|
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. |
21st April 2011, 04:57 PM | #6401 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
LTC8K6
The photo I got from MK Davis shows a piece of the 16mm PG film and the film had sound to it. And I even asked some old friends about when they seen the film in 1967 and they too said to me yes the film had sound to it. And I also like to point out in the photo you have just shown. It states Bigfoot-America Abominable Snowman. This is the same name that Roger Patterson named his documentary. |
21st April 2011, 05:10 PM | #6402 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
If you take a still from the film in the ads, from the section that has the PGF on it, you will have what looks like a PGF frame with sound, but it isn't, it's a "Bigfoot - America's Abominable Snowman" frame.
If MKD showed you a frame of the PGF with sound, it was not a frame of the PGF, but a frame from a later film with sound, such as the film in the ads, that contained the PGF. If I copy the PGF onto a film with sound, it looks just like the PGF had sound, but it didn't. How did you verify that the film bit that were shown by MKD was from the original PGF? Many people remember the PGF with sound, because they saw the PGF as part of another movie. |
__________________
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? |
|
21st April 2011, 05:12 PM | #6403 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
|
Leroy, learning to do History would help you immensely.
First, this is all well known. Read Greg Long's book, why the heck don't you? * Patterson was working on a docu-drama in Yakima and Mt. St. Helens, in the summer. This was, along the lines of his book, to be called "Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman." * Patterson went to Bluff Creek on a separate expedition, filming his PGF. * Then he provided the footage to the BBC, who made a documentary. * The agreement was that in exchange Patterson and DeAtley could use parts of the BBC documentary for their own film project, now conceived to include and exploit the footage of Bigfoot. * A shorter, and then a longer documentary was finished for the four-wall road show in theaters. DeAtley did some voice-over narration. This was called in the ads by the same title originally meant for Patterson's original, separate project. There is no evidence that the original conception of Patterson was ever finished. He just shot a bunch of footage for it, and as was his nature, moved on to other things, as his overactive mind led him to. There is a "connection" between the various film projects, but no evidence that they were literally the SAME project. The concept changed radically at each stage. Why can't you get that? Re. "sound in the PGF"--did you actually look at a piece of the camera ORIGINAL? Also, do you have ANY evidence that Patterson's camera had a microphone built into it or attached to it? Your conclusions are utterly fallacious and presumptuous, and everybody knows it but for you. BFBM |
21st April 2011, 06:25 PM | #6404 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
|
Just remember that Leroy started his "The PGF had sound." spiel by saying that it was shot on Super8. I think that says enough about the quality of his information.
|
22nd April 2011, 02:32 AM | #6405 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
There should be a Ray Wallace hoaxing thread, but considering Meldrum is arguing the Blue Creek Mountain 15 inch tracks were made by Patty, I'll stick this here...
Originally Posted by kitakaze @ BFF
|
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
22nd April 2011, 05:33 AM | #6406 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
kitakaze-
BCM-2 - The Perfect Feet: http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...allace19-1.jpg This photo you point out in your comment is the track from the tracking dog film that MK Davis shows. I seen this print in the film. The film MK Davis claim there is blood seen in this film that print you show is from that film. That film was taken at Bluff Creek and it shows John Green in it. And what no one knows is I seen this whole film and have a copy of it and as you watch the film you can see horse tracks beside these Bigfoot prints and you can also see horse droppings. The photo that shows John Green by one of the tracks on the road with a camera in his hand was also taken at the same location and the same time the film was made. |
22nd April 2011, 05:51 AM | #6407 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
kitakaze-
You know I have just gone over all the photos you point out and they all are from the tracking dog film that MK Davis shows. Here is that tracking dog film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIpZ4r4LxP4 On this site of MK Davis is the whole film. And the tracks you have pointed out in your comment are all seen in this one film. The film is 2:52 long. Part of the film was filmed on a road and the last part of the film was filmed at the PG film site. In this film like I said you can see horse tracks beside the Bigfoot tracks on the road and you can also see dog tracks. The horse tracks was made at the same time the Bigfoot tracks was made by looking at them. The last part of the film you can see the horse droppings at Bluff Creek and even John Green was looking at it. |
22nd April 2011, 06:38 AM | #6408 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
Now let us piece it together.
