Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
There is no evidence whatsoever in that list of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

So again:

Evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

Again, since you mised it:

Quote:
Evidence and sound reasonings ARE required in a search for the truth.

Got some to back bigfoot?

More than the funders of SETI have for little green men.....

.....Unless, of course, there's classified information that you and I don't have access to..........

Originally Posted by Huntster
With slight modification, those statements can apply to sasquatch as well as extraterrestrial life:

Lets take a look at this:

Originally Posted by Huntster
1-The abundance of habitat that harbor other species (like black bears) in the Pacific Northwest;

So, if the area has a given species it may have bigfeet?

If there are lots of eyewitness testimony, footprints found, etc, yes.

You call this evidence?

As much as you claim a wide open universe might harbor little green men?

Yup.

Why?

Because I say so.

That's fair, because you "say" the universe might harbor intelligent life.

Originally Posted by Huntster
2-The possible existence of sasquatch like creatures in other areas of the world

Backed by the same sort of evidence quality (weak and entagled with hoaxes) evidence used to back the claim "bigfeet are real".

Yup.

Its not evidence.

It's more than there is for intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Originally Posted by Huntster
3-Sasquatches can appear -and survive- at various areas within the habitable zone of wilderness;

Again, that's not evidence.

Nor is your silly "evidence" of extraterrestrial life.

Its specuation based in flimsy evidence, since as far as I know there are no reliable pieces of evidence pointing to the possibility bigfeet are real.

Conversely, the backers of SETI have invested millions on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, since there are no reliable pieces of evidence pointing to the possibility that there is extraterrestrial intelligence out there.

Originally Posted by Huntster
5-Evolution may (note the word "may"; its not "will") result in the very skiw decline of other hominid species which may not fully have gone extinct yet.

You have first to provide a sound reasoning based on evidence that these hominids may be around. Got some?

Yup:

Sound reasoning:

* Bipedal apes have existed in the past (proven, no contest, no BS, no fantasy)

* People report them to this very day (no contest, no BS, no question)

* Footprints have been found (no contest, no BS, no question)

* Nothing of the sort can be claimed regarding intelligent extraterrestrial life (unless, of course, you're prepared to defend the claims of "UFOs" and alien abductions...........are you?)

Originally Posted by Huntster
And now, for the umpteeenth time, there has been no attempt whatsoever by the appropriate wildlife agencies to fulfill their duty with respect to this possible species, despite the fact that millions have been spent seeking "little green men", of which there is absolutely no evidnence whatsoever.

Huntster, SETI is not a quest for little green men, this is one of the fundamental flaws on your argument.

Okay. I'm guilty of playing games with names.

No "little green men".

Intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Correct?

Its an attempt to probe the possibility of alien civilizations sending radio signals. You must try getting your facts straight, at least to avoid looking like you don't know what you are taling about...

I know very well what I'm talking about.

And I'm talking you into a corner you're not going to like.

Do you want to continue, or are you willing to admit that government funding of an appropriate inquiry of sasquatchery is due?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Evidence my ass. You have the gall to call that "evidence" while attacking the PG film, the hundreds of footprint casts, and the testimony of thousands?

A film showing what might as well be a man in a gorilla suit;

Got a film of any little green men (kids in green suits)?

Hundreds of footprints casts that may be mistaken IDs or hoaxes;

Yup.

Let's find out.......

The testimony of thousads that might as well be mistakens IDs, hoaxes, daydreams, false memories, etc.

Yup. Might be.

Let's find out.........

Its a matter of quality.

Stop the games.

We won't find out until the appropriate agencies look into the matter.

A single DNA assay like the one I mentioned before would be more reliable than all the footprint casts

And if it comes back "unidentifiable"?

Got some?

More than SETI proponents have.

Still want to play the "got some" game?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct.

It was backed by fantasy alone, (unless there is something the Government isn't telling us...........).

It was not backed by fantasy, Huntster. If claim it was, please provide evidence, but at a thread on SETI. I will gladly discuss it, and I am certain other posters will also.

