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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 24th November 2010, 06:03 PM   #4641
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Larry Lund Photo... Is it Really the PGF Site, or even in Bluff Creek?

AlaskaBushPilot,

Are you sure this photo depicts Bluff Creek? I see no indication of such on the web page you mention. If you are implying that this is the P-G Film site, I can tell you that it does not look like the current proposed locations we've investigated.

I've sent an email to Larry Lund to find out where this photo was taken. If you have information about it I'd appreciate knowing what it is and where you got it.

It should be noted that Bluff Creek flows from east to the west in the area of the general consensus film site. This would affect the sunlight getting in there in the afternoon. I have not done a thorough study of this, but I can say that there is indeed sunlight down onto the site into the later afternoon, even in October.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post

This picture is from "The Larry Lund Collection" here:
...

I'll need to look at a topographical map to get the stream orientation, but it is pretty clear how steep and high the terrain is. The sun would have to be at just the right angle shining through the draw or else very high in the sky in order to shine directly on the scene.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Lund Bluff Creek Maybe.JPG (46.3 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 Back to Top
Old 24th November 2010, 07:05 PM   #4642
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
I am not sure about the exact location of the photo that I posted earlier because there was no caption to it. But it seems to me that the site would be in the shade at 5 pm in October from this google earth shot.
Well, he already said he was not sure of the Lund photo location.
__________________
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 24th November 2010, 07:10 PM   #4643
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
AlaskaBushPilot,

Are you sure this photo depicts Bluff Creek? I see no indication of such on the web page you mention. If you are implying that this is the P-G Film site, I can tell you that it does not look like the current proposed locations we've investigated.

I've sent an email to Larry Lund to find out where this photo was taken. If you have information about it I'd appreciate knowing what it is and where you got it.

It should be noted that Bluff Creek flows from east to the west in the area of the general consensus film site. This would affect the sunlight getting in there in the afternoon. I have not done a thorough study of this, but I can say that there is indeed sunlight down onto the site into the later afternoon, even in October.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek
Thanks Steve,

As I mentioned in the next post afterwards, I am not sure of the exact location. I put the web address in the post you just quoted, and it looks like you have been to that site already. Asking Larry Lund is certainly more authoritative than anything I can offer, so very good move there.

The next post also has the gps coordinates and google earth snapshot of those coordinates. I haven't really tried to match the picture up with it, but was actually going to get a topographical map first.

From the Satellite pic, the bluff is West of the site. It looks like there is a meandering road running through the box I drew from NE to SW, but it comes from the Easterly direction prior.

There is also a road on the top of the bluff.

I got those coordinates from the internet, and I would be pleased to know if they meet with everyone else's satisfaction. The entire area of the box is within reason for those coordinates without more exact lat/long.

Thank you again.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th November 2010, 08:03 PM   #4644
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
can't just measure pixels.

get it?


Poor example, parnassus.......the distances covered from the bottom of each picture, to about half-way up the image....are extremely different...





....and it makes a huge difference in the degree to which the 'perspective distortion' affects the measurements.

get it?


As I said earlier....At such short distances, it wouldn't make a big difference in the diagram.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 24th November 2010 at 08:15 PM.
SweatyYeti 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 24th November 2010, 08:11 PM   #4645
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
Quote:
As I said earlier....At such short distances, though, it wouldn't make a big difference in the diagram.
I don't think you have enough concrete data to say that. It may or may not make a significant difference. I don't know.
__________________
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 24th November 2010, 08:20 PM   #4646
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Poor example, parnassus.......the distances covered from the bottom of each picture, to about half-way up the image....is extremely different...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ParnyCrap2.jpg


....and it makes a huge difference in the degree to which the 'perspective distortion' affects the measurements.

get it?


As I said earlier....At such short distances, it wouldn't make a big difference in the diagram.
While the colors in your posts are quite cute
In reality one has to be resolute
Though you may try to refute, it's a guy in a suit
Making your math and measurements clearly moot.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th November 2010, 08:24 PM   #4647
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
Sweaty, isn't that a still from a 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?
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 24th November 2010, 08:42 PM   #4648
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Sweaty, it isn't an issue of how far "up the image". LOL.

It's an issue of the relative distances and the focal length of the lens. You have a well-demonstrated lack of understanding of issues not in two dimensions, so I am not surprised that you don't grasp this one.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 24th November 2010, 08:49 PM   #4649
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Wow, I now have a second thread named after me at the BFF. That is popularity. Eat your hearts out, ******s.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 24th November 2010, 09:32 PM   #4650
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,906
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Poor example, parnassus.......the distances covered from the bottom of each picture, to about half-way up the image....are extremely different...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ParnyCrap2.jpg


....and it makes a huge difference in the degree to which the 'perspective distortion' affects the measurements.

get it?


As I said earlier....At such short distances, it wouldn't make a big difference in the diagram.
Parn's example of the train tracks is an excellent example of the concept.

The problem with the footprint photo is that the camera is so low and is so close to the plaster print. The fact that the camera is so close to the plaster print makes anything beyond it severely out of scale, so we will never be able to figure out how close the other print is to the plaster print.

If you think you have a way to figure it out please show us the how it can be done, using real math and/or geometry.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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 24th November 2010, 09:48 PM   #4651
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
Can't you just see Gimlin getting that low shot with the Kodak...
__________________
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 25th November 2010, 08:11 AM   #4652
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
GT/CS wrote:
Quote:
The fact that the camera is so close to the plaster print makes anything beyond it severely out of scale,

Feel free to demonstrate that to be the case, GT......if you can.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti 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 25th November 2010, 08:13 AM   #4653
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,323
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post

It should be noted that Bluff Creek flows from east to the west in the area of the general consensus film site. This would affect the sunlight getting in there in the afternoon. I have not done a thorough study of this, but I can say that there is indeed sunlight down onto the site into the later afternoon, even in October.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek
So, was Gimlin mistaken when he said it was getting dark around 3:30 - 4:00 ?

