IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 film , bigfoot , patterson gimlin

Closed Thread
Old 10th August 2007, 01:11 PM   #6881
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
you cant prove one bit of your theory that bigfoot does not exist
What a silly idea! A theory that bigfoot does not exist?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 01:13 PM   #6882
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Say Parcher, what is this theory of the non-existence of bigfoot?

Have you been holding out on us?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 01:25 PM   #6883
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
I'm trying to prove the animal doesn't exist, but I need more time. In the meantime I might start a radio show called Let's Talk About A World Without Bigfoot. But I'm afraid it will be boring for everyone. I might not be able to attract any listeners who thought the world might really be devoid of Bigfoot in the first place. It could be a tough sell overall.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 01:29 PM   #6884
mangler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
P&G do seem to be a bit forgetful. "Look Bob here are some tracks, oh crap, we forgot the plaster." I'm sorry but that's like taking a knife to a gunfight.

m
mangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 01:31 PM   #6885
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Are there tape recordings of these Patterson Gimlin slipups?

Last edited by Crowlogic; 10th August 2007 at 01:34 PM.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 01:44 PM   #6886
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Nice edit of your post there, Crow. I saw what you said about reporters misquoting. I know where you are going. Gimlin might adore you for this.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 01:59 PM   #6887
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Patterson and Gimlin, etc., are just misquoted?

What a novel argument!
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 02:00 PM   #6888
mangler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
"Gimlin might adore you for this."


I guess he wont adore me then.

So there are all these journalists that interview for a living and they seem to continually screw-up. All of them, big-time screw-ups. Or, we have two cowboys from Yakima Washington that can't get their stories straight until one of them is forced out of the picture and/or the other one dies.

Hmmmmm, interesting.

m
mangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 02:13 PM   #6889
mangler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
I got a question for you guys. When this thread reaches 10,000 reply's, or say 200,000 views, do you get a turkey or a ham? How does that work around here? Or does Randi simply suggest you sit on the other cheek for awhile?

m
mangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 02:21 PM   #6890
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
I don't know what we get, but I finally passed Huntster.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...posted&t=42523
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 02:52 PM   #6891
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by mangler View Post
Hmmmmm, interesting.
The Pattycakes seem to be engaged in one big ongoing act of desperation. Maybe it's just a hobby.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 03:46 PM   #6892
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I don't know what we get, but I finally passed Huntster.
I didn't know you'd eaten him.

Har-dee-har-har.

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 04:27 PM   #6893
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The Pattycakes seem to be engaged in one big ongoing act of desperation. Maybe it's just a hobby.
Although I'd hardly call myself a hardcore Sasquatch/PGF believer I will admit to a certain amount of desperation on my part concerning this film. I am desperately trying to make the PGF creature fit into a convincing representation of
1 homade suit
2 partially hommade suit
3 fully utilized purchased suit
4 a gaggle of cowboys pulling off a hoax with the minimal amount of onsite preperation one of the main proposed hoaxers claims
5 a convincing recreation of the event as a means to disprove the premise of the original event as a genuine Sasquatch.

I'm also desperately trying to come to grips with the need for slurring the proponents of the PGF/Sasquatch question with terms such as Pattycakes. There's an old addage that when you're right the need to degrade those that you consider wrong evaporates. I could suppose that a term such as Randibrats could be invented and applied to the members of this forum as a blanket term for every opponent of PGF or any other opposiing view to an enigmatic element or occourance.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 05:13 PM   #6894
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by mangler View Post
Melissa,

IMO, it's this kind of statement, "you cant prove one bit of your theory that bigfoot does not exist" that the real world finds ridiculous. I'm sorry but bigfoot does not exist, it has not been proven to exist by physical laws, as of today. As of today, bigfoot only exists in our minds.

m
That statement does not not imply that bigfoot does infact exist - it only says no one can prove this animal does or does not exist at this point. Thats all.

research
noun
  • 1. Detailed and careful investigation into some subject or area of study with the aim of discovering and applying new facts or information.
    • Thesaurus: search, study, inquiry, investigation, analysis, probe, exploration, quest, examination, fact-finding, delving, scrutiny.
verb
  • tr & intr
    1. To carry out such an investigation.
    • Thesaurus: investigate, explore, analyse, search, study, examine, scrutinize, probe.
    • Form: research into something (often)





Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 06:08 PM   #6895
mangler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
Melissa,

Is that the best you can come up with? Why even bother?

m
mangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 08:23 PM   #6896
bf2006
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 36
Here is an interesting scenario to ponder-just supposing, for the sake of argument, that Heironimus does remember being filmed in a gorilla suit by Patterson, and that most of his basic story is correct, EXCEPT the location, which might have been Yakima, but not Bluff Creek? Supposing that Patterson was using Heironimus in a recreation film, and Heironimus might have mixed that memory with the film itself? Maybe this is why he does not remember exact details of the suit or the exact locations. It's not really lying, it is merely a false memory. Maybe this is the reason why he does not have exact details correct in his mind, why he says he met Patterson and Gimlin at Weitchpec and not Willow Creek, why he says the suit he possibly wore was Dynel and in three pieces, not six, why a lot of his stories do not make much sense to the average Bigfooter. This is not to say that the film was not hoaxed, because it very well could have been. If it was a hoax, Patterson could very well have made more than one suit, and also employed someone else to pose as "Patty" for him in the film not necessarily Heironimus. He also could have ordered a suit from Morris and modified it, it is always possible.
bf2006 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 09:11 PM   #6897
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by bf2006 View Post
Here is an interesting scenario to ponder-just supposing, for the sake of argument, that Heironimus does remember being filmed in a gorilla suit by Patterson, and that most of his basic story is correct, EXCEPT the location, which might have been Yakima, but not Bluff Creek? Supposing that Patterson was using Heironimus in a recreation film, and Heironimus might have mixed that memory with the film itself? Maybe this is why he does not remember exact details of the suit or the exact locations. It's not really lying, it is merely a false memory. Maybe this is the reason why he does not have exact details correct in his mind, why he says he met Patterson and Gimlin at Weitchpec and not Willow Creek, why he says the suit he possibly wore was Dynel and in three pieces, not six, why a lot of his stories do not make much sense to the average Bigfooter. This is not to say that the film was not hoaxed, because it very well could have been. If it was a hoax, Patterson could very well have made more than one suit, and also employed someone else to pose as "Patty" for him in the film not necessarily Heironimus. He also could have ordered a suit from Morris and modified it, it is always possible.
At some point even a supposed gold bricker like Patterson whould run out of the time needed to play around making another suit and recreation of the Bluff Creek event. Since the Bluff Creek film achieved its purpose of getting its maker into the public eye and into some cash why create what may have amounted less than a poor substitute for the real thing.

Consider that once the Bluff Creek film was released Patterson's life changed dramatically in that suddenly he was being intervied by the media, giving showings and traveling. He was doing alright with the Bluff Creek film.

But I have thought about the Bluff Creek hoax scenerio and the realities of trying to get a decent film by staging the event. Rule #1 would have been bring plenty of film! Two rolls seems sufficient if all you're going to do is shoot the Bluff Creek hoax. But Patterson it seems didn't conserve his film. We know they shot scenery and have implied simply because it looked pretty. I remember being on a flight to the Bahamas where I shot my entire cache of 35mm film out the airplane window because we were encountering some very dramatic weather/cloud patterns. I never did shoot any film once on the ground. So Patterson and Gimlin spent a few weeks in the bush and didn't find Sasquatch and why not shoot some pretty film. Then at the 11th hour the encounter the PGF creature and Patterson has to make due with the remains of that 1st roll of film.

Since they were unable to develope the film in the field they had no way of knowing what they had in the camera and seems stunningly short sighted of a very crafty Roger Patterson to fritter away film then put Bob H on the sandbar yell action and finish out a token few last feet of film for an elaborate hoax. In my estimation they would have gone to Bluff Creek and very carefully staged the film doing as many takes as the could from as many angles as they could then developed it all and chose the best of all the takes as the one to sell the hoax to the world.

