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

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

Notices


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

Reply
Old 4th November 2016, 08:34 AM   #241
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
^I don't think this is quite probative, but it does "look bad" for the iconic account, IMHO. Like other parts of the account, it seems as though Gimlin is relying on the fact that no one who visits the site would ever use the topography against him, so he just made up whatever he wanted. And I must say, he was not far from right on his assessment.... 99% of those who take the trouble to visit the site are dyed in the wool believers/Gimlin worshippers.
__________________
"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 4th November 2016, 09:00 AM   #242
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
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.
She's actually a considerable distance from the woods right there.

Quote:
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.
I don't recall P&G saying that she was kneeling. Their account has her standing and looking at them at the initial visual contact. They give varying accounts of how far away she was at that moment. In one retelling, she stands there for an entire minute before turning and walking away.

Quote:
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.
I have a different "starting point" which I illustrated many years ago using about the same frame as you are using here (posted again below). Patty starts very near the water and almost alongside the logjam. Note too that Gimlin said she was only 18" away from the water when they first saw her. Any PGF believer who does not locate her starting point 18" from the water is essentially saying, "never mind what Gimlin has to say about the event".


__________________
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 4th November 2016, 05:02 PM   #243
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Actually Patty is much much closer to the woods there, than later in the film, when he is some 200 feet from the forest. That part of the open flat is pretty narrow. You can see that on bigfootbookman's diagrams, and it is obvious if you go there. It is very hard to quantitate the exact position since we have little in the way of place markers for either the camera or the subject, and the bank has eroded since then. Munns has tried to do so, and this is drawn on one of BFBM's diagrams, but if he was calculating with other than a 25mm lens, the drawing is obsolete.
If you suspend disbelief for a moment, it is conceivable, barely, that the subject started by the creek, kneeling in one account, 18 inches from the creek, etc, [I will look for those refs] then turned 180 degrees away from Patterson, walked up the bank, walked directly away, then before the trees turned 90 degrees to the right and was walking upstream when Patterson turned on his camera. As I said, the creek topography is not probative, but it isn't exactly supportive of the story.
There is no logjam there today. I think perhaps the skeptics removed it.

However, if we de-suspend disbelief, it is silly to play these games with believers, who attribute to "Patty" whatever super-powers are needed to explain whatever anomalies of time and space might become apparent.
and
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
__________________
"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 4th November 2016, 06:13 PM   #244
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
Actually Patty is much much closer to the woods there, than later in the film, when he is some 200 feet from the forest.
You said that Patty is near the woods. Nearness is a subjective value. I responded that she is a considerable distance away, but even that is subjective. Now you are mentioning 200 feet away (later in the walk) from the woods. That is not a subjective value. How did you calculate that distance?

Quote:
It is very hard to quantitate the exact position since we have little in the way of place markers for either the camera or the subject, and the bank has eroded since then.
Very hard to quantitate? You just came up with a 200 foot figure. Was that hard for you to do?

Quote:
Munns has tried to do so, and this is drawn on one of BFBM's diagrams, but if he was calculating with other than a 25mm lens, the drawing is obsolete.
I don't know what he did at the film site but if he brought the Kodak and some of its lenses then he could figure out which lens Roger used based on field-of-view because there are some visible landmarks which have not moved since 1967.


Quote:
There is no logjam there today. I think perhaps the skeptics removed it.
The logjam is still there. It's a landmark feature that can help to position Roger at the start of the film. It would seem that after being at the site Munns now knows exactly which lens Patterson used. Did he announce that yet? I haven't been paying much attention to his writing and am wondering.
__________________
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 4th November 2016, 09:49 PM   #245
Squatchy McSquatch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 182
munns has been curiously quiet on the topic of Bigfoot.

Ever since he published a book about Bigfoot.

The lens, distance, height of the BF is a distraction that need not be addressed.
Squatchy McSquatch 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 5th November 2016, 01:28 AM   #246
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by Squatchy McSquatch View Post
munns has been curiously quiet on the topic of Bigfoot.

Ever since he published a book about Bigfoot.

The lens, distance, height of the BF is a distraction that need not be addressed.
He probably got a steady job in the local Wal-Mart and thus didn't need to pursue those Bigfoot dollars any longer.

Why beg your fans to pay for your lunch when you can nick it off the shelves for free?
__________________
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 6th November 2016, 02:46 PM   #247
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You said that Patty is near the woods. Nearness is a subjective value. I responded that she is a considerable distance away, but even that is subjective. Now you are mentioning 200 feet away (later in the walk) from the woods. That is not a subjective value. How did you calculate that distance?


Very hard to quantitate? You just came up with a 200 foot figure. Was that hard for you to do?