As long as you want to play the "no funding" game, we'll play the SETI game here.

Oh, BTW, I falied to find your replys on the following:
-My arguments showing how far-fetched is the idea gigantopithecus are bigfeet (here they are again):

That's because I have no reply. I found nothing to contest.

Note, it may be a template for sasquatch myth. This is a far cry from actually being sasquatch or bigfoot.

That's right.

Let's find out.........

Unless its bipedal, large and lives(d) in North America cohexisting with humans, its not bigfoot or sasquatch.

-My questions regarding why wildlife photographers and mammalogists don't seem to be intrested in the issue (here's my last take on the issue):

Quote:
You pointed to one wild life photographer. I asked where are the wildlife photographers.

You asked.

I provided.

In this case, one would be enough only if he/she managed to obtain some reliable pics or footage. If the evidence is so compelling, why no effort was carried out later?

* No time?
* Not the right equipment?
* Afraid?
* Upset?
* I don't know........

Again: High-quality pictures or footage, obtained from qualified professionals whose credibility and jobs would be deeply affected by being somehow involved in a hoax would be reliable evidence.

You got that from Meldrum, and that didn't seem to convince you that an official inquiry is due.

Got some?

More than SETI proponents have.

Meldrum's photos and analysis is a case in point.

What about asking yourself why Goodall and Swindler don't help getting some private or government funding?

Swindler is dead.

Goodall might help. I don't know.

BTW, as I already pointed out, The Jane Goodall Institute (http://www.janegoodall.org/) has as goals:

Quote:
Increase primate habitat conservation
Increase awareness of, support for and training in issues related to our relationship with each other, the environment and other animals (leading to behavior change)
Expand non-invasive research programs on chimpanzees and other primates
Promote activities that ensure the well-being of chimpanzees, other primates and animal welfare activities in general

Don't you think bigfeet -assuming they are real- fit on the above?

Yup. And Goodall has been supportive of more research.

So let's fund it.

Where are the projects?

Waiting for appropriate funding.

-My explanation on why the "unidentified DNA" is useless as evidence (here it is again):

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

 

[kitakaze]

Why don't we just hit up Nicolas Cage for some dough? That cat is down, man.

 

[Huntster]

....Swindler is dead......

Whoops!

He's not dead; he's retired.

(Sorry, Dr. Swindler............ )

 

[kitakaze]

Whoops!

He's not dead; he's retired.

(Sorry, Dr. Swindler............ )

He'll be glad to hear it, I'm sure.

 

[Correa Neto]

* Bipedal apes have existed in the past (proven, no contest, no BS, no fantasy)

Contested, for there are no fossil remains of bipedal apes at North America, unless you include H. sapiens. Anything else on this line regarding fossil remains backing bigfeet is speculation, fantasy and in some cases, BS.

* People report them to this very day (no contest, no BS, no question)

What is a far cry from saying they do exist...
Contested, since eyewitnesses reports are questionable and in many cases pure BS.

* Footprints have been found (no contest, no BS, no question)

That may be misidentifications and hoaxes.
Contested, questioned and in many cases, BS.

* Nothing of the sort can be claimed regarding intelligent extraterrestrial life (unless, of course, you're prepared to defend the claims of "UFOs" and alien abductions...........are you?)

I attribute abduction claims the same reliability I attribute to reports of bigfeet jumping around and hunting hogs...

I attribute to many UFO films and stills the same reliability I attribute to PGF and blobfeet (in some cases even less).

Okay. I'm guilty of playing games with names.

No "little green men".

Intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Correct?

I know very well what I'm talking about.

And I'm talking you into a corner you're not going to like.

You are free to try.
If you are going to manage it, I consider as being very unlikely, specially because your position does not seems to be so solid...

Do you want to continue, or are you willing to admit that government funding of an appropriate inquiry of sasquatchery is due?

If it were my tax money I would say: You want to waste my money based on such flimsy evidence entangled with hoaxes? No way. Unless you get some better evidence.