There is that photo of Patterson holding some casts and his clothing is filthy. Filthy the way one gets when they've been tramping the wilderness for a few weeks. I can't reconcile dragging Gimlin with him to wander Northern California for a couple of weeks only to have Bob H meet them at the end and spend as Bob H says 10 minutes to make the hoax.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 09:46 PM   #6898
tube
Muse
 
tube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post

There is that photo of Patterson holding some casts and his clothing is filthy. Filthy the way one gets when they've been tramping the wilderness for a few weeks.
Well, now that you mention it, that brings up yet ANOTHER discrepancy about the whole event, namely whether the films of Patterson casting tracks and holding up cured casts were taken on the same day. William Parcher and I discovered this independently, though Parcher takes precedence.

The real "tell" is Patterson's beard, as he was one of those guys with dark hair and serious stubble. The films were CLEARLY not taken on the same day, though you will read the opposite in Chris Murphy's account.

I know Parcher posted this before I did, but I found it easier to search through my own posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5325

This does not prove fraud of course, but it does illustrate what the skeptics have been saying for years, namely that the "back story" of the event is woefully confused, contradictory, and incomplete.

In addition, John Green in Apes Among Us writes that Patterson took a "great deal" of film. What became of it, and what does it show?
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6

(Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling

The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily.
tube is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 09:57 PM   #6899
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,113
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
At some point even a supposed gold bricker like Patterson whould run out of the time needed to play around making another suit and recreation of the Bluff Creek event. Since the Bluff Creek film achieved its purpose of getting its maker into the public eye and into some cash why create what may have amounted less than a poor substitute for the real thing.

Consider that once the Bluff Creek film was released Patterson's life changed dramatically in that suddenly he was being intervied by the media, giving showings and traveling. He was doing alright with the Bluff Creek film.

But I have thought about the Bluff Creek hoax scenerio and the realities of trying to get a decent film by staging the event. Rule #1 would have been bring plenty of film! Two rolls seems sufficient if all you're going to do is shoot the Bluff Creek hoax. But Patterson it seems didn't conserve his film. We know they shot scenery and have implied simply because it looked pretty. I remember being on a flight to the Bahamas where I shot my entire cache of 35mm film out the airplane window because we were encountering some very dramatic weather/cloud patterns. I never did shoot any film once on the ground. So Patterson and Gimlin spent a few weeks in the bush and didn't find Sasquatch and why not shoot some pretty film. Then at the 11th hour the encounter the PGF creature and Patterson has to make due with the remains of that 1st roll of film.

Since they were unable to develope the film in the field they had no way of knowing what they had in the camera and seems stunningly short sighted of a very crafty Roger Patterson to fritter away film then put Bob H on the sandbar yell action and finish out a token few last feet of film for an elaborate hoax. In my estimation they would have gone to Bluff Creek and very carefully staged the film doing as many takes as the could from as many angles as they could then developed it all and chose the best of all the takes as the one to sell the hoax to the world.

There is that photo of Patterson holding some casts and his clothing is filthy. Filthy the way one gets when they've been tramping the wilderness for a few weeks. I can't reconcile dragging Gimlin with him to wander Northern California for a couple of weeks only to have Bob H meet them at the end and spend as Bob H says 10 minutes to make the hoax.
The above would be more convincing if we could see what was really on the rest of the film. There's always the nagging possibility that the reason there's only that little bit of footage is that the rest would not stand up to scrutiny.

We might also have to allow for the possibility that a hoax could have involved the entire story of the trip, not just the filming of Patty. After all, if they came back with two nice fat rolls of nothing but Patty, wouldn't you be a little suspicious? And it's not all that hard to stage dirty clothes. If you were a good hoaxer, you might well wish to create the appearance of disorder, carelessness and chance. It would be especially necessary to do so if a clear and careful job of shooting might have revealed obvious faults in the suit. Better to have a short, jittery film, not quite optimally focused.

If it wasn't a hoax, the problems with the film are certainly unfortunate, but if it was, they're quite convenient. Unfortunately we'll probably never really be sure unless Patty's eastern nephew comes down out of the Adirondacks and drops into the Red Rose in Whitehall for a beer. There's at least a chance then that someone would notice.
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 10:28 PM   #6900
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Obviously Patterson holding up cured casts means the set of casts in the sandbar photos were hard enough to remove and handle. As for Patterson's beard I can definately see that there is a 5oclock shadow on his face as he's making the cast on the sanbar. Now the "dirty clothes" photo shows him wearing a jacket and a darker beard shadow. Remember the weather changed after the shoot and it rained which means it got colder and less pleasant than the film shoot weather. Hence Patterson has on a jacket, he still hasn't shaved and he's holding up the newly cured casts. My guess is this photo was taken the day after the shoot.

