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 27th November 2010, 12:01 PM   #4681
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
[quote=BigfootBookman;6596617]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.


Well, you put on some swim fins and tell me how much they help your bushwhacking abilities. The fact that you swallow Meldrum's rationalizations about huge flexible feet speaks volumes about your gullibility. ( by the way I think you mean "postulated," not "stipulated." lol)
__________________
"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, 12:39 PM   #4682
mangler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
Parn,

NASA software does not agree with google, notice the two digital clocks. One also needs to factor in trees as well as loss of ambient light.


m
Click to enlarge...

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 27th November 2010, 01:31 PM   #4683
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Mangler, what is your interpretation of this, in terms of when it got dark at the film site?
__________________
"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, 02:37 PM   #4684
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
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.
Bigfoot believers gather by the hundreds, literally, on a regular basis, in close proximity to "hot spots" where bigfoots are thought to be found. Yet they would rather sit around and listen to bad ballads about Roger Patterson than form a circle drive to actually find a bigfoot.
__________________
"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, 02:46 PM   #4685
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Every line is 20 feet of elevation, and the thicker lines are 100-foot demarcations.
40/200 I believe.
__________________
"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, 02:47 PM   #4686
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
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.
Did they account for the trees? You can show mathematically that the clearing has to be more than 800 feet clear of any trees in order to have sun at that time of day. I calculated it at 14 degrees, but apparently with correction for PDT it's only ten degrees at 5 pm.

If they don't account for the 160-180 foot canopy, which by the way is highest just off the waterways for obvious reasons - the better soils and water conditions - then their "proof" omits the most important source of shading. It isn't the mountain tops. It is the tree you are nearest.

I also want to illustrate how not-remote this place is more forcefully:



I have circled the obvious clear-cut areas they've logged in here. I've also put in lines where the most obvious roads are. It is clear to me that other areas I have not circled have also been logged, but long enough ago that the trees have grown back to considerable, but not full height.

Basically the whole area has been logged with the exception of the places it is not legal like along the waterways. I'm not sure what the set-backs in California are, but they are far enough to where there is a full canopy along the waterways even if the whole area around it is clearcut.

It's typical rotational logging, where you farm the trees in patches and can come back every fifty years or whatever and log the same patch again.

I've also marked only the biggest roads.

These are logging roads that have to be big enough and improved enough during operations to support 18-wheelers hauling a load of logs. Anything an 18-wheeler can do, your grandmother can do in a clunker with bald tires, so long as it is dry.

Forget about Gimlin's truck. I've build roads up here, for a few years I developed property for a living and hired out as an operator, and I own heavy equipment. I run bulldozers, loaders, excavators, dump trucks - everything but graders. I know what the standards are for road-building, including logging, and at the time of the film they were punching roads in here anyone could drive on with any vehicle produced since 1900.

As I zero in closer it is very easy to see the smaller roads and trails, and there are a hell of a lot of them. I'm pretty good at doing this, and anyone who is a pilot or spends any time in a plane chasing trails knows how to see them on aerials and google. The place is CRAWLING with roads and trails.

Steve knows he can't snow me and I appreciate that he's backed off on the insinuations of the remoteness as well as the ability to move around in here. I want to remain being cordial but at the same time still insist on proper characterization of this area. If you can't do a game drive in here then you are a complete retard.

It is a veritable maze of roads and trails, an area with decades of rotational logging, including the time of the alleged Patterson film, and for which it is impossible for a population of bigfoot to have lived without people making crisp and clear photos, shooting one, hitting one with a vehicle, picking up the pile of poop they witnessed, etc.
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, 03:10 PM   #4687
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
40/200 I believe.

Ha ha! I'm such an idiot! I should read the legend at the bottom of the map. Thanks for making me look.

It's a quadrangle, not a sectional. So it's 80 feet beteen each contour line as it says on the legend. Duh!

Now about tree shading:

The correction for PDT given earlier was about ten degrees at 5 pm on that day.

Tangent ten degrees = .176.

Therefore a 160 foot tree canopy needs 160/.176 = 909 foot clearing needed to be in the sunshine.

Since the trees are largest near the waterway though, a 160-180 ft canopy is actually going to give you 180ft not 160 ft trees, and trees growing say 20 ft off the floor of the creek gives you 200 ft tips off the creek floor:

200/.176 = 1,136 ft of required clearance.

That's more than two-tenths of a mile.

That's why it is so important to factor the tree height into whether there is going to be shade on the site. Once you have trees growing on a rapidly ascending topography, you can forget about there being sunshine anywhere on the creek bottom except for isolated splotches that are opening/closing minute by minute as the sun moves between a small break in the canopy.
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 28th November 2010, 04:48 AM   #4688
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
LOL all You Want, but a Smug Attitude is Not Really Conducive to Fruitful Inquiry

Parnassas, don't LOL quite so quickly.