I don't know what he did at the film site but if he brought the Kodak and some of its lenses then he could figure out which lens Roger used based on field-of-view because there are some visible landmarks which have not moved since 1967.

The logjam is still there. It's a landmark feature that can help to position Roger at the start of the film. It would seem that after being at the site Munns now knows exactly which lens Patterson used. Did he announce that yet? I haven't been paying much attention to his writing and am wondering.
The walk is a path, not a point, but the early part of the walk is on a narrow section of sandbar (see the diagrams by BigfootBookman) which is only 25 or so feet wide. This is clear when you visit the site and get out a tape measure.
Just about the time the film stabilizes somewhat, the forest (and by this I am referring to the big trees seen in the film) udrops away sharply behind the subject to about 200 feet behind him, at the look back frames. Measured, not calculated.
The log jam seen on the film is not there. I don't know who told you that it is, but I've been there, and it isn't. There is some speculation that it might have moved, but there is no log jam where there was one in 1967.
I am not privy to Munns state of mind. And I do not know what equipment he might have carried to the site. I can however tell you that, strangely, he didn't make the critical measurements.
And I can refer you his sudden cessation of statements about those matters, shortly after his trip to Bluff Creek in 2012 and for three years now, even though he has actually published an entire book on the film since then. He has said that he is pretty much done with the film other than cataloguing his collection of scans. The numbers are there, and the lens story is likely to be finalized in the near future, but not, apparently, by him.
__________________
"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; 6th November 2016 at 03:08 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 6th November 2016, 09:13 PM   #248
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by DennyT
The log jam seen on the film is not there. I don't know who told you that it is, but I've been there, and it isn't.
Oh wow. Streufert says that it's still right there in the same place. It's shown on the maps made by him and his friends. He and I had recent conversation here about that logjam and he asserts that it is still there.

I now hand the microphone to you so that you can defend your position that the logjam is gone.
__________________
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 7th November 2016, 11:42 AM   #249
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
WP:
Your snark is noted.
You have been led astray. I don't know why, when, and even whether SS said exactly what you represent, but assuming he said something like that, it is not a true statement if you are referring to the position of the root ball seen in the first frame of the Pattywalk sequence. It is not there. Let us look at the diagram you have cited as evidence of your belief. The rootball in the diagram is nowhere near where it would have to have been to appear in the first frame. This is shown very clearly in the diagram you mention, which shows pretty accurately where the first frame was shot. The root ball in the diagram is correctly located also. I guess you did not look closely at it when you presented it as evidence of the rootball being there where we see it in the film; in actuality the diagram says exactly what I wrote. I hope that will be enough evidence for you. There is more but that will wait for another day.
I now hand you back your snarky microphone. While I have respect for the efforts made by SS and his crew, there are some serious problems in their interpretations as well as in certain parts of their diagrams. which will undoubtedly become clear in the future. In the meantime, I would caution you to be wary of what amounts to wishful thinking on the part of one or more of them. You are too smart and well informed to act as a microphone for them.
By the way, and as a corollary, if in your previous statements that the rootball presents an opportunity for analysis, you were referring to the present day rootball, then you are in error. It is not in the position of the rootball in the film, and thus is cannot be useful in analyzing the 1967 film.
note of clarification: I cannot say whether the present day rootball in the diagram is the same physical rootball that was in the film but now in a different position. No one can. I rather doubt it, it doesn't look that old. The important issue is whether it is in the same position. It is not.
__________________
"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; 7th November 2016 at 11:51 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 7th November 2016, 01:03 PM   #250
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Oh wow. Streufert says that it's still right there in the same place. It's shown on the maps made by him and his friends. He and I had recent conversation here about that logjam and he asserts that it is still there.

I now hand the microphone to you so that you can defend your position that the logjam is gone.
I wonder if you are confusing logjam with debris pile.
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 7th November 2016, 01:04 PM   #251
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
I'll explain where this logjam is illustrated in both of their maps. Go to post #52 in this thread...

Map #1: Near the bottom of the map and on the left side of the creek you will see "Wood Debris", "Log Jam", and "Stump". That entire assemblage is what is the logjam seen in the first frames of the PGF.

Map #2: Near the top of the map and on the left side of the creek you will see "Log Complex" and "Stump". That assemblage is also the logjam.

When Titmus made his map of the scene he drew a simplified picture of that logjam which he called "Tree Root System". He shows it as one big fallen tree with the rootball attached. But obviously it's more than just that as we can see other wood that has accumulated when we look at the PGF first frames.
__________________
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 7th November 2016, 01:13 PM   #252
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by Tontar View Post
I wonder if you are confusing logjam with debris pile.
This logjam is actually a wood debris pile. When you look at the first frames of the PGF you see a large jumbled mess of wood debris. That's the logjam. It's a pile.