But once again there has yet to be an explaination for killing that much time in the woods if only to shoot a pre arranged hoax. As for the great deal of film Green says Patterson took unless it shows more of the hoax or more Sasquatch material it is unimportant. We do know that on some of that film there is scenery and no doubt some shots of Gimlin and camp. Really if there is say 500 ft of hoax film I can't believe that what we see as PGF is the absoloute best. Once again if those guys scripted everything, length, camera location and motion made the props rolled the film and created something as spontainlous as PGF then they were pros. So maybe there is a conspirecy of pros behind PGF and Roger and the 2 Bobs are just the front.

One other reason why the rest of the film hasn't been shown might be because at the time the important part of the film was the creature. I've been in the process of converting my old VCR tapes to DVD and 70% of I have recorded is being disgarded because it's not of interest to me anymore and not worth the effort of converting it. If you captured a rare creature on film and it has been the object of your obsession the rest of the film is trival. Really if Patterson was alive today and went on Letterman would they want to see Louse Camp?

Last edited by Crowlogic; 10th August 2007 at 10:47 PM.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 10:37 PM   #6901
tube
Muse
 
tube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Obviously Patterson holding up cured casts means the set of casts in the sandbar photos were hard enough to remove and handle. As for Patterson's beard I can definately see that there is a 5oclock shadow on his face as she making the cast on the sanbar. Now the "dirty clothes" photo shows him wearing a jacket and a darker beard shadow. Remember the weather changed after the shoot and it rained which means it got colder and less pleasant than the film shoot weather. Hence Patterson has on a jacket, he still hasn't shaved and he's holding up the newly cured casts. My guess is this photo was taken the day after the shoot.
So, you are suggesting that these three images were all taken within 24 hours?





__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6

(Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling

The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily.
tube is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 10:52 PM   #6902
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by tube View Post
Why not? The first two are a simple sequenced from the same pose but I don't think the pics where he's standing was made before the casting photo. There'a another shot of the sasting pic where the side of Patterson's face is better shown.

Last edited by Crowlogic; 10th August 2007 at 10:58 PM.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2007, 11:49 PM   #6903
rgann
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by bf2006 View Post
Rgann, first of all, hello. Second of all, that quote is from some of the information I copied and pasted to this forum from I believe Roger Knights, it is not anything I wrote...

..As to the hair and fecal samples, I cannot speak to those (other than a sample of feces which was found somewhere in the US that had parasites native to Asia in it which is unusual, and may be, just MAY be Sasquatch hair). But, again, these are pieces of evidence subject to interpretation, and they are not absolute proof.
Henry,

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for putting things in context, I as many others here have read through big chunks of the debates at the BFF (for me specifically PGF stuff) and and I have had the opportunity to have conversations with RogerKni on his views of the PGF. I did catch the tale end of the SG/RK posts and was also curious about RK’s response.

I would like to know what your response is to the points I made, do you agree or disagree that RP’s account of the terrain makes point #9 incorrect and would you consider removing it from the list of reasons BH was not at Bluff Creek? (for future copying and pasting)

I also would like to see more info on the Asian Parasite anomaly, got a link to a story somewhere?

Thanks
Rick
rgann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 12:04 AM   #6904
rgann
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
I do see breast movement in PGF. The descriptive amount of movement is subjective and what is a little to some may be a lot to others. To Patterson's eye that may be a lot of movement. That was a time after all when women's fashions were more constrictive than they are today and we get to see "giggle" on a daily basis that would have had the culture of 1967 blushing. Yet we think little of it.
Crowlogic

Interesting point its one that in comes up in a lot of other forms, for some reason the 1960’s seems to get short changed on a lot of things (FX capabilities, creative capacities, available materials etc.) Just to put things in context here is a link to a 1966 film One Million Years B.C staring Rachel Welch I think this may have been the best use of fur for a costume ever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/

I understand the spirit of your post that what you see is subjective, however I just don’t agree about the lack of jiggle circa 1967. It was the dawning of the age of Aquarius after all.