What I am saying is that Meldrum "stipulates" the supposed mid-tarsal flexibility as the basis of his theory of Sasquatch anatomy, and hence as well of his assumptions of its locomotive adaptations and adaptability to certain terrains.

It is not gullibility to offer as a contrary proposition in a debate a theory held by another writer, scientist or scholar. I am saying, This is what Dr. Jeff Meldrum thinks and proposes. I am not necessarily saying that I agree, nor am I saying that I KNOW this to be true (or not). I have never actually seen a Bigfoot foot, myself, so how could I really say? I find Meldrum's idea interesting. It is one plausible notion and explanation I am merely bringing up in reference to the other assumption stated here that declared an upright biped would not find steep mountainous terrain agreeable. Likewise, I do not know if your "swim fin" comparison is apt, and nor do you. Perhaps what you see as a big floppy foot is really not such at all; perhaps it is a perfect adaptation. Again, you do not know either way.

As to my perhaps less ordinary (or maybe even unconventional) use of "stipulation," do please note that this is one of the sub-definitions of the word, "stipulate":

"to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof: to stipulate the existence of certain facts or that an expert witness is qualified."
(source, Dictionary.com, though I could get out my OED)

I suppose that use of "proof" in the dictionary will cause another round of guffawing LOLs. Ha ha. LOL. OK. Moving on....

Steve
Bigfoot Books

[quote=parnassus;6597615]
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
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.

Well, you put on some swim fins and tell me how much they help your bushwhacking abilities. The fact that you swallow Meldrum's rationalizations about huge flexible feet speaks volumes about your gullibility. ( by the way I think you mean "postulated," not "stipulated." lol)

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 28th November 2010 at 04:50 AM.
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 28th November 2010, 08:59 AM   #4689
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
Since pretty much no sasquatch tracks show any sign of a mid-tarsal break, I think it's safe to say that such a feature must be placed in the "highly unlikely" box.

We also have zero idea of the construction of the supposed sasquatch foot, which also limits anyone's ability to say anything about such a feature.

The fact that Meldrum gets away with such tosh, is a testament to the desperation of believers to have something to grab on to.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 11:04 AM   #4690
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
BF-BM:

Characterizing me is just an irrelevant ad hom ie it has nothing to do with the issues.

Meldrum is all over the highly flexible foot; look at his book starting at p. 229, and don't neglect the set of three stills in which he shows the forefoot of the PGF subject flapping in the breeze. He repeats this sequence around p. 170. In his video appearance with the Stanford gait lab people he mentions the subject has difficulty clearing the ground with his big feet, and in the computer gait analysis around p. 170 and featured in his DVD you can see the subject walks like someone with swim fins on.

By the way, trying to 'cover your tracks" on the "stipulate" meaning just makes it worse. It's one thing to misuse a word once by accident or ignorance; it's another to try to defend it as correct. "Stipulate" has an element of coming to an agreement with another party about admitting evidence without testimony or other proof, and is generally used in a legal sense. Meldrum's theory has nothing to do with that. You are digging yourself a deeper hole, my friend. A book dealer should have a better command of the English language!!
__________________
"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; 28th November 2010 at 11:15 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 28th November 2010, 11:15 AM   #4691
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
One side of an argument can't stipulate anything regarding the argument, can they? Both sides would have to agree, wouldn't they?

I think Meldrum has unilaterally declared the mid-tarsal break, and thus he became a believer's tool.
__________________
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; 28th November 2010 at 11:16 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 28th November 2010, 11:18 AM   #4692
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
BF-BM,
McLarin talks about coming up a road on the east/south side of the creek. You don't seem to show that. What's up with that?
__________________
"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 28th November 2010, 02:13 PM   #4693
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 those interests I and my associates have been pursuing of late.

What do you have to say about this underlined statement made by Roger Patterson?


__________________
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 28th November 2010, 02:39 PM   #4694
Wakeup
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
What do you have to say about this underlined statement made by Roger Patterson?


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/826153c4.png
And Gimlin said Rogers horse didn't fall. How can something like this be so different if in fact the horse fell. Did Roger at one point say the horse 'pinned' him under as the horse fell on top of him?...This was his account just day's after the Bluff Creek encounter. Lucky for Patterson that Gimlin stopped doing interviews shortly after the film. Who knows what other stories they couldn't keep right. Obviously the event never happened.
Wakeup 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 28th November 2010, 05:09 PM   #4695
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,906
Roger said the horse fell on his stirrup, flattening it. I don't recall if the said his foot was in the stirrup. He used the flattened stirrup as evidence of the encounter.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 05:20 PM   #4696
Wakeup
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 61
Then if the sturrup was flattened then obviously the horse cam crashing down. Yet Gimlin to this day said the horse reared and Roger dismounted. That is a HUGE difference in the story.
Wakeup 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 28th November 2010, 05:29 PM   #4697
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,323
I've read one version where both P&G were thrown from their horses ..
I believe Roger was telling this version ..
__________________
" 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. "
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 28th November 2010, 05:45 PM   #4698
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Roger said the horse fell on his stirrup, flattening it. I don't recall if the said his foot was in the stirrup. He used the flattened stirrup as evidence of the encounter.