( Actually he said the Sun went down at that time, but since we know it was a bit later, perhaps he has speaking in terms of when the Sun dropped below the trees/ridge line .. )

The Creek flowing east-west at that point, doesn't mean there was an un-obstructed view all the way to the horizon; not to mention, the azimuth of the Sun would have been somewhat south-west, at that time of the day/year .. ( about 243deg at 4pm )
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 25th November 2010 at 08:21 AM.
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 25th November 2010, 09:08 AM   #4654
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,906
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
GT/CS wrote:



Feel free to demonstrate that to be the case, GT......if you can.
Parn demostrated it.

You're the one who says he can measure the distance so go for it. Let's see your work.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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 25th November 2010, 01:22 PM   #4655
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Conclusive Evidence of Bigfoot Bone-Headery

This is the topographical map of the Patterson-Gimlin Film site, according to the noted Latitude and Longitude. It matches up very nicely with the Google Earth snapshot I posted earlier:




This map was made in 1974, not long after the filming.

There's a couple of things to note about this site. First, these silly boys took the road down to Bluff Creek and went nary a stone's throw to do their film. This is not an "expedition" needing a pack horse and camp gear. You can stay in a motel and run my subaru passenger car down to the site to film XXX movies for the day.

The second thing to note, from my perspective as an end-of-the roader in Interior Alaska - this site is less than half a mile from the improved road on the bluff and literally at the end of the dirt road they took to get in. The place is crawling with roads.

Behind my cabin are millions of acres with no roads whatsoever. What trails exist for horses, snow machines or four-wheelers were put in by myself or people I know first-hand, save one which was put in by a miner more than 50 years ago. This Patterson-Gimlin site is not the least bit remote by my standards. Neither is where I live. Remote to me means landing a supercub on a gravel bar deep in the wilderness, or a brutal 70-mile four-wheeler/snow-machine run at the very limits of your ability to make it out on foot alive.

There is no place for a bigfoot to hide in here. It is pathetically not-remote. People are going to be running up and down these roads recreating, hunting, working - one has to rely on urban ignorance to pose this as a place where a population of bigfoot could live without being darted and hauled off to Barnum & Bailey's Circus for entertainment.

Anyone familiar with flushing animals understands a Game Drive. I've depicted a couple of examples here - the circle drive and the directed drive.




A circle drive requires more people because you don't have terrain working for you. It was used as a predator control method in farming or ranching communities in the past. Everyone positions themselves in a rough circle around the habitat and at an arranged time closes in towards the center.

One of these bigfoot jamborees of 50 people could cover 2.6 square miles - way, way bigger than necessary for the area above - by standing a hundred yards apart each at the outer edges of the circle. The greatest distance an animal can be from anyone at the start is fifty yards, and that closes rapidly as people move in. Nothing can hide with this method.

A directed drive takes far fewer people, and would be the method I would use at this site. You take advantage of the terrain and flush the animals along natural funnels to people on post at the ends. I drew this before I had this topo, and reflects the way I hunted for deer and turkeys many years in the midwest.

But you can see the idea. A bluff, river, and roads are perfect features to design a directed game drive around. No bigfoot could go undetected with this method in the Patterson-Gimlin site.

I describe this method here because anyone with the least bit of experience with real animals would have done this decades ago. It's proof to me beyond all doubt how relentlessly stupid "bigfoot hunters" are being if they really are interested in getting a bigfoot on film or catching one alive.
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 Back to Top
Old 25th November 2010, 01:42 PM   #4656
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
Quote:
GPS co-ordinate readings for the Patterson-Gimlin Film site:
N. 41*26.301 W. 123*42.357 Elevation: 2560' -72'
These are coordinates used by MK Davis...for what they might be worth...
__________________
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 25th November 2010, 02:35 PM   #4657
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Thanks for those.

One thing the topo makes clear: The surrounding bluffs are hundreds of feet off the creekbed in every direction. The picture I posted a while ago is an accurate portrayal, regardless of whether the exact film site is the creek opening shown.

I was a bit unsure because in the satellite photo it does not look like the terrain to the south and east is so steep. But the topos demonstrate it is, and makes the photo I got from the Larry Lund collection look accurate. Every line is 20 feet of elevation, and the thicker lines are 100-foot demarcations.

There may be angles at which the sun exposes small portions of the creek bed to light in the afternoon, but what is clear from the topo and the satellite image is that at five o'clock the creek bed is going to be shaded in its entirety. That is, the shadows in the Patterson casting photos are courtroom-quality evidence.

In conjunction with the fellows showing the shadow projections demonstrate a higher sun angle than the alleged time of day or even the time of year for that matter - plus the lack of time in transit to announce the news of the "find" - It's more than enough to convince a jury: Patterson was fibbing about the casting photos.
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 Back to Top
Old 25th November 2010, 03:02 PM   #4658
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
We still have the 1:30/3:30 discrepancy, the 3.5 mile tracking problem, the going back for the plaster problem, the mailing the film problems, etc.
__________________
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 25th November 2010, 03:15 PM   #4659
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
They don't even have their story straight in this interview a couple weeks later...this reads like hoaxers trying to keep their story straight and failing...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/int...opatterson.htm
__________________
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 25th November 2010, 05:00 PM   #4660
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
 
Apology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
AlaskaBushPilot is right about the Bluff Creek Site not being remote. We used to take our beat-up passenger cars down there in the early 90's and drink like mad until the rangers came at 3:00 in the morning to throw us out. I recall a party at Bluff Creek that had hundreds and hundreds of people who got there in vans, mini-trucks, and simple economy cars. Steve can probably verify whether or not this type of thing continues to happen at Bluff Creek.