Rick

Last edited by rgann; 11th August 2007 at 12:09 AM.
rgann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 12:09 AM   #6905
bf2006
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by rgann View Post
Henry,

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for putting things in context, I as many others here have read through big chunks of the debates at the BFF (for me specifically PGF stuff) and and I have had the opportunity to have conversations with RogerKni on his views of the PGF. I did catch the tale end of the SG/RK posts and was also curious about RK’s response.

I would like to know what your response is to the points I made, do you agree or disagree that RP’s account of the terrain makes point #9 incorrect and would you consider removing it from the list of reasons BH was not at Bluff Creek? (for future copying and pasting)

I also would like to see more info on the Asian Parasite anomaly, got a link to a story somewhere?

Thanks
Rick
Hello, Rick. As to your first question, well, since I have never been to the film site or am not familiar with that terrain, I cannot say one way or the other if Patterson was correct about the terrain or whether BH is correct. I would keep that point up just for future reference, but that's just me. As to the Asian Parasite anomaly, I may have to do a bit more digging on that. I will get back to you on that and let you know something right here. Thanks for the inquiries.

Update: Go to this link for information on unique parasites found in supposed Bigfoot scat: http://www.strangeark.com/nabr/NABR3.pdf

Last edited by bf2006; 11th August 2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason: New Information
bf2006 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 12:45 AM   #6906
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Melissa View Post
That statement does not not imply that bigfoot does infact exist - it only says no one can prove this animal does or does not exist at this point. Thats all.

To harp even more on what other stated, your post is totally utterly silly. At any point you can never prove an animal don't exists.

You can't prove unicorn don't exists
You can't prove Nessy don't exists
You can't prove dragon (the real fire breathing one) don't exists
You can't prove faerie, gnome and gremlin don't exists

heck,

You can't prove santa don't exist
You can't prove I am not the next Jesus christus
You can't prove the FSM don't exists

You have no idea whatsoever of what you are speaking about.
It is bigfoot proponent's job to prove it exists. And sorry, for the last 10 years I followed from far away the story, bigfoot proponent have nothing but contradictory hypothese. Not even a iota of evidence. Even their holy grail, the PGF, can easily be construed as a man walking in suit (see napier comment) and big foot proponent can blow "no it is not!" until their face come blue, they bring no evidence.

I am sorry but the only conclusion up to that point in time is "you failed. Miserably.".

Bigfoot don't exists. If you purport that this is not the case, bring evidence. NEW REAL EVIDENCE. Until then all I see is a bunch of skeptic having fun tearing down argument of woo-people not having a case at all.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 12:46 AM   #6907
rgann
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by bf2006 View Post
Hello, Rick. As to your first question, well, since I have never been to the film site or am not familiar with that terrain, I cannot say one way or the other if Patterson was correct about the terrain or whether BH is correct. I would keep that point up just for future reference, but that's just me. As to the Asian Parasite anomaly, I may have to do a bit more digging on that. I will get back to you on that and let you know something right here. Thanks for the inquiries.

Update: Go to this link for information on unique parasites found in supposed Bigfoot scat: http://www.strangeark.com/nabr/NABR3.pdf
Henry

Thanks for the link I will read it. Just for clarification, based on RP's quote and BH's quote, it appears to me that they both agree with each other, that the event occurred partially in sand. The point your post was making (hell now i will go reread it) was that BH claimed he walked in sand and since anyone who has been to the film location knows that there was only slippery rocks there he clearly was lying and was not at the site. I thought you might be interested in seeing that RP also stated that part of the encounter was in sand which contradicts point #9.

Rick

***Henry I read the report this is from the final paragraph

"This rich assemblage of worms can expected to exist in any omnivorous forest species and cannot be used to identify the species of origin"

Am I missing something? I dont see where what was found was anything out to the ordinary.