The Blue creek mountain film that most of the photo shown of Bigfoot tracks are from this one film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIpZ4...el_video_title It was filmed in the summer 1967.This film also shows part of the PG film site Bluff Creek. This film shows horse droppings and horse tracks. And the only people that had horses in that area was Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. The cast prints and tracks match some of the tracks taken at the Bluff Creek film site.and the PG film also shows a dog track that MK Davis pointed out. Jim McClarin claim in that he started to make his carving of Bigfoot at Willow Creek the same day as Roger Patterson filmed his Bigfoot film that was in the summer of 1967. The site http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/carving.htm Blue Creek mountain Film summer 1967 carving by Jim McClarin summer 1967 Roger Patterson documentary filmed in 1967 Roger Patterson Bigfoot film 1967 The Blue Creek mountain film and the documentary film by Roger Patterson and the Bigfoot film by Roger Patterson was all filmed in the same area and in the same year. Roger Patterson documentary was called Bigfoot- America Abominable Snowman. On the marquee when they show the film the named it Bigfoot- America Abominable Snowman. One other thing I also like to point out. The story they tell of that day. Bob Gimlin claim he was on his horse the whole time and road across the creek bed to cover Roger. I ask this how can you ride a horse across the creek bed when your horse was not around? Now why I ask this. http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fb...type=1&theater http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fb...type=1&theater as this article states the same day they filmed this Bigfoot. Gimlin was astride an older horse which is generally trail-wise, but it too rared and had to be released, running off to join their pack horse which had broken during the initial moments of the sighting. But, as the story was told by Bob Gimlin that he was on his horse the whole time and he had control of his horse and the pack horse. But, as you will see in the article done on the same day they filmed the Bigfoot that the pack horse took off and even Bob Gimlin horse took off. |
22nd April 2011, 06:50 AM | #6409 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
"This film shows
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
22nd April 2011, 07:02 AM | #6410 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
Bigfootbookman-
To answer your question- Roger Patterson can not make a documentary on his book. Because he sold the rights and everything the book holds and around it to Glen A. Koelling for the sum of $500. Roger sold it to him on Oct 27, 1966. So you see if Roger Patterson made a documentary based on his book then Roger Patterson had to turn this documentary over to Glen Koelling. And again Steve why do you keep on bring up Mr.Longs book when you believe the PG film is real? you should be pointing out other people books that said the Bigfoot in the film is real and not the books that claim the Bigfoot in the film is a man in a suit. You claim to believe the Bigfoot in the film is real but, you point out a book that claims the Bigfoot is a man in a suit. Think about it man. You are out to prove the film is real but, you point people to a book that claims the film was a hoax. So if you believe the film is real then point out thing to back the film and not things that back the film as a hoax. Or do you believe the film is a hoax? Again I say think about it. |
22nd April 2011, 07:09 AM | #6411 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
William Parcher-
I will ask you the same thing that MK Davis ask people in the past. Why would John Green just be looking at the pile of rock? The film shows a pile of horse droppings and not a pile of rocks. I work with horses for over 3 years back in the 1980's and my sister has horses and I do know the difference from rocks and horse droppings. |
22nd April 2011, 07:11 AM | #6412 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
22nd April 2011, 07:17 AM | #6413 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
We have Wallace talk in several different threads here. IMO, in this composite comparison, you should not show the footprint on the far right in that orientation. It is incorrect and easily gives the impression that the print is more narrow than it actually is. I know that reorienting it brings uniformity in a comparison, but I think every effort should be made to show it properly. Like this... You can see that the photo was taken with the cameraman alongside the track and shooting at an angle that causes the track to appear narrowed. If you took a photo of a coin at this angle it would appear oval instead of round. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