Got a film of any little green men (kids in green suits)?

Nope.
My UFO hoaxes used miniatures, light reflection on glass pannels and hot air baloons. Oh, and the alien is gray, not green...

An unintentional fairy hoax of mine used a laser pen pointed near a stoned person who saw two little red eyes instead of a sigle red dot... And managed to "see" a face and a body...

For a bigfoot hoax I suggest stills of a miniature using forced perspective or a parts of a suit showing between bushes.

And if it comes back "unidentifiable"?

Again, if the DNA assay result indicate an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies, its relible evidence. If its so bad you can't say its from a bear or a human, its useless.

More than SETI proponents have.

Still want to play the "got some" game?

Yes. Show me your reliable evidence of bigfeet as real animals.
Here's a list of what I would consider reliable evidence:
-Fossil remains of a bipedal ape (not H. sapiens) from North America within a time frame coincident with human colonization;
-DNA analisys indicating an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies;
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circunstances, it could even be "proof".

Got some of the above?

As long as you want to play the "no funding" game, we'll play the SETI game here.

You mean the obfuscation and evasion game you are trying to play?

That's because I have no reply. I found nothing to contest.

Your silence means you agree?

You asked.

I provided.

I asked where are the wildlife photographers.

* No time?
* Not the right equipment?
* Afraid?
* Upset?
* I don't know........

The first four reasons could be an answer (shaky IMHO) for not following it at a single field trip. There's no explanation on why there was no further follow-ups.

You may not know, OK, but don't you find this quite odd?

You got that from Meldrum, and that didn't seem to convince you that an official inquiry is due.

More than SETI proponents have.

Meldrum's photos and analysis is a case in point.

Meldrum took pictures or filmed a bigfoot?

Yup. And Goodall has been supportive of more research.

So let's fund it.

Its your tax money, not mine.

And if its private, the organization may (in some cases) do whatever it wants with its money.

Waiting for appropriate funding.

And why there's no funding, if the evidence is,as you claim, so good and way better than what SETI people have?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

That you can not counter and try to evade and obfuscate with some Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
* Bipedal apes have existed in the past (proven, no contest, no BS, no fantasy)

Contested, for there are no fossil remains of bipedal apes at North America, unless you include H. sapiens.

I didn't write that they were found in North America.

Anything else on this line regarding fossil remains backing bigfeet is speculation, fantasy and in some cases, BS.

My claim was true.

Originally Posted by Huntster
* People report them to this very day (no contest, no BS, no question)

What is a far cry from saying they do exist...

That claim of mine is also true.

Contested, since eyewitnesses reports are questionable and in many cases pure BS.

The reports are there. Many of them.

My claim is true.

Originally Posted by Huntster
* Footprints have been found (no contest, no BS, no question)

That may be misidentifications and hoaxes.
Contested, questioned and in many cases, BS.

They are there, it is physical evidence, and again, my claim was true.

Originally Posted by Huntster
* Nothing of the sort can be claimed regarding intelligent extraterrestrial life (unless, of course, you're prepared to defend the claims of "UFOs" and alien abductions...........are you?)

I attribute abduction claims the same reliability I attribute to reports of bigfeet jumping around and hunting hogs...

Then, because you find sasquatch evidence invalid, you then admit that there is no evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

I attribute to many UFO films and stills the same reliability I attribute to PGF and blobfeet (in some cases even less).

Then, because you find sasquatch evidence invalid, you then admit that there is no evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Do you want to continue, or are you willing to admit that government funding of an appropriate inquiry of sasquatchery is due?

If it were my tax money I would say: You want to waste my money based on such flimsy evidence entangled with hoaxes? No way. Unless you get some better evidence.

And, yet, you support publically funding SETI at a rate of millions per year?

Originally Posted by Huntster
And if it comes back "unidentifiable"?

Again, if the DNA assay result indicate an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies, its relible evidence. If its so bad you can't say its from a bear or a human, its useless.

