else, and thus their inability to make tracks anywhere close to the depth that Patty made. They verbally illustrated the idea of monstrously deep tracks by giving a frame of reference, the horse tracks not being anywhere near as deep, and Gimlin's jumping off a stump and stomping as hard as he could and not being able to replicate the same depth. So in the audiences' mind, Patty made amazingly deep tracks, and thus qualified as a monster.

Last edited by Tontar; 2nd November 2016 at 02:39 PM.
Tontar 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 2nd November 2016, 02:59 PM   #235
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
What came from this was a map that showed the aspects of the site as seen in the film, and we were very surprised to find so much had been preserved over time, on elevated sand, under an increasing canopy of younger trees, protected by the geology of the area, which determined that water flowed around the site rather than over it. We documented all of this with the greatest precision possible to us as amateur surveyors, and made a map that is accurate enough to compare to previous site photos. Our geologist did some mathematics and found that the matching of the map to the "aerial" site photo of Dahinden was 97% or better. He said that without a doubt it is the site, and that we had done a good job documenting it as well. Munns later confirmed this from various features from the film itself, the next year.

Now we know where the site is, and what it looked like in the time of the filming, in many ways that are useful and were not adequately documented at the time. We hope to do an even better survey, with a professional, sometime soon. This data can then be used by whomever, skeptic or believer, to run a 3-D model of the site, do photogrammetry, or whatever they like. Perhaps this will prove useful in determining, say, the height of the subject, which I know is an issue still in debate and controversy. It's been an interesting process, without a motivation to "prove Bigfoot," but just an inclination to show what exists in reality, on one small patch of Earth that we find rather enjoyable to visit.

When we were done with the process of documenting the site itself, we moved on to test the hyothesis, "Bigfoot Exists in Bluff Creek," using trail cameras deployed around the film site area. We figured that if Bigfoot existed, it was likely to reappear in the most famous historical area where it was previously claimed to appear. Note, we did not personally ASSERT that Bigfoot exists, but rather wanted to TEST that idea. So far, in five years of observation 24-7-365, in an area closed to humans usually eight months of the year, which is increasingly wild and fecund as humans hardly go there anymore, we have found not a single piece of Bigfoot evidence, no images or video or anything else. I would say, though we haven't finished the observational period yet, that the null hypothesis is highly likely.

BFBM
The main reason for surveying the site accurately, and creating a site model, is to try to come up with some way to establish the height of the guy in the suit. Is the guy's height really important?

I think that the only importance in establishing the height is in the war between those who steadfastly hold onto the idea that Patty was a real bigfoot and thus has to be bigger than a normal human, and those who recognize that Patty was a dude in a suit that want to establish once and for all that proponents are falsifying data in order to prove Patty was a real bigfoot. Those who are confident that Patty was a hoax, and who recognize that believers will never change their minds, have no need to pinpoint the height of the guy in the suit. A third set of people exist who accept Patty was fake, recognize that believers will never stop believing, but want to provide an antidote or a vaccine for those who are not believers but who might fall victim to the nonsense being spewed out there to convince the gullible that Patty was a real bigfoot.

Regarding the notion that after five years there has been zero evidence of bigfoot, not even tracks, why would you say that the null hypothesis is likely, but then not admit that bigfoot does not exist there?

Last edited by Tontar; 2nd November 2016 at 03:01 PM.
Tontar 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 2nd November 2016, 03:01 PM   #236
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Thinking of the 300 meter target in the military, Patty would be a pretty small target at 300 yards, and pretty hard to spot in the woods at such a distance.
According to Gimlin, Patty was on the road and not in the woods when he last saw her. At that time Gimlin would have been off the road and out on the sandflat on horseback with rifle in hand.

An assessment of the scene "beyond" the area we already know about might reveal that Gimlin must have made that part up. It may have been truly impossible for him to see Patty 300 yards away on the road.

I also mentioned recently: Their scenario of suddenly seeing Patty who was concealed behind the logjam might be an impossible situation as well.
__________________
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 3rd November 2016, 09:14 AM   #237
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
Speak for yourself mister!

<meanwhile back at the ranch>

I memorized this bit when it came out in the early 70's. I think I got ninth in a seven man 'talent show' with it.

I'm aware that some stare at my hair.
In fact to be fair some really despair of my hair.
But I don't care, cause they're not aware
Nor are they debonair.
In fact they're just square.


They see hair down to there,
Say, "Beware" and go off on a tear!
I say, "No fair!"
A head that's bare is really nowhere.