22nd April 2011, 07:29 AM | #6414 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
GT/CS-
Look at this. Why would anyone be riding horse around in that location when they was cutting down tree and had big trucks coming in and out of there all day long? As it was told Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin road their horse from the film site back to their truck to get plaster. Then road their horse back to the film site to make cast prints and film some more then road back to the truck and gone into town. Now why would you ride your horse to a film site when they can just take the truck. John Green and all the others that gone to the film site they did not take horses they drove a truck to the film site. This all goes back to how can they film a Bigfoot on a Friday after noon when there was loggers there and trucks going in and out all day long on a Friday. So you see why would anyone ride horse around in that location other then Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. |
22nd April 2011, 07:32 AM | #6415 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
22nd April 2011, 07:39 AM | #6416 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
William Parcher-
That's funny when I watch it you can see the man pulling on the dog to get away from it and at the same time John Green is looking at it even after the man pulled the dog away John Green was still looking down at it. |
22nd April 2011, 07:42 AM | #6417 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
So how do you know there were no horses in that area?
What you think should or should not occur is irrelevant. You have no way of knowing if a horse was in the area and yet you state it as fact, the same way you state as fact your other made-up "Patty was only 5' from the trees" gibberish. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
22nd April 2011, 07:52 AM | #6418 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
No, it's not funny. It's sad that you see and imagine these things and then force your Blevidolia upon this forum. This is not horse droppings. It's possibly rocks or a dirt mound. Horse droppings are typically a pile or scattering of "brown apples". What we have here is a mounding with no descrete shapes indicating horse poop. The dog is showing zero interest in this mound and instead is focused on the cameraman. Green and the dog aren't even very close to it. Perspective foreshortening could give the illusion that it is near their feet - but it is probably about 10 feet away from them. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
22nd April 2011, 07:56 AM | #6419 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
|
22nd April 2011, 08:00 AM | #6420 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
|
|
22nd April 2011, 08:06 AM | #6421 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
22nd April 2011, 08:59 AM | #6422 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
K
I have wondered if Patterson made the BCM tracks with Wallace-style stompers obtained from Wallace, in order to make his filming expedition more credible...we know that RP visited RW at least twice, once with Prentice Beck and once with Al DeAtley. But from the evidence you present, it seems that these tracks were made with stompers in the possession of the Wallace family, and one must assume that the tracks were made by RW himself. This to me suggests that Patterson was in fact at Mt. St. Helen when Hodgson called. This in turn suggests a couple of things. First, that RP must have been considering filming at MSH, and for good reason. It was close by, he had already made tracks there at Erion ranch, and there was a long tradition of Bigfoot there. Secondly, it suggests, again, that Gimlin (who has said they were at MSH) is a guy with at least some conscience, who really doesn't like to lie. It seems to me that he has generally told the truth, and his deceptions regarding the film. have been by omission, diversion, "can't recall" and Clintonesque maneuvers. I doubt very much that he would consent to or fool a polygraph or even survive direct questioning. |
__________________
"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 |
|
22nd April 2011, 09:11 AM | #6423 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
So what were P and G doing at Mt St H? The summer was drawing to a close, RP had a camera that he knew was going to get repo'ed and a suit and an obsession to strike it rich.