Last edited by rgann; 11th August 2007 at 01:06 AM. Reason: add report info
rgann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 01:36 AM   #6908
bf2006
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by rgann View Post
Henry

Thanks for the link I will read it. Just for clarification, based on RP's quote and BH's quote, it appears to me that they both agree with each other, that the event occurred partially in sand. The point your post was making (hell now i will go reread it) was that BH claimed he walked in sand and since anyone who has been to the film location knows that there was only slippery rocks there he clearly was lying and was not at the site. I thought you might be interested in seeing that RP also stated that part of the encounter was in sand which contradicts point #9.

Rick

***Henry I read the report this is from the final paragraph

"This rich assemblage of worms can expected to exist in any omnivorous forest species and cannot be used to identify the species of origin"

Am I missing something? I dont see where what was found was anything out to the ordinary.
Hi again, Rick. Technically, the surface of that area of the film site is shale, which is a form of sand (I have a parrot food container half-full of shale from Bluff Creek given to me by M.K. Davis). It is not sand in the traditional sense, like you would find on the beach, but it is dark-grey and is composed of platelets, nothing at all like typical beach sand. So, it is possible that BH knew there was sand by a creek and called it as such, even though it is not traditional sand. As to the second question, that particular link is the closest thing I could find to anything mentioning unique parasites (the rest of the links that came back to me were unrelated or porn sites, LOL). But, if I do find anything on alleged Bigfoot scat with unique, Asian parasites in it, I will let you know.

Last edited by bf2006; 11th August 2007 at 01:37 AM. Reason: Words running together
bf2006 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 04:27 AM   #6909
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Why not? .....
Why not ?

Because the photo of Patterson holding the casts was taken in late May or June ....
Sometimes science is good..

What year ? I don't know .. It would be real interesting if they were taken in June of '67 ... No ?
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 06:45 AM   #6910
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
I'm also desperately trying to come to grips with the need for slurring the proponents of the PGF/Sasquatch question with terms such as Pattycakes. There's an old addage that when you're right the need to degrade those that you consider wrong evaporates. I could suppose that a term such as Randibrats could be invented and applied to the members of this forum as a blanket term for every opponent of PGF or any other opposiing view to an enigmatic element or occourance.
Yes, the proponents would never engage in slurring or name calling...

__________________
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; 11th August 2007 at 06:48 AM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 07:04 AM   #6911
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Is there really any way to tell if the stills of Patterson making casts are from his pratice films for his documentary, or actually from the day he filmed Patty?

Other than getting to see all of both reels...
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 08:46 AM   #6912
tube
Muse
 
tube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Why not? The first two are a simple sequenced from the same pose but I don't think the pics where he's standing was made before the casting photo. There'a another shot of the sasting pic where the side of Patterson's face is better shown.
Have you read Jeff Meldrum's new book? I direct your attention to page 143 where he publishes two of the photos I uploaded here. The caption to the photos reads "Roger Patterson pouring a cast at the film site and displaying the cast UPON THEIR RETURN TO YAKIMA, WASHINGTON" (Emphasis mine)

Meldrum's account of the events contradicts Chris Murphy's.

Personally, I can't but perceive that the amount of hair on Patterson's face is WAY more than could be grown in 24 hours. I also asked Daniel Perez if BOTH film reels were shipped off for processing at the same time, and he claims they were, which necessitates that the "cast display" photo IF TAKEN AT BLUFF CREEK was taken Friday afternoon.

And this is were it ends, like it always does, in discussing the minutea of details like "how quickly could Patterson's beard grow" and the inevitable photo interpretation questions. I'm sure MK Davis could find two or three ingrown hairs on Patterson's chin, and the glint of a fly's wing on the cast...

What I'm really driving at is that the "Bigfoot experts" simply don't know for sure. What are Meldrum and Murphy basing their claims on? Where is the objective historical evidence?
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6

(Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling

The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily.
tube is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 09:41 AM   #6913
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by rgann View Post
Crowlogic

Interesting point its one that in comes up in a lot of other forms, for some reason the 1960’s seems to get short changed on a lot of things (FX capabilities, creative capacities, available materials etc.) Just to put things in context here is a link to a 1966 film One Million Years B.C staring Rachel Welch I think this may have been the best use of fur for a costume ever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/

I understand the spirit of your post that what you see is subjective, however I just don’t agree about the lack of jiggle circa 1967. It was the dawning of the age of Aquarius after all.