He said his foot was hurt in the incident. He spoke of enduring the pain as he ran after Patty with the camera.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 05:48 PM   #4699
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Replying to All, Briefly

OK, first AlaskaBushPilot,
I know that Bluff Creek is not pristine wilderness. However, it is surrounded by wilderness-designated areas from the Klamath, Siskiyou and Marble Mountains to the Trinity Alps. It is generally a remote, sparsely occupied, open and wild area, though clearly not anything like what one may find in Alaska. The trees here do get a lot larger than the somewhat stunted northern ones I saw in your state, however. There is, too, a lot of old growth scattered about in the Bluff Creek basin, not just along the creeks and lakes; but yes, it is sometimes depressing to see the impacts of the logging and how the forests are growing back in dense thickets of overcrowded junk, or too sparsely in the drier areas. As with much of the forests in the lower 48, one must look around a bit to find remnant stands preserved, or second-growth starting to transition into a more noble looking state. As far as I know there is no logging going on up there any longer, save for a few attempts by Fire-Safe Councils to get undergrowth and downfall cleared for safety.

In the 1950s this was virgin timber. The road-building projects that first made Bigfoot famous as a name were punching in the first real road to allow for logging starting in 1956, putting up the bridge over Notice Creek at Louse Camp in 1958. There was a road of some kind going up the creek. As far as I know Jerry Crew and Ray Wallace were putting in the Bluff Creek-Onion Mountain to Louse Camp segment, running up the ridge and then down to the creek again. They were building in the Onion Mountain to Blue Creek Mountain extension in 1967 when they found the footprints up there that led to Patterson being called down here by Al Hodgson. There was logging going on at the time, too. These roads would be periodically graveled for use by the heavy log trucks. At this time the paved G-O Road to the north had not been built--it was a dirt cat trail at best back in the day. At the time of the PGF there was no road in a passable state down to the film site, though there had been a road build down in there at some time, and since then it was cut in again and logging projects were done down in that area. These roads kind of come and go, and are quite subject to destruction by landslides and mud, as well as overgrowth by vegetation. So, really, passable status depends upon maintenance. You can't tell everything about the state of things back in 1967 by looking at Google Earth today. Would that we could find a Google Earth image from 1967!

There was a road of some quality or other going up the creek traditionally and in the sixties. It was washed out by the 1964 flood, then plowed in again for salvage logging in 1965-66. It was passable, but I see no way it could have ever been an easy cruise for a normal passenger car. The creek banks are generally too steep to allow for a straight road to be cut. We theorize that it had to have forded back and forth across the creek many times. In fact, one may see remnants of this road cut even today. We followed many of them on our hike up the creek. It is quite overgrown now. One thing that is clear is that there never was appropriately level ground going consistently along the creek for this to ever have been a normal "improved" road. In his account of their exit from the area after the film had been sent Gimlin talks about trying to take this creek-bed road down, but finding it washed out and with mudslides. Hence, they had to go up to the ridge road. They got stuck there and had to use a tractor from construction up there to pull themselves out. Not exactly Disneyland in there, I'd say.

Anyway, there are a lot of roads up there, not really so many passable "trails." These old logging roads actually have degenerated into trail status in many of the cases, and they are slowly closing them off, leaving only a couple of main courses through the area. I certainly do not mean to characterize the Bluff Creek basin as untrammeled. It is, however, very steep, convoluted, densely overgrown in areas, and nothing like a tranquil open park. There was a lot more human access back in the day, but not really so much now. The owner of the Bluff Creek Resort tells me that business used to be booming with recreation, hunting, fishing, campers, etc. back in the day; but now it is rather desolate, with his store closed and his RV-camping area nearly vacant. When we are up there it is most common that we are the only group around. Very infrequently does one see someone else, and it is normally a pot grower or fellow Bigfooter when one does. Just let me say, it is RELATIVELY wild and fairly remote, especially for us here in California. I know it doesn't live up to your standards, as I've heard quite often from Alaskans who make statements saying nothing in California is really wild and natural any longer.