It doesn't require 4-wheel drive or a pack horse to reach the site. There are far more remote areas in the Trinities that can be reached only on foot or horseback. Patterson and Gimlin probably got lazy and that's why they filmed there.
Apology 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 25th November 2010, 05:49 PM   #4661
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Shadow Math

I felt I needed to back up my statements about shadows on Bluff Creek, so here's the math:

From the Satellite snapshots, Scene Photos/film, and the Topographic maps it is pretty clear that the forest goes right up to the edge of the creek opening. The terrain is steep, and the only possibility for the sun to peek through is to the Southwest.

The tree canopy on North-facing slopes is 160 to 180 feet according to this publication on Six Rivers National Forest:

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/rn...e_creek_es.pdf

From the sun angles provided on the last page, at 5:00 pm on the 19th of October, the closest date to the 20th, is 14.5 degrees.

How far from a 160-ft. tree do you need to be on level ground to have the sun shining above that tree? Since tangent(14.5 degrees) = .26, and tangent is opposite over adjacent, we solve for 160/X = .26.

X = 615 feet. That's more than a tenth of a mile - an order of magnitude greater than the width of the creek opening through this valley at any point. Not only that, but the trees are on a slope. That's why even near solar noon around this time period the creek bed is in shadow as shown by the satellite image.

It the tree is up 20 ft. off the creek bottom, and if it is 180 ft. instead of 160 ft. then you need 769 feet of clearing - a tenth and a half of a mile. As you try to find a south-western avenue for the sun, the problem is now you are dealing with taller trees that are not on north-facing slopes. The bluff to the West is also steeper.

It is reasonable to speculate that at 5 pm, with the sun in the Southwest, that you could find a place on the map where there would be sun. Sure, it is a possibility maybe. But still you are dealing with a scene that will have long, weak shadows around it instead of a whole area lit up and sharp contrasts where shadows do exist.
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 Back to Top
Old 25th November 2010, 06:30 PM   #4662
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,323
Quote:
It is reasonable to speculate that at 5 pm, with the sun in the Southwest, that you could find a place on the map where there would be sun. Sure, it is a possibility maybe. But still you are dealing with a scene that will have long, weak shadows around it instead of a whole area lit up and sharp contrasts where shadows do exist.
I doubt if any Sunlight at all was hitting the film site at 5pm ..

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astron...ices/alt-az-us

On 10/20/67 at 5pm, the Sun would have been at elevation 10deg, azimuth 243 ..

( Adjusted for PDT - My earlier post showed 243 deg at 4pm )
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 25th November 2010 at 06:34 PM.
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 25th November 2010, 07:15 PM   #4663
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I doubt if any Sunlight at all was hitting the film site at 5pm ..

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astron...ices/alt-az-us

On 10/20/67 at 5pm, the Sun would have been at elevation 10deg, azimuth 243 ..

( Adjusted for PDT - My earlier post showed 243 deg at 4pm )
Well, yes - I'm obviously on the same team there. I just thought it wise to leave open the possibility that some spot along the creek might have a splotch of sunshine.

But your correction makes it daunting! Ten degrees - OK I concede it is nigh impossible.

In this Google Earth frame I used the coordinates last offered by LTC8K6. That puts us on top of a clump of trees, but no coordinates I've seen put us right on the most likely candidates we can clearly see with both google earth and the topos.

Just upstream from the mark are a couple of good clear spots that have remained the top candidates for me. Look closely - you can identify individual trees and their shadows:




I put a yellow arrow in there pointing as the sun would from 243 degrees. So observe that with the sun quite high in the sky as with the google image, the tree shadows are completely across the clearings. This is before noon, but not by a lot, as can be inferred from the shadow angles.

If we search with our eyes for a place with the sun at ten degrees and azimuth 243 where the creek bed is going to have sunshine...

How on earth is there going to be a clearing with sunshine?
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 Back to Top
Old 25th November 2010, 08:31 PM   #4664
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
There's a clearing with sunshine so Patterson could film. Duh!
__________________
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 26th November 2010, 08:31 AM   #4665
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Parn demostrated it.

No he didn't.

What I said in my previous post is correct...

Quote:
Poor example, parnassus.......the distances covered from the bottom of each picture, to about half-way up the image....are extremely different...


There is a major difference in the degree of 'perspective distortion', between parnassus' example and the 'Roger cast pour' picture....as indicated by the difference in the percentage of narrowing/foreshortening of the shadow, and the rails...for a given amount of vertical 'cross-section' of the images... (the 'vertical cross-section' being indicated by the long yellow lines)...






The width of the shadow narrows to a significantly lesser degree than the width...(and the 'distance between')...the rails decreases.

parnassus' picture only illustrates the basic principle of perspective distortion....but it's scale is WAY THE heck OFF.


LTC8K6 wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
SweatyYeti wrote:

As I said earlier....At such short distances, though, it wouldn't make a big difference in the diagram.

I don't think you have enough concrete data to say that.

There is data in the 'Cast Pour' image to indicate the degree of 'perspective distortion', LT.....all you have to do is be willing to look for it.

The shadow is every bit as good an indicator, as the rails are....


__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 26th November 2010 at 09:01 AM.
SweatyYeti 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 26th November 2010, 01:22 PM   #4666
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,906
Do you still stand behind your analysis using pixels or do you admit that what you attempted to show is not accurate or even possible?
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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 26th November 2010, 06:46 PM   #4667
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
In reply to the below and AlaskaBushPilot, I can say the following.