Rick
Dawning of the age of Aquarius and so it was. However in 1967 the country's general populatin was still in the 1950's, or earlier even. There were a few "hip population centers" such as San Francisco, NY, Boston but the "Flower Power" revoloution was barely off the ground at that point. As a long haired NY collage student I made a 1971 visit to transplanted family in northern Alabama and it was like going 7 or 8 years back in time, on all fronts, cultural and social. In any event Patterson's cultural and social base
would have hardley had him in the forefront of what was just starting down the cultural pike.

Case in point search out some old Betty Page pinup photos from the 50's and ask yourself if they are racey. To our eye today they're downright tame. But in her time they were the height of explicit. No I think Roger Patterson's jiggle meter was tuned to a different scale than ours is today.

Last edited by Crowlogic; 11th August 2007 at 09:44 AM.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 09:59 AM   #6914
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by tube View Post
Have you read Jeff Meldrum's new book? I direct your attention to page 143 where he publishes two of the photos I uploaded here. The caption to the photos reads "Roger Patterson pouring a cast at the film site and displaying the cast UPON THEIR RETURN TO YAKIMA, WASHINGTON" (Emphasis mine)

Meldrum's account of the events contradicts Chris Murphy's.

Personally, I can't but perceive that the amount of hair on Patterson's face is WAY more than could be grown in 24 hours. I also asked Daniel Perez if BOTH film reels were shipped off for processing at the same time, and he claims they were, which necessitates that the "cast display" photo IF TAKEN AT BLUFF CREEK was taken Friday afternoon.

And this is were it ends, like it always does, in discussing the minutea of details like "how quickly could Patterson's beard grow" and the inevitable photo interpretation questions. I'm sure MK Davis could find two or three ingrown hairs on Patterson's chin, and the glint of a fly's wing on the cast...

What I'm really driving at is that the "Bigfoot experts" simply don't know for sure. What are Meldrum and Murphy basing their claims on? Where is the objective historical evidence?
The cast pouring photos are very, very washed out, overexposed. So much so that the blue in Patterson's jeans is hardly there at all. Also if the casts were made before the Creature footage than Bob H wasn't in the suit because he claims Patterson and Gimlin dispatched him to deliver the Creature film for processing while they went back and played with the tracks etc. What I see are photo's of a man who looks the part of having spent several weeks in the woods. If he's posing back home in Yakima with the casts then he's still in his same wilderness attire. In any event the entire sequence of Creature footage, cast pouring, cast posing fits easily into the time frame of a few days post creature filming, which of course it would.

Unless Patterson of course poses with the casts way before or way after the creature film except the makup/costume department has done a convincing job of maintaining the continuity of the wilderness "patina" one would expect to see.

Sorry I see photos of a guy that's been out in the woods and practicing normal out in the woods hygine and is grabbed for a photo of his discovery either still in the woods or as he's just arrived home still in wilderness hygine.

Last edited by Crowlogic; 11th August 2007 at 10:27 AM.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 10:34 AM   #6915
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Here is a crop of the ' Roger Holding Cast In Front Of Tree ' photo ..
( Sounds like a painting Van Gogh should have done )

The red lines indicate the approximate angle of the shadows, created by the altitude of the Sun..

The angle is about 70 degrees.. There could be some error depending on the angle and altitude of the camera, as well as the angle the cast is being held at.

But note, we also get a similar angle based on the shadow of the gathering of the fabric of Patterson's jeans. And we can postulate that Patterson's legs are pretty much vertical.

I have overlaid a protractor with an indicated angle of 38 degrees..

The highest the Sun rose in the sky on 10/20/1967 was 37.8 degrees ..

That picture was not taken in October, or anytime close .. Probably not within six months of October..
Attached Images
File Type: gif sun38.gif (40.3 KB, 64 views)
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 10:53 AM   #6916
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
Here is a crop of the ' Roger Holding Cast In Front Of Tree ' photo ..
( Sounds like a painting Van Gogh should have done )

The red lines indicate the approximate angle of the shadows, created by the altitude of the Sun..

The angle is about 70 degrees.. There could be some error depending on the angle and altitude of the camera, as well as the angle the cast is being held at.