Now, regarding Parnassus: OK, well, none of us is perfect in language use, especially when hacking out quick answers on an online forum. If I am using that word "stipulate" incorrectly, you then have my apologies. I wasn't attacking you, just kidding a bit; but it would be nice if folks didn't jump to quickly to the schadenfreude LOL. Anyway, you know what I meant. Moving onward...

Parnassus--re. Jim McClarin, do you mean in regard to the discussion with him that I published on my blog? Keep in mind that nearly all of these old-time guys seem to confuse east and west with north or south when talking about the film site. This is due, I think, to the fact that they all came up the creek to get to the PGF site, and in doing so were heading northward. Hence the bank on the right hand side was east to them. But the creek turns just before the film site area and starts running to the east. From talking to him what I get is that they came along the north (west, he might say) side of the creek, crossed over a ford, then drove past what we call the "bat boxes" today, along the south (he'd say east) side of the creek to the bottom of the film site. He didn't seem to recall everything perfectly, and seems to lose patience with nitpicking questions from Bigfooters after a while. That's understandable. It was long ago that he retired from the field. There is a drawing from Richard Henry, in whose Jeep they first went to the site in late 1967, published by Daniel Perez in the BIGFOOT TIMES. I can try to get you an image of it (and permission from Daniel to post it here). It corresponds well with what Jim McClarin seemed to be saying.

Now, Mr. Parcher and WakeUp--YES, it IS problematic, isn't it???

I can't speak for Dr. Meldrum. I don't find every thing he says to be utterly convincing, but I think he is serious about his inquiry and does a good job trying to make sense of all this strange Bigfoot evidence. He's a fair and reasonable conversation partner, in the few times I talked with him. He was once here in my shop for about an hour and a half. He presents his hypotheses, and we may all consider them. Some may agree, others disagree, and that is the lot of all propositions. Some of what he says is quite convincing, other stuff I have to take a step back from and say wait a minute. To me the Paul Freeman stuff looks fake, but he likes it. So be it. Perhaps someday we will have the Bigfoot corpse and he'll be proven right in some areas and maybe wrong in others. Or maybe not....

I have been puzzled for quite a while now as to all the strangely divergent PGF timeline stories. I do not take that and then jump to the conclusion that the film was a hoax, or that all that they have said is lies, however. One real nasty problem is the timeline and the course of travel. I do not see, personally, how they could have tracked it for three miles upstream, gone downstream to get plaster, and gone up the hillside looking around, cast the tracks, let them dry, gone to town, seen Al Hodgson, delivered the film, etc. Some aspects of the story don't fit, and it needs to be sorted out somehow. For instance, Al Hodgson tells me that Roger told him that they had gone over Bald Hills Road and delivered the film to the post office in Eureka, and then come back to see him by 6:30 that evening. I don't see how they could have taken Bald Hills, nor why they would go so out of their way. I also see no sense in doing so when the post offices were closed. They could not have made it there by 5:00 in my opinion. Also, it seems Al does not remember correctly about the meetings he had with Patterson and Gimlin. Other accounts say that they came directly to Willow Creek, called Al, then went to Murray Field outside of Eureka, sent the film by plane, then went again back to Willow Creek and met again with Al and Syl McCoy at the Lower Trinity Ranger Station. This latter version makes sense and is more plausible within the time frames given.

I do not know why there is such variety and sometimes contradiction in the PGF story, but I would be HAPPY to get to the bottom of it. I and my associate have been planning to start a project to do this, ancillary to our attempts to find the film site. We want to gather every single interview or article with a statement about the events that day, and go through every early and later Bigfoot book mentioning it and the timeline, and then lay them all out in some kind of chart, spreadsheet or database. I think by doing this we could prove which parts of the story and the later retelling of it are plausible or accurate, and which parts cannot be so. Perhaps all of you can help? I'd be very happy for any links, scans or other information or leads you can provide, however skeptical of P and G you all might be. I just want to find the truth, as I've said. I know, you will say that the truth is that it was all a phony pack of lies and a hoax of a film. OK, bring it on. Let's find out. Just don't tell me about Bob Hieronimus.

WakeUp--Bob Gimlin didn't stop doing interviews. He did a number of them over the years, or was a source for material presented in books. He does talk a lot about the 1967 events now, at Bigfoot conferences where one may go right up and talk to him personally. I find him to be one of the most straightforward and plainspoken honest guys I've ever met.

Best regards,
Steve, Bigfoot Books
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 28th November 2010, 06:57 PM   #4700
Wakeup
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 61
BigfootBookman, Gimlin only did radio interviews the first 4 1/2 months after the encounter. Then Al Deatley and Roger took the show on the road and broke ties where Gimlin refused to participate due to Rogers buisness dealing before he left. Gimlin even admits this today. It wasn't until 1977 Bigfoot " in search of " season 1 (episode 5) when Gimlin made his $250 dollar interview from the efforts of Rene Dehinden. If i'm wrong on this someone provide me info otherwise. Thanks
Wakeup 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 28th November 2010, 08:52 PM   #4701
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
Now, Mr. Parcher and WakeUp--YES, it IS problematic, isn't it???
It's not a problem for a PGF believer. They just keep on believing.