The Larry Lund photo was apparently taken downstream from the site, from the ridge to the southwest, probably from the old (now closed) road over there. Here is what Lund sent me so far:

"That photo was taken by Rene Dahinden and it is looking towards the rock slide to the left. You can just see it as a tan spot on the oposite side of the valley. The film site is just below that slide spot. Hope this helps!"

If I am correct in this assumption (I'm waiting on final confirmation), this is the view upstream from above the MK Davis site location, roughly. The rock slide is the tan dot just to the left of the tip of the tree in the foreground. This rock slide is still present where we think the site is, so hopefully this is just one more clue proving that area to be correct. Of course, there are a lot of other rock slides out there.

The creek flows generally east to west at the general consensus film site area, and generally up into the headwaters eastward from there. Below this area it turns southward. So, there is a gap where the fall sun may shine in there in the afternoon; but of course, it does not hit all the areas down there in the winding creek canyon.

Most of my trips up there have been in July, August and September. I can say that during those months there is plenty of sun shining down on the film site. In October it has often been raining or overcast, so it will require a future trip with a watch to test out sunlight exposure more thoroughly. My experience is that Gimlin is right about his "getting dark" statement--namely, yes, the sun goes down behind the Onion Mountain/Blue Creek Mountain ridge towering off to the west at around 4:00 that time of year. It doesn't get dark, but it sure feels that way, as the ridge above cuts off perhaps an hour of the sun's time in the sky as opposed to the view from the coast. It's like that in Willow Creek, too, where we don't really have sunsets since that all happens behind the mountains to our west.

For there to be as much sunlight shining on Patterson as he casts those tracks I would say the footage of him doing so would have to have been around or earlier than 3:00, not later. Again, these are my impressions, and will have to be verified on the ground next year for certainty... and hopefully without rain this time!

In reply to the person who said that Bluff Creek is not remote I would reply:
Well, yes, there are a lot of logging roads through there. The driving conditions on them would vary depending on their maintenance at the time, what they may or may not have been used for recently, whether they were being allowed to fall into disrepair, and whether there were rock and mud slides blocking or damaging them. I've seen a very wide variety of conditions out there. With recent grading for the fire crews staying at Louse Camp, the main roads were all very passable this year. They even graded (and later destroyed) the road down to the PGF site. This is a constant process, and varied widely over the years. It is not easy to say with any certainty which roads were passable and when. There was some kind of road above the PGF site back in the days, but it was apparently NOT passable around 1967 (in fact, in the topo map above you can see a gap in the middle of it). The old researchers heading to the site all took the creek up from around 2.5 to 3 miles downstream to get there. This summer we explored all around in there, and there was many a "road" on the map that in fact no longer existed as a road: they were bermed off with huge rock piles or metal gates, and have degraded down into what amounts to a hiking trail.

Also, in regard to the concept of doing a game drive I would say: GOOD LUCK! It would NEVER work in there. The area is way too convoluted, steep, and thickly grown over with trees and undergrowth. It is a very daunting proposal just to bushwhack a quarter mile or so down to the film site from the small spur road above it. We did this last month, and I can assure you it was quite precarious and slow-going. Bluff Creek was once a wilderness, now it is less so; but it is still wild. If there are still Bigfoot up in that area I'd bet you'd have a much better chance of encountering them up further north of there in the Klamath and Siskiyou wilderness areas; that is, IF you could get yourself up into that wild country.

As far as parties up there back in the day involving hundreds of people.... well, I don't know what to say. I've heard local kids talking about such wild excursions into the night. I'd bet a lot of those passenger cars got busted oil pans like I did last year (in my VW Golf that time, and yes, it DID make it on previous trips, though I usually use a 4WD truck). I'd venture to guess many a drunken youth drove off the side of those hills and met a ghastly fate. They are "roads," but surely not the kind of thing one expects to find in a suburban neighborhood. Those roads are rugged, primitive, and often quite dangerous. Just ask Daniel Perez, whose RV plummeted off the mountainside and burst into flames, nearly crushing and immolating him. Or ask Craig Woolheater, who nearly rolled down a several hundred foot near vertical cliff when he got stuck on the rock slide above the PGF site. It's precarious, believe me!

See below for a detail of the topo map featuring the general film site area, MK Davis' site to the west, the Barackman site to the east.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
So, was Gimlin mistaken when he said it was getting dark around 3:30 - 4:00 ?

( Actually he said the Sun went down at that time, but since we know it was a bit later, perhaps he has speaking in terms of when the Sun dropped below the trees/ridge line .. )

The Creek flowing east-west at that point, doesn't mean there was an un-obstructed view all the way to the horizon; not to mention, the azimuth of the Sun would have been somewhat south-west, at that time of the day/year .. ( about 243deg at 4pm )
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Lund Bluff Creek Maybe.JPG (46.3 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg PGF TOPO MAP RAW.jpg (96.4 KB, 2 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 Back to Top
Old 26th November 2010, 07:10 PM   #4668
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
The area is way too convoluted, steep, and thickly grown over with trees and undergrowth. It is a very daunting proposal just to bushwhack a quarter mile or so down to the film site from the small spur road above it. We did this last month, and I can assure you it was quite precarious and slow-going.