"Indicate"?

Now you like "indications"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
More than SETI proponents have.

Still want to play the "got some" game?

Yes. Show me your reliable evidence of bigfeet as real animals.

I will immediately after you show me your reliable evidence that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Here's a list of what I would consider reliable evidence:
-Fossil remains of a bipedal ape (not H. sapiens) from North America within a time frame coincident with human colonization;
-DNA analisys indicating an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies;
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circunstances, it could even be "proof".

Got some of the above?

Nope. Let's fund an attempt to get some.

If there isn't enough money, let's raid the SETI fund for a few thousand.

Originally Posted by Huntster
As long as you want to play the "no funding" game, we'll play the SETI game here.

You mean the obfuscation and evasion game you are trying to play?

No.

I mean the comparison of funding equity between ivory-billed bird, sasquatch, and intelligence extraterrestrial life inquiries.

When you adequately address the inequity, the "SETI game" will end.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's because I have no reply. I found nothing to contest.

Your silence means you agree?

I understand that English isn't your first language, so I will repeat the words:

I do not contest.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You asked.

I provided.

I asked where are the wildlife photographers.

And I provided information regarding where one of them were when he found sasquatch sign himself.

Originally Posted by Huntster
* No time?
* Not the right equipment?
* Afraid?
* Upset?
* I don't know........

The first four reasons could be an answer (shaky IMHO) for not following it at a single field trip. There's no explanation on why there was no further follow-ups.

F-u-n-d-i-n-g ! ! !

T-i-m-e ! ! !

You may not know, OK, but don't you find this quite odd?

No. Been there, done that. If I found tracks tomorrow, I still wouldn't be prepared, equiped, or rich enough to do a damned thing about it.

If I called in one of the few guys who might be able to do something about it (Meldrum?), he probably wouldn't even have the money to invest in flying up here to look at it.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You got that from Meldrum, and that didn't seem to convince you that an official inquiry is due.

Originally Posted by Huntster
More than SETI proponents have.

Meldrum's photos and analysis is a case in point.

Meldrum took pictures or filmed a bigfoot?

Meldrum photographed and casted several footprints in a trackway. As a professor of primate locomotion, he wrote a scientific essay on what he found.

No inquiry whatsoever from the appropriate wildlife agencies.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. And Goodall has been supportive of more research.

So let's fund it.

Its your tax money, not mine.

So just what is your problem, anyway?

And if its private, the organization may (in some cases) do whatever it wants with its money.

Private organizations are free to perform valid research on wildlife (if properly permitted), but it isn't their responsibility to manage all species of wildlife.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Private organizations are free to perform valid research on wildlife (if properly permitted), but it isn't their responsibility to manage all species of wildlife.

It isn't anyone's responsibility to manage any species of wildlife, they don't want to ..

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Private organizations are free to perform valid research on wildlife (if properly permitted), but it isn't their responsibility to manage all species of wildlife.

It isn't anyone's responsibility to manage any species of wildlife, they don't want to ..

Wrong:

SEC. 2.
(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds and declares that-
(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation;
(2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction;
(3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people;
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to-
(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
(E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
(F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and
(G) other international agreements; and
(5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation's international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation's heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.
(b) PURPOSES.-The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) POLICY.-
(1) It Is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
(2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.

Oohhhh! Wrong here, too:

§ 3. Common Use

Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

§ 4. Sustained Yield

Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.

Oh, lookie here:

Under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), ultimate responsibility for wildlife management rests with the GN.

Gee. What's this?:

The Fish and Wildlife Service mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Hmmmmmmm:

In the United States, wildlife is a common pool resource (CPR) held in trust by the federal government and state governments for American citizens. Initially states had exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife within state borders, but wildlife management in the United States is now a unique blend of federal and state policies. The federal government has pre-empted state jurisdiction over some species that are threatened or endangered or that are subject to treaty obligations, and wildlife on federal land is generally subject to federal jurisdiction rather than to the jurisdiction of the states within which the land is located. Even though the level of government that holds property rights in wildlife may vary by species and location, most property rights in wildlife are vested in governments rather than landowners.