Pure speculation: Again I will kick my suspicions into high gear and suggest that RP may have shot footage at MSH, possibly with Gimlin in the suit. After looking at the resulting footage he knew what he needed to do to get it right, including getting a more ape-like subject to wear the suit. This might help explain how RP was able to get exactly what he wanted in only one take at Bluff Creek. It would be interesting to ask Bob H. just when he was approached to wear the suit. If it was after Labor Day that might support the idea that RP had tried a different model previously. Geez I hope Gimlin gives it up some day; the details will be delish. |
__________________
"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 |
|
22nd April 2011, 09:42 AM | #6424 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
That's very helpful, WP. Before when you would turn it that way I wasn't seeing it the way it should be, but now with the lines on it I can see how much the angle alters the appearance. It's the same as when you turn this Perfectfoot track upside down to see the proper orientation (bottom track, but both made the same stomper)...
|
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
22nd April 2011, 12:45 PM | #6425 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
parnassus-
I have talk to Bob H on the phone and I ask him what locations they did filming at. He told me they did filming at MSH as you know and they did filming just 15 miles up in the woods behind Bob H house. The photo that shows the 6 men on horses and Bob Gimlin with the wig on that was the photo they took 15 mile behind his house as the was doing filming in that area. And they also filmed parts at Bluff Creek. If you read Roger Patterson book he did in 1966 he talks about taking photos and filming in his book. Roger Patterson had a camera man with him when he gone out looking for Bigfoot as Roger Patterson claim in his book. As I point out here in my last comments things that shows there was more to the PG film then it was told. I have shown a article from a newspaper in the first interview they did on the same day they filmed the Bigfoot that talked about Bob Gimlin horse ran off with the pack horse. This shows that the story they tell of Bob Gimlin on his horse the whole time was not true. Also in that story it claim Roger Patterson hurt his leg when he got off his horse. The tracking dog film that MK Davis shows was taken at the same time as Roger Patterson filmed his documentary at Bluff Creek. Mk Davis also claim in 2009 in a interview that some one added things to the Bigfoot to make it look more real. Like the fingers moving and more. This was said by MK Davis. you can hear this on this site below in one of the interviews by MK Davis. http://www.artistfirst.com/bigfoot2008.html Also in one of those interview I don't remember what date it was is that MK Davis claim that if he did not see the blood in the film and if he did not see all the changes they did he would have to say the film was a hoax. I also like to add in his interviews he point out the same things I did like other people there with Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. And the film was pieced together to make this short film. There was two different walks in the film. and there was another person there that did filming. But, he did claim that there was two different cameras they used in the filming of the Bigfoot. This was all said by MK Davis. So you see there is more proof out there to show the film was nothing more then a hoax then anyone can show as proof that the film shows a real Bigfoot. |
22nd April 2011, 01:00 PM | #6426 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Leroy,
MK Davis is not a reliable or respected source of information and you are damaging your reputation by quoting him. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
22nd April 2011, 01:05 PM | #6427 |
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 245
|
|
22nd April 2011, 02:29 PM | #6428 |
New Blood
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 20
|
Leroy is correct. There is/was a sound track. Whether it was taken during the film or later will not be known until the original film is shown. There is a sachel on the film that very well could have held a tape recorder and/or a stand for a mic. If you look closely you will also see the remnants of copying from a smaller film. It isn't impossible to shoot the same footage twice at different times and merge the frames.
There has been plenty of talk about colors but no one has explained why the trees in the foreground have no leaves. Want to try? Lastly if you want to see some of the editing work, try this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCYIvYSS-Vk If afterward you think the creature is real, I've got a picture of Abe Lincoln walking down the stairs from a 747. It is real and I can find several people over at BRFO that will swear they have seen him too. I'll sell it real cheap. And there is always Elvis eating his PB&J sandwich at a Burger King. |
22nd April 2011, 02:31 PM | #6429 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
A lot of things MK Davis points out I don't see none of it when I looked over the footage. I do not agree with some of the things he claims to have seen. But, there are some things he points out that can be seen in the film.