Sounds like the wrong kind of terrain for a bipedal primate. If they existed they should be in more open and level situations. Myths can live anywhere we want them to.
__________________
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 26th November 2010, 10:17 PM   #4669
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Sounds like the wrong kind of terrain for a bipedal primate. If they existed they should be in more open and level situations. Myths can live anywhere we want them to.
Swim-fin-like feet don't make sense in that environment.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 26th November 2010, 10:24 PM   #4670
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Mr. Parcher's Debunking and Our Bluff Creek Film Site Project

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Sounds like the wrong kind of terrain for a bipedal primate. If they existed they should be in more open and level situations. Myths can live anywhere we want them to.
Likewise, one might argue that it is the perfect domain for an adaptable biped of great strength and agility to AVOID contact with those less agile and strong naked apes. Meldrum has in fact argued that his stipulated mid-tarsal flexibility of the Sasquatch foot makes them ideally suited for such terrain. This is not mentioning any proposed or witnessed and reported climbing or quadrupedal abilities.

I am not here or even involved in Bigfooting to PROVE that Bigfoot exists or not. I am more curious about the existence of that POSSIBILITY as it plays out in the human mind and in the field. Personally, I am very inclined toward believing there is something like what is described in the "mythology" actually living out there. This comes from consideration of the admittedly sometimes spotty physical evidence, but even more so based upon the now nearly innumerable sightings I've had described to me by witnesses in my area (Willow Creek, Humboldt County). I dislike it when out-of-town and tourist customers in my shop ask me, "Do you believe in Bigfoot, then?" I tell them I don't like that type of question, that it isn't a matter of believing, but one of inquiring and investigating. I usually say back to them that, "It is harder out here to disbelieve than it is to simply believe."

Also this: people often offer the critique of the Patterson-Gimlin film that asks why the creature would retreat along the wide-open and visible, arguably vulnerable course that it does in the film. Having been to what I believe to be the correct film site, as well as from what I can observe in the film, I see that the creature actually takes the most logical escape route. As the hillside to the north is very steep, and the downstream route is blocked by piles of flood-washed wood debris and a sharp bend into a bottleneck in the creek, the creature moves back and toward the upper wooded area providing retreat and cover either up the less steep southeastern hill or up to a hard northward turn in the creek which would allow it to disappear from view most quickly.

See, quite frequently the very point used to debunk may be used even more strongly to support a point, when seen with the correct view based upon actual on-the-site investigation.

I'd just like to ask Mr. Parcher (not to be contentious or insulting, mind you): Have you ever actually been to Bluff Creek and the PGF site? Critiques based upon Google Earth observation can only get one so far. I'll admit there are difficulties and contradictions in the timeline of events and the recounting. What I and my associates have been trying to do is ascertain what really happened, when it happened, where it happened, and which accounts of what happened may be considered reliable or not. That is all. We are NOT claiming to know everything. Quite contrarily, we are admitting that little is clear in this PGF subject, that there are conflicting accounts, that there indeed is disagreement on the site location, that it is basically unclear what the state of the roads in there at the time was and which were built when; and yes, I will admit that there clearly was hoaxing going on up there in 1958 and following, done by Ray Wallace and any number of copy-cat jokesters. We just want to sort the wheat from the chaff and find out the truth. I hope you can appreciate that.

Best regards,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek

PS--as per my previous post, do look at the satellite view below to see just how remote and unoccupied the Bluff Creek basin really is. No, it is not pristine roadless land, but it is rather immense and still rather wild. The film site area is in the upper left hand corner, the highway overpass bridge is down at the bottom beneath "Wright Place" along Highway 96.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Bluff Creek Orleans G-O Road.jpg (61.6 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 Back to Top
Old 26th November 2010, 10:51 PM   #4671
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
AlaskaBushPilot and all,

In the Google Earth image you used above, take the yellow arrow and continue its line straight across to the opposite edge of the photo. That area you see below the resulting line--where one sees the gravel bars and the creek--that is the film site most agree upon (the GPS co-ordinates given in the image are incorrect, even for the MK Davis downstream site). Now, see beneath your arrow's line where the trees within that big bend and gulch are obviously shorter than the ones just to the north of that? Those are the small alder and maple and fir trees regrowing there since the 1964 flood. This is the film site gravel/sand bar overgrown. You can actually see a line of demarcation between the older hillside trees and those growing on the level bar. In 1967 when the film was shot this whole gulch area of younger trees was nearly totally denuded. Note also that those smaller trees growing on the old sand bar are fully exposed to the sunlight in this image. The creature in the film, then (if it were in this particular image), would have started walking in the shade after the first sighting, but the whole rest of the film until the shady end part would have been in the sunlight. I hope this clarifies. I do dearly wish we could get good aerial photos of the area from the 1950s and 1960s, even the 1970s. As part of our project we will be pestering the local Forest Service and County officials as to this, also gathering data on the road conditions and logging projects.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek
Bigfoot's bLog

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Well, yes - I'm obviously on the same team there. I just thought it wise to leave open the possibility that some spot along the creek might have a splotch of sunshine.
But your correction makes it daunting! Ten degrees - OK I concede it is nigh impossible.
In this Google Earth frame I used the coordinates last offered by LTC8K6. That puts us on top of a clump of trees, but no coordinates I've seen put us right on the most likely candidates we can clearly see with both google earth and the topos.
Just upstream from the mark are a couple of good clear spots that have remained the top candidates for me. Look closely - you can identify individual trees and their shadows:
[I had to excise image link due to JREF new member posting policy. See below for thumbnail.]
I put a yellow arrow in there pointing as the sun would from 243 degrees. So observe that with the sun quite high in the sky as with the google image, the tree shadows are completely across the clearings. This is before noon, but not by a lot, as can be inferred from the shadow angles.
If we search with our eyes for a place with the sun at ten degrees and azimuth 243 where the creek bed is going to have sunshine...
How on earth is there going to be a clearing with sunshine?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg BluffCreekGoogle Earth 2009.jpg (121.5 KB, 2 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 Back to Top
Old 27th November 2010, 12:56 AM   #4672
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Perhaps Mr. Parcher Could Knock off the Swastika Steve Business?