Streufert says it's still there and unmoved. It's on both of his maps. If that's true then it's a useful landmark.
__________________
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 7th November 2016, 01:47 PM   #253
Tontar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
:
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.
It's not unimaginable that there has been a contract or legal agreement in place which would prevent Gimlin from spilling the beans about the hoax. Such legally binding documents are not new, and can be written with adequate "teeth" that Gimlin would be sufficiently motivated to keep from exposing the hoax as a hoax. Especially since over time he was being elevated to the status of folk hero, legend, and demigod. Once he started going to conferences, he has never been so appreciated in all his life. Why would he give all that admiration up, especially if he were actually bound by a contract not to do so?

Of course, the idea of a contract is pure speculation but what other reasons might there be? He has been overheard speaking the term "cowboy promise" regarding an interaction with Roger and it may just be that he initially held his tongue out of loyalty. The lawsuit he filed against the other partners seems to suggest that he may have been loyal to a limited point, but also wanted money to keep that loyalty intact. It's possible that there was a monetary settlement at that time as well, which could have demanded an NDA of some sort.

If there wasn't a cowboy promise made to Roger on his deathbed to keep the hoax going, and if there wasn't a binding contract, then what else would have kept Gimlin quiet at first, and then a rock star on the bigfoot conference circuit doing the same old performance again and again? I'm not going to buy the excuse that he actually believed he saw a bigfoot, and has been telling his truth all these years.
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 7th November 2016, 02:10 PM   #254
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,025
There is no mention of Patty being concealed behind anything, nor is there mention of a huge root ball or log jam in the original news article, or in the 11/67 radio interview.

They just see her standing there.
__________________
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 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 7th November 2016, 02:47 PM   #255
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
It's fun. Each time they tell the story you get a different version.
__________________
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 7th November 2016, 06:37 PM   #256
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by Tontar View Post
It's not unimaginable that there has been a contract or legal agreement in place which would prevent Gimlin from spilling the beans about the hoax. Such legally binding documents are not new, and can be written with adequate "teeth" that Gimlin would be sufficiently motivated to keep from exposing the hoax as a hoax. Especially since over time he was being elevated to the status of folk hero, legend, and demigod. Once he started going to conferences, he has never been so appreciated in all his life. Why would he give all that admiration up, especially if he were actually bound by a contract not to do so?

Of course, the idea of a contract is pure speculation but what other reasons might there be? He has been overheard speaking the term "cowboy promise" regarding an interaction with Roger and it may just be that he initially held his tongue out of loyalty. The lawsuit he filed against the other partners seems to suggest that he may have been loyal to a limited point, but also wanted money to keep that loyalty intact. It's possible that there was a monetary settlement at that time as well, which could have demanded an NDA of some sort.

If there wasn't a cowboy promise made to Roger on his deathbed to keep the hoax going, and if there wasn't a binding contract, then what else would have kept Gimlin quiet at first, and then a rock star on the bigfoot conference circuit doing the same old performance again and again? I'm not going to buy the excuse that he actually believed he saw a bigfoot, and has been telling his truth all these years.
Gimlin loves the limelight and the attention that comes with it. I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed to something with Roger that would stop him from "coming clean," and there'd be little reason to bother admitting to a hoax, anyway. He'd not make the same beer money or get to tell his "wise cowboy" tale if he owned up to the obvious. The way he see's it...all of the clever folk already know the truth, so what's a little white lie among the simpletons who love a good yarn?
__________________
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 7th November 2016, 07:15 PM   #257
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
The log jam seen on the film is not there. I don't know who told you that it is, but I've been there, and it isn't. There is some speculation that it might have moved, but there is no log jam where there was one in 1967.
As I said, Streufert told me (told this forum) that the logjam is still there. I was specific in my question about it being the logjam visible in the first few frames. He specifically answers that it it still there. He knows what I'm asking about. It's shown in both of his maps as well.

Here is the conversation:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=68
__________________
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 8th November 2016, 02:53 PM   #258
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
I wrote:
Quote:
You have been led astray. I don't know why, when, and even whether SS said exactly what you represent, but assuming he said something like that, it is not a true statement if you are referring to the position of the root ball seen in the first frame of the Pattywalk sequence. It is not there.
Gimlin called it a root all, tall as a room. So SS and I agree that the rootball isn't there. And apparently you do as well.