Quote:
To me the Paul Freeman stuff looks fake, but he likes it. So be it. Perhaps someday we will have the Bigfoot corpse and he'll be proven right in some areas and maybe wrong in others. Or maybe not....
But if Bigfoot is never discovered Meldrum can just keep on believing. What on earth could cause him to stop believing now?

Quote:
I have been puzzled for quite a while now as to all the strangely divergent PGF timeline stories. I do not take that and then jump to the conclusion that the film was a hoax, or that all that they have said is lies, however. One real nasty problem is the timeline and the course of travel. I do not see, personally, how they could have tracked it for three miles upstream, gone downstream to get plaster, and gone up the hillside looking around, cast the tracks, let them dry, gone to town, seen Al Hodgson, delivered the film, etc. Some aspects of the story don't fit, and it needs to be sorted out somehow.
It hasn't stopped PGF believers from believing. Some have conceded that maybe the film development timeline is a lie... but then they see huge muscles and...and...and that thing isn't a guy in a suit so it isn't a hoax even if the timeline is a lie.


Quote:
I do not know why there is such variety and sometimes contradiction in the PGF story, but I would be HAPPY to get to the bottom of it.
We have gone over this for years here at JREF in many hundreds of thread pages on the PGF. There is no getting to the bottom of it when you have old and contradicting "facts". All you have is a set of differing anecdotes. I feel that a hoax is at the bottom of it and that is mainly why there is such a variety coming from the main players. But P&G knew their intended audience perfectly. Your stories do not need to make sense or even agree for the believers to believe. They just do. Patterson could see that feature of Bigfooters long before 1967. Then after his film he would learn that telling variable and far-fetched versions of his own story didn't matter. They just kept on believing and the money just kept rolling in. They even wrote books about it including an important guy named Krantz. Didn't Green and Krantz try to tally up the (impossible) timeline themselves? Did anybody ask Gimlin if the 3.5 mile Patty tracking quest was really true?

Quote:
I and my associate have been planning to start a project to do this, ancillary to our attempts to find the film site. We want to gather every single interview or article with a statement about the events that day, and go through every early and later Bigfoot book mentioning it and the timeline, and then lay them all out in some kind of chart, spreadsheet or database.
We have tons of PGF references here on JREF. You should start by reading the "411 PGF". It isn't just things like time-of-day-for-first-glimpse-of-Patty. It's also things like the variable distance away Patty was when they first saw her... how long she stood there before walking away, etc.

Quote:
I think by doing this we could prove which parts of the story and the later retelling of it are plausible or accurate, and which parts cannot be so.
I'm not sure that you could do any more than has already been done in this forum. JREF is an incredibly rich source for facts and theories concerning the PGF. Many important things originated here.

Quote:
Perhaps all of you can help? I'd be very happy for any links, scans or other information or leads you can provide, however skeptical of P and G you all might be. I just want to find the truth, as I've said. I know, you will say that the truth is that it was all a phony pack of lies and a hoax of a film. OK, bring it on. Let's find out. Just don't tell me about Bob Hieronimus.
You have lots of reading to do in older JREF threads. There are three major ones dealing with the PGF.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 09:09 PM   #4702
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
OK, first AlaskaBushPilot,
I know that Bluff Creek is not pristine wilderness. However, it is surrounded by wilderness-designated areas from the Klamath, Siskiyou and Marble Mountains to the Trinity Alps....
Well of course it isn't like a city park, as you mention. But technically it could not even be termed wilderness when it was designated in 1947 because to do so it by definition must be roadless, which it wasn't.

Right now I am reading A History of the Six Rivers National Forest. One thing that strikes me is the amount of private land, Indian Allotments, and active Forest Service logging lands incorporated into Six-Rivers in the 1940's when it was established.

There were indians living in areas they were tilling, gillnetting salmon, and harvesting local forest products. The loggers had been busy for decades, and this book has pictures of "steam donkeys" yarding huge tracts in the 1920's and shows intensive post-harvest burning in that region.

Patterson and Gimlin were on a road. An old road. There's no getting around that. I can fly my supercub over 100 miles of land and never see a sign of humans. That's wilderness.

It is pretty obvious to me that proponents rely on both urban ignorance and ignorance of the history in this region to portray this as a wilderness setting, and by that I mean at the time Patterson and Gimlin are taking horses along an old logging road.