Like the dog track. You can see this dog track in the film and also in some other frames shows dog tracks. However I never shown these frames because I did not want no one to think I was taking MK Davis research by claiming dog tracks in the PG film. And when he claim the film had splice marks in the film. I too made this claim at the same time. And when I claim that someone else filmed Roger Patterson when Bob Gimlin claim he had nothing to do with the camera. Well MK Davis also made this same claim. But, he made this claim 1 day after I did. So you see some of the things I point out MK Davis also points these same thing out. I do not see blood or shots or other Bigfoots or even a ponytail or the buttocks moving around or even the Bigfoot bends over. The film shows none of these things. These are MK Davis claims and I do not agree with these claims. |
22nd April 2011, 02:41 PM | #6430 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
22nd April 2011, 03:24 PM | #6431 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
22nd April 2011, 04:39 PM | #6432 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Leroy wrote
I have talk to Bob H on the phone and I ask him what locations they did filming at. He told me they did filming at MSH as you know and they did filming just 15 miles up in the woods behind Bob H house. ------ I don't recall Bob H saying anything about MSH. Kitakaze? |
__________________
"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 |
|
22nd April 2011, 04:50 PM | #6433 |
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 245
|
"Next time, he should load the gun.
Anyways, on to more important things. I just found a new and fascinating on line project funding website and I'm setting up a project to fund the PGF research for a 2 hour documentary I would produce myself. I hope to have a formal announcement in a few days. So I'm pretty busy doing the project set-up now. " bill munns are we going to chip in??? lol...all boils down to money since 1967 |
22nd April 2011, 04:58 PM | #6434 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Is there a link for that quote?
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
22nd April 2011, 05:22 PM | #6435 |
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 245
|
|
22nd April 2011, 05:25 PM | #6436 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
22nd April 2011, 05:27 PM | #6437 |
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 245
|
|
22nd April 2011, 05:53 PM | #6438 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
parnassus-
The part of the film that shows Bob H and Jerry Merritt riding down the hill that was shot at MSH. |
22nd April 2011, 07:27 PM | #6439 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
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? |
|
23rd April 2011, 01:40 PM | #6440 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
|
Leroy,
WHY do you assume that the Blue Creek Mountain footage shows the PGF site, or Bluff Creek itself even? Is there ANY evidence of this save for the statements (unfounded) of MK Davis? John Green has told me that is NOT the film site in that film. There was not even a "film site" there at that point in August 1967, into very early September. Also, Green has said that the logging road to the film site was not passable in 1968 when he went up there, just months later. Al Hodgson tells me personally that they all had to hike in there, up the creek. Jim McClarin made it up there in 1967 in Richard Henry's off road Jeep vehicle, and was probably lucky to do so. Patterson and Gimlin had a big truck that did not have 4WD, and was probably too clunky with its horse cabin on the back to be practicable. The road was recut into there after the 1964 flood for salvage logging in 1965-66. It was highly subject to deterioration down in the creekbed as it was. Also, the logging done at the time was not up into the creek headwaters in 1967, but on surrounding hillsides. The road construction on Blue Creek Mountain that year was several air miles away to the south and west. The whole course of Bluff Creek from top to bottom is over thirty miles, leaving plenty of room for loggers, road workers, hunters, horsemen and Bigfoot seekers to move around in there at the same time without conflict. Re. Patterson selling rights to the copyright of his book... he sold the printing rights, not the film rights or the entire concept of "Bigfoot." He did not "sell" his entire bigfooting career for $500 or whatever it was. Plus, he sold it to a friend, one who clearly just wanted to support Roger, who lost money on the deal, and who would never have tried to encumber Patterson with legal technicalities. Even long after these events Koelling said he had no resentment toward Roger and did not feel he was ripped off or anything like that. Now, re. Long's book: I bring it up because it has tons of great and unique information in it, however much I might disagree with some of its conclusions. You should read it, as much of your stuff is obviously highly derivative from it, through second- or third-hand internet sources. I am not "out to prove the film is real," but rather to find out the real HISTORY of the film and Bluff Creek events. Can you see the difference? It is that difference, and doing real historical investigation rather than imaginative speculation, that makes ALL the difference in the world. BFBM |
Thread Tools | |
|
|