There is no pile, wood or otherwise. We all agree on that, as well. So while there might be a stump or a log there, it is not the log jam, rootball, wood pile or whatever else you want to call it. Is it in the same location, maybe, maybe not. The point is that whatever is there might or might not be close to the location of what was there before, but no one including SS knows that, and it isn't the same image, and so it isn't useful as evidence, which is what this conversation was about. It's like that stick that Dahinden found and Perez still tries to make into evidence. When landmarks move, they are no longer useful evidence when it comes to your idea of making measurements of calculations that require some precision.

In that post you referred to, is the "18 inch from the creek" statement, that I had cited. Thanks.
I use the term debris pile to refer to the 100 foot by 30 foot mass of material seen in the film between the camera and subject starting at the lookback frame. Just saying.
__________________
"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; 8th November 2016 at 03:26 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 8th November 2016, 03:07 PM   #259
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by Tontar View Post
Especially since over time he was being elevated to the status of folk hero, legend, and demigod. Once he started going to conferences, he has never been so appreciated in all his life. Why would he give all that admiration up, especially if he were actually bound by a contract not to do so?
He is 85, and the women are making eyes at him, while his wife who has literally kicked him out in the past, sits at home and rolls her eyes. He loves it. I saw the same thing in my father in law.
__________________
"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 8th November 2016, 03:22 PM   #260
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
In any event, the film is a hoax, the story is a hoax. Which parts of it are true, are difficult to sort out. Was Bob H 18 inches from the creek when he started his scripted walk? Doesn't look like it to me. Did Gimlin take out his 30.06 rifle with 180 gr bullets? ha ha.
__________________
"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 8th November 2016, 05:10 PM   #261
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,289
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
Gimlin called it a root all, tall as a room. So SS and I agree that the rootball isn't there. And apparently you do as well.
I don't agree to that at all. I doubt that Streufert would either. On his two maps (post #52) he's calling the rootball part of that logjam a "Stump".

Quote:
There is no pile, wood or otherwise. We all agree on that, as well.
I don't agree to that at all. It's shown there on his maps.

Quote:
So while there might be a stump or a log there, it is not the log jam, rootball, wood pile or whatever else you want to call it. Is it in the same location, maybe, maybe not. The point is that whatever is there might or might not be close to the location of what was there before, but no one including SS knows that, and it isn't the same image, and so it isn't useful as evidence, which is what this conversation was about. It's like that stick that Dahinden found and Perez still tries to make into evidence. When landmarks move, they are no longer useful evidence when it comes to your idea of making measurements of calculations that require some precision.
Streufert told us that the logjam seen in the first frames is still there though it has changed somewhat. He probably has photos of what remains of it. There would be ways to determine that it's the same logjam by bringing the Kodak there and using it to establish a matching field of view with what we see in the PGF. It's those landmark trees way in the background that clue you in as to the width of the field of view and of course you then know which lens was used. I contend that whatever remains of that logjam it is a useful thing.

Quote:
I use the term debris pile to refer to the 100 foot by 30 foot mass of material seen in the film between the camera and subject starting at the lookback frame. Just saying.
That's fine. But I can also say that the logjam is actually also a debris pile because it was a jumble of wood debris. From what I can see in the film it's a big fallen tree with the rootball still attached and also a bunch of wood debris that has lodged up against it. I call all of that wood and the tree "the logjam". You see it in the first few frames of the PGF.

I just found something interesting and I think everyone should look. It's a conversation that you and I were having about this logjam way back in 2010. You will see that I marked a nicely focused frame with an arrow pointing to the big ass tree that is part of the logjam. I've also got Titmus' map there where he calls it Tree Root System. But he shows that tree actually crossing the creek and I don't think that's correct given what we see in the first frames of the film. It looks to me like the tree's rootball butts up against the far side of the creek but doesn't actually cross the creek.

Back in 2010 you were saying that the first frames of the PGF showing that logjam are actually supposed to be the last few frames and that they did an editing switch-around. Not sure if you are still thinking that nowadays.

So check this out and the page after it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...163877&page=20
__________________
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 9th November 2016, 12:45 PM   #262
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,025
When did Bob Gimlin introduce this root ball into the story?

Even in the 1992 interview, it's nowhere to be found.

They just see Patty standing by the creek when they come around the bend.

If Patty had a giant root ball or log jam to hide behind, why didn't she hide behind it?
__________________
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 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 9th November 2016, 09:14 PM   #263
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,882
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
Patty could not have been kneeling next to the creek, because the creek did not run by where she started.
This is the first time I have seen that observation. A little lie or two can patch this right up.

To me the most important evidence about the site is this fifty year commemoration, especially the period leading up to it.

It is nearly, but not exactly true that after this remarkable announcement about a place you could drive right up to with an ordinary passenger car... nobody ever came again.