In their stories they are pretty evasive about it too - saying that they came around a "bend in the river", which would be more truthfully stated as "came around a bend in the road".

A person telling the truth has no need to stage things or misrepresent. If you see bigfoot traveling on a road, then that's what you say.
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 28th November 2010, 09:22 PM   #4703
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
In their stories they are pretty evasive about it too - saying that they came around a "bend in the river", which would be more truthfully stated as "came around a bend in the road".

A person telling the truth has no need to stage things or misrepresent. If you see bigfoot traveling on a road, then that's what you say.

Whoopsie. Does this mean Roger told the truth?

Quote:
About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 09:25 PM   #4704
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
How did this first news story, which has R's horse falling on him, flattening a stirrup with his foot in it, and injuring said foot, as well as Gimlin releasing his own uncontrollable horse...become so different later?

All three horses are gone in this version...

Quote:
"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

"My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."

GIMLIN was astride an older horse which is generally trialwise, but it too rared (sic) and had to be released, running off to join their pack horse which had broken during the initial moments of the sighting.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 09:34 PM   #4705
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
In one version, Patty is "back up against the trees" when they spot her, which I interpret as "back up against the trees" (woodline), and an odd place for Patty to be first spotted because she was supposedly at the creek, but believers seem to interpret it as "back up against the giant stump"...
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 09:39 PM   #4706
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
How far was she at first sighting?

Quote:
about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up
Quote:
about 50 yards away
Quote:
about 120 feet away
Quote:
About 100 feet ahead
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 09:40 PM   #4707
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
"She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight."
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 09:42 PM   #4708
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,906
"GIMLIN was astride an older horse which is generally trialwise, but it too rared (sic) and had to be released, running off to join their pack horse which had broken during the initial moments of the sighting."

And don't forget that Gimlin also said he was breaking in a green horse (Chico) for Bob H.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 28th November 2010 at 09:43 PM.
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 28th November 2010, 10:20 PM   #4709
Wakeup
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
"GIMLIN was astride an older horse which is generally trialwise, but it too rared (sic) and had to be released, running off to join their pack horse which had broken during the initial moments of the sighting."

And don't forget that Gimlin also said he was breaking in a green horse (Chico) for Bob H.
Which Bob. H said Gimlin wasn't breaking in his horse, the horse was already broke. Gimlin also said he had the horse for 2 weeks Yet bob Claims it was less than week, "more like 5 day's" was his exact words.

Why so many conflicting accounts of the story. The truth has only ONE story line NOT 5. But this makes no difference to the Believers, they see a REAL sasquatch and anything else is not important.
Wakeup 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 28th November 2010, 10:32 PM   #4710
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Whoopsie. Does this mean Roger told the truth?
It means I'm being corrected, which I appreciate. It makes us better people.

My impression is still that Roger and Bob played up this insinuation with the pack horse and all that this was some kind of expedition, which it wasn't, and others afterwards have hyped it the place as wilderness, which it isn't.



Thanks.
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 28th November 2010, 10:43 PM   #4711
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,159
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yakimans.htm

In this version, they were crossing a creek when they spotted Patty.
__________________
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 28th November 2010, 10:46 PM   #4712
Wakeup
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
It means I'm being corrected, which I appreciate. It makes us better people.

My impression is still that Roger and Bob played up this insinuation with the pack horse and all that this was some kind of expedition, which it wasn't, and others afterwards have hyped it the place as wilderness, which it isn't.



Thanks.
Of Course there was no expedition. Roger Patterson set out to Bluff Creek to film a bigfoot and that's EXACTLY what he did. He even told this to people before he left town. Quote: " I'm going to Bluff Creek to film a bigfoot and get rich"...BINGO, what are the odds???
Wakeup 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 28th November 2010, 11:54 PM   #4713
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yakimans.htm

In this version, they were crossing a creek when they spotted Patty.
Dang, looks like "patty" grew a foot too compared to the other version.
River 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 29th November 2010, 12:47 AM   #4714
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
A History of the Six Rivers National Forest, and the Concept of "Wilderness"

Alaska, you have convinced me!
I'm just going to have to move to Alaska if I'm ever going to be in "real nature." You guys are always doing that, saying you are the only ones who have the "real" thing, and all of us down here in the lower 48 are just city-boy pansies deluded about our idea of "the outdoors." Ah well. (This is said with a jovial, joking tone, btw.)

I want to express deep gratitude in your mentioning that book,
A HISTORY OF THE SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST... Commemorating the First 50 Years.
By Pamela A. Conners, Historian, Six Rivers National Forest.
(Folks, just drop that into Google and it is free online! Choose the "foresthistory dot org" link that has "index dot html" in it. JREF won't let me post links yet, so maybe on of you should.)
I've never seen a copy of this locally, in my shop, not even in the local ranger stations. It looks great, and I will read it.