But note, we also get a similar angle based on the shadow of the gathering of the fabric of Patterson's jeans. And we can postulate that Patterson's legs are pretty much vertical.

I have overlaid a protractor with an indicated angle of 38 degrees..

The highest the Sun rose in the sky on 10/20/1967 was 37.8 degrees ..

That picture was not taken in October, or anytime close .. Probably not within six months of October..
Yes and he's even gone to the extent of making it look as if he's been in the woods for a while to support the claims he's going to be making concerning the October hoax film he's planning. Now then as for the 37'.8 vs the 38.0 degrees I wouldn't want to be convicted on 2/10ths of a degree, would you? Unless ground where that photo is perfectly level a perfectly accurate angle of shadow cannot be relied upon. Do you know whether the ground in that photo is perfectly level? If the photo is taken a couple of hundred miles north of Bluff Creek (say Yakima) espect the angle of the sun to be lower. Go even further north and expect the angle of the sun to be lower still.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 10:53 AM   #6917
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
P.S.

For anyone taking notes, I suggest the above analysis is a good example of ' research '..
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 11:03 AM   #6918
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Yes and he's even gone to the extent of making it look as if he's been in the woods for a while to support the claims he's going to be making concerning the October hoax film he's planning. Now then as for the 37'.8 vs the 38.0 degrees I wouldn't want to be convicted on 2/10ths of a degree, would you? Unless ground where that photo is perfectly level a perfectly accurate angle of shadow cannot be relied upon. Do you know whether the ground in that photo is perfectly level? If the photo is taken a couple of hundred miles north of Bluff Creek (say Yakima) espect the andgle of the sun to be lower. Go even further north and expect the angle of the sun to be lower still.
What 2/10ths of a degree are you talking about ??

A quick calculation tells me 70 - 38 is 32 .. Which represents about 6 months on the Calender..

Yes, go further north, and the Sun is even lower at noon..

Let's say I'm off 20 degrees.. We are still looking at early April or September..

The Sun will never be that high in the sky at that latitude except late spring or early fall..

You can't spin out of this...
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 11:22 AM   #6919
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
Originally Posted by bf2006 View Post
Hi again, Rick. Technically, the surface of that area of the film site is shale, which is a form of sand ...snip...
No. Shale is a clastic sedimentary rock composed by grains smaller than 4 µm with a very well-developed bedding. Sediment layers at Bluff creek's bed with such grain size range would be unconsolidated mud. "Sand" is the name given to sediment particles between 64 µm and 2mm; consolidated sand becomes a rock named sandstone. Sand grains are composed by fragments of minerals and rocks.

Sand from Bluff creek is different from the sands one can find at (some) oceanic beaches due to different provenances (source rocks) sedimentation histories (transport, selection, etc.). Each sedimentary deposit has its own unique "fingerprint".

This may have seemed a pedantic nit-picking for you; but trust me, it was not. Mistanken and wrong informations quite often are present within the arguments made by some proponents. One of our goals is to separate good data from bad data. As I said many times before, this may sharpen your own arguments and help you to build a better case. One's position may be ruined or loose credibility if some basic flaws are present.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2007, 12:10 PM   #6920
tube
Muse
 
tube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
OK, just to evidence how Meldrum contradicts Murphy's chronicle, here is the relevant passage from Meet the Sasquatch, page 43:

"The men then returned to the film site and examined the path the creature had taken along the sandbar. They observed and filmed the creature's footprints in the soil and later made plaster casts of the left and right foot. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured about 14.5-inches/36.8m (sic) long by 6-inches/15.2cm wide. Gimlin jumped off a log to see how far his footprints would sink into the soil in comparison with the creature's prints. The results were that the creature's footprints were deeper. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment together with footage of horse prints alongside the creature's prints. Gimlin filmed Patterson making casts and also displaying the finished casts seen here."

"The same afternoon the men drove to Arcata (or Eureka) to ship the films for processing"

Murphy's text accompanies this photo:



If we take Murphy's version as the truth then we have Patterson going from clean shaven to that much beard growth WITHIN ONE AFTERNOON.
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6

(Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling

The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily.
tube is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

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 04:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.