The forest reclaimed the road to the extent bigfootbookman told us it was very difficult to get to. On foot, bushwhacking. A Phd qualified bigfootologist couldn't find it. That's proof nobody believes. To have so little interest the forest reclaims the road to it.

It deserves a plaque by skeptics. Nobody Came Again: 50th Year Anniversary of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Film. Producer: Al De Atley. Actor: Bob Heironimus.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2016, 09:49 AM   #264
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't agree to that at all. I doubt that Streufert would either. On his two maps (post #52) he's calling the rootball part of that logjam a "Stump".


I don't agree to that at all. It's shown there on his maps.


Streufert told us that the logjam seen in the first frames is still there though it has changed somewhat. He probably has photos of what remains of it. There would be ways to determine that it's the same logjam by bringing the Kodak there and using it to establish a matching field of view with what we see in the PGF. It's those landmark trees way in the background that clue you in as to the width of the field of view and of course you then know which lens was used. I contend that whatever remains of that logjam it is a useful thing.


That's fine. But I can also say that the logjam is actually also a debris pile because it was a jumble of wood debris. From what I can see in the film it's a big fallen tree with the rootball still attached and also a bunch of wood debris that has lodged up against it. I call all of that wood and the tree "the logjam". You see it in the first few frames of the PGF.

I just found something interesting and I think everyone should look. It's a conversation that you and I were having about this logjam way back in 2010. You will see that I marked a nicely focused frame with an arrow pointing to the big ass tree that is part of the logjam. I've also got Titmus' map there where he calls it Tree Root System. But he shows that tree actually crossing the creek and I don't think that's correct given what we see in the first frames of the film. It looks to me like the tree's rootball butts up against the far side of the creek but doesn't actually cross the creek.

Back in 2010 you were saying that the first frames of the PGF showing that logjam are actually supposed to be the last few frames and that they did an editing switch-around. Not sure if you are still thinking that nowadays.

So check this out and the page after it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...163877&page=20
1. There is no rootball/rootmass/root system there today.
2. The "wood mass" (if you will) seen on the film is not there today.
3. The creek has changed its path several times since the film was made.

I don't know any other way to put it. Those are facts.

I have seen Titmus diagram (actually I think it was redrawn by Krantz) and that "root mass/system/ball" is no longer there. I see no reason why Titmus would have lied about the diagram, but he may have made the diagram after he got home, and simply forgotten which way the "root system" was oriented. I don't know from the film which way the "root system/mass/ball" was oriented. I will say for the last time and in the last way that I can think of, that this was an uprooted tree, with its roots showing prominently. Was there other "debris" "jammed" in it? of course. I believe the weight of the evidence (Titmus/Krantz/Gimlin) that its primary and dominant feature was an uprooted tree with its roots in the air. Of course you can call it whatever you wish. I was just clarifying because the debris seen later in the film is much more important than is the vanished root system/ball/jam/ seen at the start.

If you think there is some way to make something out of something that isn't what it was then, and can't be proved to be where it was then, then go with it, do your analysis, and let's see what you can make of it. Of all the things to see or analyze at the film site, I personally wouldn't choose this one.

The beginning of the walk footage is reversed horizontally. Then the orientation flips to the proper orientation. Is that what you are referring to? That is a productive thing to consider, in fact, but not at all as it concerns the root ball/mass/system/jam/whatever.

Although nearly every discussion about the PGF involves Bob H, the film reversal is one subject that imho belongs in the PGF thread.
__________________
"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 10th November 2016, 10:07 AM   #265
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
I will say this before leaving this thread (temporarily):
What you read about the behaviors of Gimlin and Heironimus are true. This hardly needs to be said about Gimlin, because he is seen on so many videos. He is very ingratiating in a superficial way. But Heironimus is the opposite of Gimlin in most ways. He shows none of the behaviors of a con man, a liar, (or a crazy person, I must add). As was said by a Gimlin fan, Gimlin could sell ice to eskimos. Bob H would never try, because that would be stupid, and he'd tell you so. He's not a salesman.
__________________
"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 12th November 2016, 02:22 PM   #266
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
The beginning of the walk footage is reversed horizontally. Then the orientation flips to the proper orientation. Is that what you are referring to? That is a productive thing to consider, in fact, but not at all as it concerns the root ball/mass/system/jam/whatever.

Although nearly every discussion about the PGF involves Bob H, the film reversal is one subject that imho belongs in the PGF thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11586546
__________________
"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 15th November 2016, 07:07 PM   #267
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
We've documented what is actually there on the site now, and compared it with the best images from the past to show many items that are still there and in the same spots they were at in 1967. The logging cuts seen in the PGF and current stumps and log debris on the site were done in 1965-66, post-1964 Flood. Some of the log jam is such material and is still there. We have lots of photos of this, but I'll post one here.