So be like a bear, be fair with your hair!
Show it you care.
Wear it to there.
Or to there.
Or to there, if you dare!


My wife bought some hair at a fair to use as a spare.
Did I care?
Au contraire!
Spare hair is fair!

In fact, hair can be rare.
Fred Astair got no hair,
Nor does a chair,
Nor a chocolate eclair,
And where is the hair on a pear?
Nowhere, mon frere!


So now that I've shared this affair of the hair,
I think I'll repair to my lair and use Nair, do you care?

well, you've certainly got a pair....
__________________
"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
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 3rd November 2016, 09:50 AM   #238
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
It's not apparent that this film sequence exists or was seen by anyone.
In the first place, I think it is crucial to realize that until 2003, Gimlin was pretty much a hostile captive of Patterson's frauduloid caper. By that I mean he was just like the other people that Patterson defrauded out of money. He went along, hoping to share in the big score, but ended up being bitter. He sued, and won, but won nothing. And the settlement undoubtedly forced him to keep silent about the fakery. There is more to this, involving his marital relations. Only in 2003 did he decide that all the attention was cool. But he has made a number of statements contrary to the interest of the hoax, e.g. Patterson's horse did not fall on Patterson.

Gimlin's repeated and detailed descriptions of his role in this make me believe that he did what he said. Unlike some of his other statements, which are not consistent, these make sense, and would be reasonable for the boys to have done. Further, for Gimlin to make up this feature of the hoax seems to me to be above his pay grade.

But there is no compelling evidence that this supposed footage was ever shown, certainly not to Gimlin. Gimlin has twice said that Roger told him that DeAtley basically confiscated this footage, but Roger did not tell Gimlin why (I think it is possible that it was Roger who decided to conceal that footage, but wanted to blame it on Al). Again, I believe Gimlin, in part because of the above, and also because it is "testimony against interest" IOW, it suggests that someone is lying or hiding evidence, which tends to support the idea of a hoax.

While Patterson may have had enough camera skills to "point and shoot", he didn't have much more than that. It is possible that he either failed to operate the camera adequately during Gimlin's maneuvers, or that what was on the film gave away the hoax in some way. I think that if the former were the case, the crude film would have surfaced. Since it hasn't, I favor the latter explanation. And I think that DeAtley would have told Roger the reason, but that Gimlin was not in the 'need to know' loop.

Any other Gimlin descriptions of filming have been 'forced' on him by those who want to believe that the casting scene, for example, must have been filmed that day, and consist more of "ok, I must have done that, I guess..."

So, I don't know whether it exists at present, and I think it was seen only by DeAtley and Patterson.

At any rate, imho, if any film i.e. the "second roll", was made on October 20, 1967, at Bluff Creek, that stomp stuff was on it.
__________________
"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; 3rd November 2016 at 09:53 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 3rd November 2016, 04:51 PM   #239
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
In the first place, I think it is crucial to realize that until 2003, Gimlin was pretty much a hostile captive of Patterson's frauduloid caper. By that I mean he was just like the other people that Patterson defrauded out of money. He went along, hoping to share in the big score, but ended up being bitter...
"Hoping to share in the big score" huh? What big score? The one that happened in 1968-70? And really, captive to RP's ghost until 2003 even though he'd been DEAD since 1972? Gimlin was just patiently waiting for that life changing $1,000?

Who exactly was holding the gun to Gimlin's head all that time? Big bad Patrica Patterson? Al DeAtley? NOT A CHANCE! He could have come clean at anytime as he wasn't bound by anything legal. The only way he's gonna get his own "big score" is to write a tell all about the hoax, and he's not going to do that.
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 3rd November 2016, 09:32 PM   #240
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,194
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
....
I also mentioned recently: Their scenario of suddenly seeing Patty who was concealed behind the logjam might be an impossible situation as well.
This is an excellent observation:
In the opening frames of the Patty walk footage, we are looking past the log jam, and seeing Patty up on the bank near the woods, and the creek can be seen to running toward the camera.

It seems pretty clear to me that the creek beside which Patty was supposedly kneeling, did not run by the place where Patty is first seen on the film.

To restate, the creek had turned toward Patterson, away from the sandbar where Patty was, before ("upstream" of) the spot where we first see Patty. Therefore, it seems that Patty could not have been kneeling next to the creek, because the creek did not run by where she started.

This may not be a clear explanation. I will try to make an illustration. Here I am assuming Patty starts her walk from the beginning of the red arrow. There is no creek there. It has turned away from the sandbar.
__________________
"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; 3rd November 2016 at 09:49 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
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 08:44 AM.
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.