OK, Mr. Parcher, although it was good for a few chuckles back in the day, perhaps you could desist in the use of derogatory "SwastikaSteve" references, especially as I am now a member of this forum. It may indeed constitute a violation of posting regulations. So, no more "Charlie Manson Eyes" or "BipolarBookBoy," either, and let's get on with some inquiry and discussion of a more mature and reasonable nature.

OK, look. First, I had indeed heard these murmurings about "flipped frames" in the PGF. In fact, MK Davis himself even accused me of doing the deed myself on his radio show. Actually, my screen captures posted on my blog something like a year ago is what we were looking at as seen in the Bluff Creek Film Site Project videos you are mocking. At that time I was looking for a decent copy of the Patterson-Gimlin film that actually included the full frames and full film, not some TV-documentary edited version or Legend Meets Science zoom-in cropping of it. The problem is, everyone looks at the film subject, and they seem to have forgotten over the years to look at the surrounding scenery and context of the film. We are trying to do that as part of our desire to find the real site of the track-way seen in the film.

It was NOT easy to find a decent copy of the full film, believe me. Eventually I did, but for a while I was stuck viewing this version of one of John Green's copies as seen in the BBC X-Creatures documentary show. Yes, this is the one later re-narrated for American idiom and style (dumbed down, actually), and broadcast by the Discovery Channel. This film is seen being shown from the actual reel on a projector in Green's home. It has his comments in the background as mentioned, also showing the rare preliminary footage on the reel (brief glimpses anyway), and the first frames. I was excited to have this at the time; but yes, those first few frames did present a puzzle, indeed! Why was there this strange blur, then jump, and suddenly the creature was on the other side of the puddle, seep, bog, creek, or whatever one calls the spot seen in the frames, and past the log debris there, too. Well, I pondered on it, took screen captures, and didn't really bother with the issue much after that. It was explained to me by some as simple film stutter, Patterson slipping on the gravel bar as he ran up it, maybe letting go of the camera trigger, etc. This seemed good enough to not worry too much about the matter. It wasn't really my concern at the time. Also, however, I associated the few comments that I received from mainly anonymous folks with the MK Davis massacre crowd, or else Leroy Blevins' odd attempts to debunk the film. You know, those folks like Jim Lansdale who claim that the film was edited into three segments, cutting out the supposed gunshots and blood and the creature stumbling, etc. So, you see? I was pushed away from taking that angle of inquiry seriously due to some of the strange conspiratorial thinking surrounding it. And this--I never did have anyone tell me this was being discussed on JREF or wherever else. I did Google it a while back and lo, there were no useful links to "flipped frame PGF" or whatever combination I used. So, it was filed away behind more pressing interests.

It is those interests I and my associates have been pursuing of late. Namely, we are not trying to prove the film a hoax, or to prove the creature is real, or to prove the film was never cut, clipped or edited in any way. I have no idea why the film has a flipped frame in it, but since you mentioned it I did look into it. Guess what I found? You are correct. There is no doubt, looking at the superimposition image I made of two frames, seen below. In my screen capture, taken from YouTube, the resolution was not good enough to see which direction the creature was moving in. Now I do, and one can clearly see how the background trees line up perfectly. See, I don't mind you pointing it out.

It doesn't bother me at all, as, in fact, what you see in our video is a highly edited condensation of about two hours of unrehearsed and wide-ranging discussion and consideration of various photos and film clips I would dig around in my computer files or on my blog and find for us to look at. Mainly, we were interested in the layout of the film site, its topography, the background trees in the stable part of it, the diagrams of the track-way and camera position, etc., as well as the various accounts of the timeline of that day the film was shot. We were not too concerned about this strange little quirk in one of the early frames of the film. It did seem odd to me, though. In fact, you can hear me in the video saying, "And what the heck is THAT???" After that I am then speculating on the camera angle Patterson took toward the creature in that and the following frames, not necessarily too concerned with the size of that puddle (or creek, or seep) seen there, whether it was rounded as you depict in your satirical joking image, or whether Green was trying to hide a pool of blood left behind by the Bluff Creek Massacre.

Now that you mention it, I'm glad to have your explanation of that early frame from the film. Thanks. But see, it does not make me a "dope," or "pathetic," just because I am seen speculating on WTF one or two film frames contain. This was largely irrelevant to our concerns, as you may see in the attached images below. To my eye this does NOT look like the creek itself, the so-called ripples seem to me rather more like the same blur one sees on the adjacent wood and rock debris, and there is certainly enough of it seen in the few brief frames to show the nature of it. It looks like a seep to me. And indeed, if you had ever been to the PGF site, you would see that there ARE indeed such boggy seeps off to the side of the creek and up on the sandbar too. So, perhaps you'd like to retract your rash declarations?

I am certainly not trying to prove that I know everything about the film and the film site and the history surrounding the making of the film. It seems, in your rush to ridicule, that you miss the point of our mission. We are in fact TRYING to confuse ourselves by exposing ourselves to the complexity of the current state of opinion and the often contradictory histories of the site and events. We are investigating seven plausible site locations. Since I've been publishing this stuff on my blog I've had three other sites proposed to me by serious researchers, people who claim to have been there, some with Dahinden and some with MK Davis. We WANT to know all of the opinions on the matter so that we may INQUIRE about them. It would surely be easier to just "believe" one or the other; but surely folks here on JREF would rather we actually tried to find the actual evidence and history of the thing? Right? Any other view is contrary to the spirit of inquiry, to my mind.