The image shows the logjam in the same basic spot as it was in the film. Imagine, though, that the area right behind the logs was still part of the gravel/sandbar seen behind it, under those trees. There was more sand down in the creekbed from the big flood, so Patty would have been in front of those logs, on the gravel, with that water flowing in front. This is a crook in the creek, with a big stump right there, which has caught a bunch of logs in it and held them there for a long time. Since it is in the creekbed and not up on the preserved sandbar, however, there have obviously been some changes. We were unable to find a satisfactory match for the Timus-drawn tree or rootball there, and concluded that it had likely been washed downstream. Gimlin confirms that this was the area where they first saw (or hoaxed) the creature. We know that Patterson runs past this point in the PGF, and up onto the sandbar behind, where the stable part was filmed, with the big trees and stumps in the background. You can see in our sketch maps of the site survey update that there is wood debris downstream in the creekbed that is DISTINCT from the wood pile up on the sandbar that is seen in front of "Patty" in Frame 352. These shouldn't be confused. Patterson was moving as he filmed.

Munns estimated where Frame One's subject location was, and that is marked on the attached map. You can see that Patterson ran past that point and up onto the sandbar. The creek washed away that front edge of the sandbar where "Patty" stood at the point the film started rolling.

The creek has shifted its course just a little over the years, but that is usually just back and forth in the same basic creekbed. In 1967 it flowed a touch south of where it sometimes flows (see map for 2011 flow). Right now it flows in the more southern course, which is where it would have been in 1967. We are only talking a difference of a few yards here, though, folks.

BFBM


[quote=DennyT;11582690]1. There is no rootball/rootmass/root system there today.
2. The "wood mass" (if you will) seen on the film is not there today.
3. The creek has changed its path several times since the film was made.
I don't know any other way to put it. Those are facts.
I have seen Titmus diagram (actually I think it was redrawn by Krantz) and that "root mass/system/ball" is no longer there. ...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PGF Dahinden X lower.jpg (111.1 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg PGF Map Update.jpg (95.7 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg PGF Map Downstream Update.jpg (132.6 KB, 3 views)

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 15th November 2016 at 07:10 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 15th November 2016, 07:39 PM   #268
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Here's one of the diagrams Munns did with us up on the PGF site and in Louse Camp on Bluff Creek in 2012. It shows the moving Patterson camera positions, running past the logjam (root ball on here) and up onto the sandbar. It also shows the locations (approximate) of the camera positions of Byrne, Green and Dahinden for their famous site photos. My other photo is of Munns down in the creekbed with the measuring line going north from one end of the full film site to the other, from the first camera position out to the big tree in back. Patty position in Frame One was estimated to be just to the left-front of Munns in this photo. The photo was taken right in front of the logjam by me. The other photos are facing generally to the west, of the logjam as it is today.

BFBM
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PGF Munns Diagram Camera Positions.jpg (73.5 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg PGF Munns On Site.jpg (153.8 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg Logjam 1.jpg (152.0 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg Logjam 2.jpg (154.5 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg Logjam 3.jpg (155.0 KB, 1 views)
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 15th November 2016, 09:55 PM   #269
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,771
Tell those damn dirty apes to leave that root ball right there. A brand new super Bigfoot organization - Former Wives Of NAWAC - will be by shortly to pick it up in their pick-up for further investigation after they pick it up. In their pick-up. If they can get that root ball to talk then they'd really have something. Especially if it has a long memory. Roger Patterson would be busted for sure then. They say they have the technology to make it talk so I don't know, we'll wait and see. Let's hope for the best for them and their root ball experts. Oh and congratulations to the new organization.

So now I'm wondering if we shouldn't still be checking for suspicious shell casings on the grassy knoll. I mean, right?


Last edited by HarryHenderson; 15th November 2016 at 09:56 PM.
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 15th November 2016, 11:48 PM   #270
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
If you look at the Titmus drawing you can see that the actual rootball could not be what is seen in the film. Titmus shows it on the opposite side of the creek, with its trunk over where the film subject supposedly first was seen. In the first frame I can extract from the Green copy of the PGF (flipped back to proper orientation) one may see that it's log debris there and not a root system or a full, large trunk. The logjam debris pile is still there today, but that log hanging over the creek obviously got eroded and washed downstream... where we just happen to find several rootballs "as tall as a room."

Note that the logjam is off to the left of the frame of Dahinden's "aerial" photo often used for comparisons. The first frames of the film, then, happened off the edge of Rene's shot, which was more concerned with the Frame 352 area, as always.