Anyway, the thing about Bigfoot is that it supposedly can live just about anywhere. It doesn't need to have wilderness, or so it is said. They turn up in reports from all kinds of scrappy areas. So it is said, I say. The PGF does not depend upon Bluff Creek being a wilderness, or "technically a wilderness because it never had roads built into it," or whatever. The road DID exist along and through Bluff Creek itself, cut in down in the actual creekbed. We have learned this from locals, the Bigfoot literature and researchers, and by being down in there ourselves and seeing it. No one is denying that. It was a dirt road cut in for logging access. I have found by interviewing Al Hodgson and my neighbor Jay Rowland that the road was washed out nearly completely by the 1964 flood, and then cut back in afterward to allow for clearing of the creekbed and salvage logging. It would have been there still in 1967, though perhaps maintained, as the creek-bed salvage logging ended in summer 1966.

The idea of Bluff Creek as a "wilderness" and being "virgin timber" in the Bigfooting history of the area comes from the early researcher and journalist descriptions of Bluff Creek itself, not the whole Six Rivers National Forest, in particular reference to the upper creek basin at the time the 1957-1958 Bigfoot-related events were investigated. Much of this comes from what members of the 1959-1962 Pacific Northwest Expedition said. Up from Louse Camp toward the film site was, to them, a wilderness. Technically? No. If you want wilderness to mean no human or vehicle ever, ever went in there. By 1967, of course, there had been much more impact. From what I am told by locals there was a logging boom in the whole area around here in the forties, fifties and sixties, even the seventies, slowly dying out until the current day where there are essentially no logging operations around but for what the Hupa are up to on the Hoopa Reservation. When Patterson and Gimlin were there they WERE on a road, of sorts, and they WERE along the creek. BOTH are true. The road followed and forded the creek up to and past the film site (though we don't know yet how much farther it went).

Parnassus, yes you are right--there is a lot of amazing stuff on the PGF here on JREF. I've popped in in the past and nabbed some cool info. and pics. It's a bit annoying to read all of the "It looks like a guy in a suit to me" stuff, and really, there are hundreds of pages of this stuff. The good and the bad mixed, like any forum. I will TRY to read through it all, I promise. I've kind of tried to stay away from the JREF in the past; but no, I am not a "fearful believer" who can't handle views critical of the PGF or Bigfoot. I think critical ideas are crucial to the development of knowledge and the refining of information. To that end, when I asked for any information folks here might have, what I meant is actual source documents, links to them, or scans of them, like the one William Parcher provided. THOSE are very useful; but further debunking opinion statements and scoffing are less so.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Well of course it isn't like a city park, as you mention. But technically it could not even be termed wilderness when it was designated in 1947 because to do so it by definition must be roadless, which it wasn't.

Right now I am reading A History of the Six Rivers National Forest. One thing that strikes me is the amount of private land, Indian Allotments, and active Forest Service logging lands incorporated into Six-Rivers in the 1940's when it was established.

There were indians living in areas they were tilling, gillnetting salmon, and harvesting local forest products. The loggers had been busy for decades, and this book has pictures of "steam donkeys" yarding huge tracts in the 1920's and shows intensive post-harvest burning in that region.

Patterson and Gimlin were on a road. An old road. There's no getting around that. I can fly my supercub over 100 miles of land and never see a sign of humans. That's wilderness.

It is pretty obvious to me that proponents rely on both urban ignorance and ignorance of the history in this region to portray this as a wilderness setting, and by that I mean at the time Patterson and Gimlin are taking horses along an old logging road.

In their stories they are pretty evasive about it too - saying that they came around a "bend in the river", which would be more truthfully stated as "came around a bend in the road".

A person telling the truth has no need to stage things or misrepresent. If you see bigfoot traveling on a road, then that's what you say.
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 29th November 2010, 05:02 AM   #4715
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
All this fuss about a man in a suit.
dafydd 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 29th November 2010, 10:02 AM   #4716
Chris L
Graduate Poster
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
All this fuss about a man in a suit.
A Santa Clause Conquers The Martians reference?
__________________
"The lie is different at every level."
Richard C. Hoagland
Chris L 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 29th November 2010, 10:36 AM   #4717
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,526
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
Bob Gimlin didn't stop doing interviews.
He's not going to do an interview with an informed and capable PGF skeptic.

Quote:
He does talk a lot about the 1967 events now, at Bigfoot conferences where one may go right up and talk to him personally.
At least one of those conferences actively prevented a PGF skeptic from attending. Gimlin never gets hard or litmus questions at these events. He also knows exactly when to say that he doesn't remember certain things.