Now let's look at this issue a bit more closely. You will see in the images below that it does not look like it matches the Titmus diagram, and the view of the camera would have been pointing away from the creek and the rootball at that point. Look at the Titmus sketch. Patterson starts filming right on the creekside, holding the camera up toward the creature which has already retreated some 112 feet back away from the creek and veering slightly to the eastward. Known descriptions of the creek flowing at the film site, as well as current day conditions we found there this summer DO NOT correspond with a weird northeastward bump and flow of the creek to account for what is seen in those early frames. Look at the direction Patterson runs in the diagram: he is moving away from the original sighting, and apparently never held his camera facing downstream toward the original sighting spot. Look for "Frame 1" in the Krantz diagram to the right of Titmus' one. The film subject is already far from that location when he gets the camera from the horsepack and starts the film rolling.

I would argue that Mr. Parcher should not be so sure of himself in this case, though he was correct enough to point out that early frame was flipped. I appreciate, actually, that he pointed it out. It doesn't bother me to be temporarily "wrong" about some small point while I am conducting an on-going investigation, experiment or inquiry. In fact, isn't this the way one is supposed to proceed, by trial and error, in any learning process or scientific theorizing? In truth, Parcher's attack was mostly simple ad hominem, with a little nit-picking throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater hastiness thrown in.

I hope we may now proceed into more fruitful parameters of discussion.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek
Bigfoot's bLog

[quote=William Parcher;6588547]He responded with 100% mumbojumbo.
Yeah. He and his partner are lost in a world of confusion. They think they are looking at a "seep" or water puddle or something and that they will make a note to look for that the next time they go hunting for the exact location. Duh! They are looking at the flowing creek itself... just like it is illustrated in Titmus' map which they are also looking at. They can't seem to connect the dots and realize that they are seeing the actual root logjam (said to conceal Patty) and the creek running under it. You can even see little riffles in the moving water.
This is what they are imagining since they make no mention of a flipped frame. If you watch their video and follow the conversation closely - it's obvious that they do not account for a flipped frame at all. They talk as if there is nothing wrong with the scene.
Steve & Robert's Patty World Panorama...
[Had to remove image link.]
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PGF First Frames 2.jpg (61.9 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg PGF First Frames MERGE.jpg (39.1 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg PGF Diagram Titmus Krantz.jpg (22.7 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg PGF First Frames 4.jpg (73.1 KB, 2 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 Back to Top
Old 27th November 2010, 12:56 AM   #4673
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
First, thanks for responding, Steve.

Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
Also, in regard to the concept of doing a game drive I would say: GOOD LUCK! It would NEVER work in there. The area is way too convoluted, steep, and thickly grown over with trees and undergrowth.
That's EXACTLY why you do a directed drive in this area. I've got more than 30 years of experience doing them. You put me down there and I'll design a drive that will flush whatever is in there out.

I guess one of the circularities is that bigfoot hunters are not competent enough to flush one out, so the "proof" of their existence is this very incompetence.


Quote:
It is a very daunting proposal just to bushwhack a quarter mile or so down to the film site from the small spur road above it. We did this last month, and I can assure you it was quite precarious and slow-going.
As someone who lives in the woods full-time my advice is to learn how game trails work - where they will be, how to identify them, how to figure out what the animals are using them for (e.g. bedding to water, water to food, water to bedding, or whatever).

People that don't spend much time in the woods think about cardinal directions instead of the animal habitat and what dictates their movements. it is always, always, always easier to locate game trails and take them instead of blundering around. That's a good way to get hurt, tired, and lost.

If there are no game trails - then you'll have a hard time convincing anyone with animal sense that there's game. Animals are creatures of habit and they have regular daily schedules of feeding, water, sleeping - and getting between places.

You can't have it both ways by the way - claim on the one hand that the terrain is impossible for humans but ideal for a humanoid. I I have a very good friend from Humboldt County I climbed McKinley with and have done a lot of remote stuff with.

I've been all over down there backpacking. Not little car trips on week-ends, but weeks at a time. We're both here for the same reason: there is nothing, absolutely nothing down there even remotely close to the wilderness here.


Quote:
In reply to the person who said that Bluff Creek is not remote I would reply:
Well, yes, there are a lot of logging roads through there.
That was me. I live in interior Alaska and there are no roads whatsoever in tens of millions of acres behind my cabin. You just aren't going to make any headway with me about this place being remote.

In your reply you did not even mention the improved road on top of the bluff to the west. It is literally right over the site. You did mention all the logging roads to the east but tried to minimize them.

The fact there are any roads at all means it is way less remote than I would even be interested in going to. I can walk out my front door and be more remote than that. Not the back door - the front door. I've had to shoot bears trying to push their way in.

Quote:
IF you could get yourself up into that wild country.

That talk goes over with city folks, or what we call "townies" here. But not people that actually live in this kind of country.

It seems to me people who don't live in places like this have it backwards. If you spend much time in the wilderness, then you see animals all over the place, going about their business. You know where they'll be at what times of the day.

You just be discreet in your movements and they'll be coming out getting drinks from the streams, munching berries, chewing willow buds, etc. Bears grazing like cows in grass fields in the spring, sheep in the high ground, moose in the scrub - tracks all over the place...

These bigfooters try to make it sound like the wilderness is some mystifying place nobody knows anything about and nobody ever goes to where animals are hidden away never to be seen.


Quote:
Here is what Lund sent me so far:

"That photo was taken by Rene Dahinden and it is looking towards the rock slide to the left. You can just see it as a tan spot on the oposite side of the valley. The film site is just below that slide spot. Hope this helps!"
Thanks, Steve.

In a later post you indicated a spot that was also my top candidate for the film site.
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 Back to Top
Old 27th November 2010, 01:57 AM   #4674
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Alaska,

Yes, I've been up there, and it does make the states to the south seem small and trampled upon. Your backyard, though, sounds a lot like mine. I had a bear here in my yard just the other night, and I live only a half mile up a dirt road from our little hamlet of Willow Creek. From my yard to Willits to the south there is basically nothing in between, save for a tiny rural two-lane highway.