BFBM
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20161115_222423.jpg (31.4 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg a1c9aeed.jpg (40.3 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg images-1.jpg (14.7 KB, 93 views)
File Type: jpeg 2016-11-15-22-32-00-1610767776.jpeg (13.9 KB, 91 views)
File Type: jpg badeba37.jpg (90.5 KB, 5 views)
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 19th November 2016, 03:14 PM   #271
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 984
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
I will say this before leaving this thread (temporarily):
What you read about the behaviors of Gimlin and Heironimus are true. This hardly needs to be said about Gimlin, because he is seen on so many videos. He is very ingratiating in a superficial way. But Heironimus is the opposite of Gimlin in most ways. He shows none of the behaviors of a con man, a liar, (or a crazy person, I must add). As was said by a Gimlin fan, Gimlin could sell ice to eskimos. Bob H would never try, because that would be stupid, and he'd tell you so. He's not a salesman.
The anti-Heironimus view is that his story has changed, on occasion, and some of his statements don't seem to hold up. I don't know if Heironimus is the guy in the Bigfoot suit, although I lean toward that idea, I do give him a great deal of slack.

Here are the scenarios. Gimlin was part of a major anthropological event, the discovery and filmed documentation of a giant bipedal ape that could shift a few scientific and social paradigms. He witnessed this as a relative young man, an event that was breathtakingly anomalous. Every moment that happened in those few seconds at Bluff Creek should be burned into Gimlin's mind for the duration.

On the other hand, Heironimus was engaged in a little work for a friend decades ago. The work itself only took a few minutes to accomplish, and then he went on with his life. There was nothing earth-shaking or all-important about it, it was mundane. Just another day.

Given these two scenarios, I can see why Gimlin's lapses in storytelling are damning while Heironimus' lapses are not.

Last edited by jerrywayne; 19th November 2016 at 03:16 PM.
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 20th November 2016, 10:42 AM   #272
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Thanks for the info and images; some good stuff there, that I will look closer at. I do think the subject had to be farther left than Bill is in that photo, to account for the body angle seen from the camera perspective. You will also notice that your present day "log jam' is not seen in your photo.
I personally have to doubt some of Gimlin's recollections, regardless of whether or not it was a hoax. People forget things like the exact location of trees, rootballs, mileage, etc. I expect that he, like Heironimus, had some of his memory traces altered aging, by watching the film, and by other inputs over the years. BTW I am probably wrong on this but in my admittedly faulty memory, I don't recall you ever posting the word hoax in connection with Gimlin. That is some progress. Perhaps in another ten years you will be able to stomach the possibility that Bob Heironimus just doesn't remember how far he drove.
Just pokin' ya.
__________________
"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; 20th November 2016 at 11:16 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 20th November 2016, 11:29 AM   #273
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
The anti-Heironimus view is that his story has changed, on occasion, and some of his statements don't seem to hold up. I don't know if Heironimus is the guy in the Bigfoot suit, although I lean toward that idea, I do give him a great deal of slack.

Here are the scenarios. Gimlin was part of a major anthropological event, the discovery and filmed documentation of a giant bipedal ape that could shift a few scientific and social paradigms. He witnessed this as a relative young man, an event that was breathtakingly anomalous. Every moment that happened in those few seconds at Bluff Creek should be burned into Gimlin's mind for the duration.

On the other hand, Heironimus was engaged in a little work for a friend decades ago. The work itself only took a few minutes to accomplish, and then he went on with his life. There was nothing earth-shaking or all-important about it, it was mundane. Just another day.

Given these two scenarios, I can see why Gimlin's lapses in storytelling are damning while Heironimus' lapses are not.
It is clear to me that Bob Heironimus did not come out of the blue in 1999-2004. Greg Long did not make him up; in fact, by the way Long asked questions and wrote up his research, he actually created more of an impression of doubt than there actually was. Nor did Bob seek out Greg Long in the beginning. The guys who were in that circle of young men back in the 60's knew what had happened, and they pointed him out to Long.

Where are the old timer friends or family of Bob Gimlin testifying to his version of events? or even to give him a decent character reference? Gimlin himself even tries to dance around Heironimus' account. Did any of the present worshipful "Gimlin Guard" know him then, when he hung out with shady characters like Bob Knievel and Roger Patterson and pled guilty to receiving stolen property? I think not. Gimlin was and is still charming, and has cleaned up his act since then, but he has wrecked his legacy with all these lies. It's pathetic (in the older sense of the word). History will remember Patterson as a cancer-ridden great showman, but Gimlin will be the man who lied and lied for his own petty ego, actively and knowingly inducing millions of people to act like idiots.
__________________
"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; 20th November 2016 at 12:08 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 20th November 2016, 11:46 AM   #274
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
It is clear to me that Bob Heironimus did not come out of the blue in 1999-2004. Greg Long did not make him up; in fact, by the way Long asked questions and wrote up his research, he actually created more of an impression of doubt than there actually was. Nor did Bob seek out Greg Long in the beginning. The guys who were in that circle of young men back in the 60's knew what had happened, and they pointed him out to Long.