Quote:
I find him to be one of the most straightforward and plainspoken honest guys I've ever met.
That's your opinion. I find his behavior and demeanor to be that of obviously covering for a big lie.
__________________
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 29th November 2010, 12:00 PM   #4718
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
OK, first AlaskaBushPilot,
At the time of the PGF there was no road in a passable state down to the film site, though there had been a road build down in there at some time, and since then it was cut in again and logging projects were done down in that area. ...
There was a road of some quality or other going up the creek traditionally and in the sixties. It was washed out by the 1964 flood, then plowed in again for salvage logging in 1965-66. It was passable, but I see no way it could have ever been an easy cruise for a normal passenger car.

Steve, Bigfoot Books
BFBM:
I would very much like to see the Henry drawing.

Now.... You are going to have to explain this one to me, BFBM.
Quote:
In his account of their exit from the area after the film had been sent Gimlin talks about trying to take this creek-bed road down, but finding it washed out and with mudslides. Hence, they had to go up to the ridge road.
Because it seems to me that you are saying that Gimlin's truck was up near the film site. I may not understand the geography here, but I thought their story was they were camped at Louse Camp, which is, I think, maybe three miles downstream from the film site?, and on an actual road. If so, then they would have never had their truck on the little creekbed road leading upstream to the film site. So which is it?
a ) were they camped at Louse Camp, in spite of the fact that Laverty's crew was camped there and never saw them, or
b ) were they camped upstream from Louse Camp on the little creekbed road near the bat boxes and the film site, as Bob McLarin says.
Which is it?
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 29th November 2010 at 12:07 PM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2010, 02:38 PM   #4719
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Parnassus,
To the best of my ability to ascertain, based upon what Gimlin, Barbara Wasson, and others have said:
They did NOT camp at Louse Camp. They were "up" from Louse Camp. Wasson says it was about a half mile upstream (on the creek "road") from the bridge over Bluff Creek. This is not the Notice Creek bridge down at Louse Camp, but is one mile up the road from there. At the time, according to Al Hodgson, this was a ford over the creek, where one could continue up the ridge again (on 12N10, uncertain if 12N13 on out existed then) or else enter the creek road. McClarin describes this as a Jeep road, basically. We traced this notion from the Bluff Creek Bridge up and found what we think is the only likely site for the P-G base camp. Interestingly, there was a piece of old rebar driven into the ground there on the sandbar just up from the creek bed (perhaps Dahinden marked it in 1977 when he apparently also planted stakes on the PGF site?). From here to the film site area (if we are correct re. its location) is 2.5 miles, corresponding quite well what Gimlin has always said. They left the truck down at their base camp and rode horses up the creek, on the old creek road apparently. That night when it started raining Gimlin says they saw the creek rising threatening to trap them in their camp on the wrong side of the creek... they had to ford to get out. Upon leaving this camp they would have gone down to Louse Camp and could have tried heading downstream along the creek road, or up the hill to Onion Mountain. One account has Gimlin saying they tried the creek way but found mudslides and washouts; so they turned back and headed up the ridge road where they got stuck and had to pull the truck out of the mud with a tractor from the construction site above.

Research is still on-going into all of these matters.

I'll look for the Henry drawing in my BIGFOOT TIMES collection, but I really should ask Daniel first for permission to scan and post it here.

Best,
Steve, BF Books

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
BFBM:
I would very much like to see the Henry drawing.

Now.... You are going to have to explain this one to me, BFBM.
Because it seems to me that you are saying that Gimlin's truck was up near the film site. I may not understand the geography here, but I thought their story was they were camped at Louse Camp, which is, I think, maybe three miles downstream from the film site?, and on an actual road. If so, then they would have never had their truck on the little creekbed road leading upstream to the film site. So which is it?
a ) were they camped at Louse Camp, in spite of the fact that Laverty's crew was camped there and never saw them, or
b ) were they camped upstream from Louse Camp on the little creekbed road near the bat boxes and the film site, as Bob McLarin says.
Which is it?
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 29th November 2010, 03:14 PM   #4720
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I've read one version where both P&G were thrown from their horses ..
I believe Roger was telling this version ..
Seven different sources (Byrne, Daegling, Dahinden, Green, Krantz, Meldrum, and Sanderson), present two major variations.

Meldrum and Sanderson make no mention of Patterson's horse falling, with Meldrum saying that Patterson "slid off the horse with his camera in hand."

The other five authors all state that Patterson's horse actually fell, with Byrne adding that the horse had "reared and fell over sideways, coming down on his right leg, crushing the metal stirrup on his foot and pinning him temporarily to the ground." Ouch!



There also seems to be disagreement whether Gimlin remained mounted (Green & Krantz), whether he dismounted (Byrne & Meldrum), or was thrown off (Sanderson) his horse during the filming.

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
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 01:30 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.