Now, to the west of the film site is Onion Mountain Road merging with Blue Creek Mountain Road, which was still being constructed in 1967. It is "improved" if you mean graded dirt over giant rocks and sinkholes. It is a basic dirt forest road, not paved or graveled. The G-O Road is fairly nearby, I'll admit that, but that too was built after 1967. It's a paved two-lane going up into "nowhere." It dead-ends where the Native American sacred highlands stopped it. Go in from there, I hear, and there is a lot of Sasquatch activity going on.

One must keep in mind that many of those roads shown on the topo maps are no longer roads, but have been "put to bed," just like the road down to the PGF site has been.

It is a semi-wild, semi-tamed, but regrowing forest landscape. It is said that the Bigfoot does not require absolutely wild land, you know. Like deer, they often find new opportunities in despoiled or damaged or logged or burnt or even human-inhabited land. In fact, it is in those areas where they are most often seen. Or so I am told.

I think I had one come down the hill into my yard here on the mountainside two years ago or so; but I don't really want to talk about that here.

It would be interesting to see what your Bigfoot Game Drive would produce. I'd be happy to facilitate if there were no guns or mortal hunting involved.

By the way---we bushwhacked down to the site not as an ideal route, but rather trying to replicate Rene Dahinden's "aerial" view photo. We could have gone right down the dirt road to the creek level if we'd have wanted to. And yes, we do find a lot of game trails up in there, lots of bear, deer, and mountain lion sign. When I was up there this spring I saw five bears in one day. The next trip I saw three in two days. That's pretty good for California.

Best,
Steve, BF Books/BF's BLOG
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 Back to Top
Old 27th November 2010, 04:02 AM   #4675
demonunderyourbed
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 245
heres some extended footage of the late stan winston commenting on the pgf film plus other comments on bigfoot...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ptxy...layer_embedded
demonunderyourbed 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 27th November 2010, 07:48 AM   #4676
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
In reply to the person who said that Bluff Creek is not remote I would reply:
Well, yes, there are a lot of logging roads through there...There was some kind of road above the PGF site back in the days, but it was apparently NOT passable around 1967 (in fact, in the topo map above you can see a gap in the middle of it).
It depends on who you talk to.

Rene Dahinden made the Patterson film site sound fairly isolated when he said Patterson and Gimlin "were in rugged country, twenty-five miles from the nearest blacktop." (Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature, page 114)

Peter Byrne however, makes the area sound like a typical weekend getaway, or camping area, with a dirt road running alongside the bed of Bluff Creek. He writes that "a hoax party could too easily be surprised by a car coming up this creek bed road...", and, "any weekend one was liable to encounter small groups of people from Hoopa, or from Willow Creek, or even further, driving up there in their cars...". (The Search for Bigfoot, pages 148-149)


Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
OK, Mr. Parcher, although it was good for a few chuckles back in the day, perhaps you could desist in the use of derogatory "SwastikaSteve" references, especially as I am now a member of this forum.
Why so serious? Where's your sense of satire? It's not derogatory, it's descriptive alliteration. Taking a cue from your blog entry, William has merely pinned an instantly recognizable nickname to you that leaves no doubt who he is talking about.

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 27th November 2010, 09:01 AM   #4677
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
It is not easy to say with any certainty which roads were passable and when. There was some kind of road above the PGF site back in the days, but it was apparently NOT passable around 1967 (in fact, in the topo map above you can see a gap in the middle of it).
There must have been an array of passable roads back in 1967 because Gimlin said this to Green in 1992...

Quote:
Well first we set up camp of course. Then the way we do is just ride the roads, when these guys were working on the roads with bulldozers and everything, as quick as they'd quit working, we would ride up in that area and search for tracks or whatever we'd run into - then we would take the one ton pick-up when the equipment was off the road, so we could drive the roads. We would drive the roads at night real slow looking for tracks crossing the road. Of course in the day time we couldn't drive the roads 'cause they were working on the roads up in there. They had started logging in some areas and the logging trucks had started coming down from there. We covered as many miles as we could with the amount of time that we had. We could only go out so far then we had to go back to camp. I mean, we did ride back to camp and use the truck to drive the roads at night time.

The roads were so passable that they routinely used them to look for Bigfoot tracks at night. They used this truck (Gimlin's actual truck pictured here)...

__________________
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 27th November 2010, 11:08 AM   #4678
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
a poster at another site has shown using google earth and other software that from the perspective of the film site, the sun would reach the mountain top at about 5pm on Oct. 20, ie the place would be in direct sunlight until 5pm. I have elsewhere posted the time apparent sunset, about an hour and a half later.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 27th November 2010, 11:21 AM   #4679
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
OK, Mr. Parcher, although it was good for a few chuckles back in the day, perhaps you could desist in the use of derogatory "SwastikaSteve" references, especially as I am now a member of this forum. It may indeed constitute a violation of posting regulations. So, no more "Charlie Manson Eyes" or "BipolarBookBoy," either, and let's get on with some inquiry and discussion of a more mature and reasonable nature.
BF-BM:
What have you posted on your blog that would prompt someone to identify you as "SwastikaSteve"? did you post a bunch of swastikas?
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 27th November 2010 at 11:34 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 Back to Top
Old 27th November 2010, 11:27 AM   #4680
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
If Patterson is pouring plaster at 5pm there is going to be a serious problem with the film delivery timeline. He has to wait at least an hour for it to dry. Then they have to ride back to camp before driving away with the film.
__________________
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
Closed Thread

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 01:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.