Where are the old timer friends or family of Bob Gimlin testifying to his version of events? Did any of the present worshipful "Guard" know him then, when he hung out with shady characters like Bob Knievel and Roger Patterson and pled guilty to receiving stolen property? I think not. Gimlin cleaned up his act since then, and he is still charming, but he has wrecked his legacy with all these lies. It's pathetic (in the older sense of the word).
Gimlin doesn't strike me as a man who's particularly bothered about how he's viewed. I think he likely made a decision a long time ago that he was going to run with this and live the legend. He's most probably created something within his own mind which exempts him from personal anguish due to any type of guilt. I think he's settled the deal within his own heart that he's merely "giving the people what they want" and that what he's doing is harmless, which I guess, isn't entirely untrue, no matter how we personally view the saga.
__________________
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 20th November 2016, 06:20 PM   #275
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Yes, DennyT...

The image of Bill is to the right (in the photo) of the location of Frame One in the film, and farther to the right of the logjam where the subject supposedly first was seen. It took a while for Patterson to get the camera rolling, so the story goes, so the subject is already a number of paces up from the creek and heading up onto the sandbar bank (that part of the front of the sandbar is now washed away) by the time the camera is on the subject. Where Bill is seen standing is now down in the creekbed, but in 1967 that was still the raised sandbar.

These animations do a great job in showing the action of the film. Patterson starts out filming more westward, and ends up filming eastward, keep in mind, while the famous part of the film with Frame 352 is facing basically due north.

https://youtu.be/y1LBzBWdrcA?t=58s

https://youtu.be/uYIFf7cL-Pk?t=1m3s

Munns did these animations from the film itself, a year or so before we took him up to the film site. His depiction proved to be very accurate on-site.

BFBM

Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
Thanks for the info and images; some good stuff there, that I will look closer at. I do think the subject had to be farther left than Bill is in that photo, to account for the body angle seen from the camera perspective. You will also notice that your present day "log jam' is not seen in your photo.
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 20th November 2016, 06:44 PM   #276
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,835
Pssst! No matter what the site looked like then, what it looks like now, or who you think is inside the suit, there's still someone inside.
__________________
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 20th November 2016, 08:17 PM   #277
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Gimlin doesn't strike me as a man who's particularly bothered about how he's viewed. I think he likely made a decision a long time ago that he was going to run with this and live the legend. He's most probably created something within his own mind which exempts him from personal anguish due to any type of guilt. I think he's settled the deal within his own heart that he's merely "giving the people what they want" and that what he's doing is harmless, which I guess, isn't entirely untrue, no matter how we personally view the saga.
that judgement will be up to the millions, once his deceptions are revealed. They may be very forgiving, who knows. Certainly many of them no longer feel that their belief depends on whether or not the PGF is a fake, having had their own "encounters."
__________________
"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 20th November 2016, 08:29 PM   #278
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,526
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
that judgement will be up to the millions, once his deceptions are revealed. They may be very forgiving, who knows. Certainly many of them no longer feel that their belief depends on whether or not the PGF is a fake, having had their own "encounters."
Oh, I definitely think his die-hard followers will be somewhat peeved, but that's assuming that the truth even comes out, which I'm not 100% sure it ever will. I mean, it's pretty much already out, it's just that not many people have processed it besides the sceptics or the ones who don't really care either way.

I agree that the PGF isn't likely to be the Holy Grail for many believers any more, there's so much more crap for them to hang their hats on these days, there'll always be something for them to hinge their beliefs on.
__________________
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 21st November 2016, 02:02 AM   #279
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Pssst! No matter what the site looked like then, what it looks like now, or who you think is inside the suit, there's still someone inside.

Pssst! Resume!

Maybe that's true... and if so, that would be OK with me.
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 21st November 2016, 05:53 AM   #280
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,835
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Pssst! Resume!

Maybe that's true... and if so, that would be OK with me.
There's no maybe about it, and for you to be as deeply bogged down in the bigfoot minutia as you appear to be, for as long, and (pretend, or not) to still be on the fence is rather mind-boggling.
__________________
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

Last edited by Resume; 21st November 2016 at 05:56 AM.
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
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 04:15 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.