Must I continue?

I can go on for years with this one, with fresh links daily..................

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Oh ! You mean't perceived responsibility ?

My bad...

 

[Huntster]

Oh ! You mean't perceived responsibility ?

No. I mean legislated and regulatory responsibility.

My bad...

Indeed. It will likely be continued "bad", too.............

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No. I mean legislated and regulatory responsibility.
Indeed. It will likely be continued "bad", too.............

Do you work for the guv'mt Hunster ?

It would explain a lot...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No. I mean legislated and regulatory responsibility.

Do you work for the guv'mt Hunster ?

I will neither confirm or deny.

It would explain a lot...

With regard to the recognition of responsibility?

Do you work for the government?

With a failure to address responsibility, that might explain a lot, as well.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I will neither confirm or deny.

Heh, Heh ...

Thanks...

Everyone can now approach further discussion with you in these ( or any ) matters from a more informed position...

Do you work for the government?

No, I don't... Not now anyway ..

Worked for em' for four years a while back ...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I will neither confirm or deny.

Heh, Heh ...

Thanks...

Everyone can now approach further discussion with you in these ( or any ) matters from a more informed position...

Run the search.

I've revealed my profession, my employer, my life.

If you can't find that, how can you find a rare animal?

 

[William Parcher]

According to Gimlin, the horse did not fall; and we know Gimlin's story is beyond reproach..

I have never understood how anyone saw any tracks in the creek bed after the filming..

If the substrate was complient enough to accept impressions, how did those impressions survive a flowing creek as described by Gimlin ..

Of course if the tracks were made after the rain, that would explain everything...

Not to mention the claim that impressions were still there months later, in the spring, when Green did his recreation ..

I don't understand why Gimlin would say that Patterson's horse didn't fall on him. Even if Gimlin thought he didn't see that, you would think Patterson would have mentioned the pain in his foot and the bent stirrup right there on the sandbar. If the stirrup was badly bent he might have had trouble putting his boot in it after remounting his horse.


I'm curious about how this Titmus/Krantz map was made...

Did Titmus make a bunch of accurate vectored measurements at the film site? How did he distinguish the "Roger holding the camera" footprints from the "Roger walking around looking at the aftermath of the scene and casting, or Gimlin, or Laverty" footprints?

Gimlin and Titmus state that they also saw Patty tracks crossing the logging road (presumably) when she exited the area after the filming. Titmus also tracks her to a place where she sat down and watched P&G. Gimlin also mentions the last time he sees Patty as she rounds a bend in the logging road 300 yards away from the film site. Then of course, P&G track her for 3.5 miles.

I'd like to see a bigger map that shows all of that stuff. Did the logging road allow Gimlin to see 300 yards away (last view of Patty)? How does her location there fit in with her sitting and watching the men? Could estimated elapsed times be fitted to different map segments of what they say they did? When everything gets laid out graphically, we might stand a better chance of evaluating the feasibility of what was claimed by different people.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...........
I'd like to see a bigger map that shows all of that stuff. Did the logging road allow Gimlin to see 300 yards away (last view of Patty)? How does her location there fit in with her sitting and watching the men? Could estimated elapsed times be fitted to different map segments of what they say they did? When everything gets laid out graphically, we might stand a better chance of evaluating the feasibility of what was claimed by different people.

This would be a good question to post over at BFF ..

Do you post over there ?

 

[William Parcher]

No, I don't post there.

I'd also be interested in getting another answer which I couldn't get here. How long might it take plaster to harden at that local temperature before Roger could pull them out of the ground? Does the temp of the water he mixes in matter (ie. carried water or creek water) for the hardening time?

 

[William Parcher]

No, it was developed first. Geez.

DeAtley took Roger to his basement for the first (unless DeAtley saw it earlier) showing. Then it was shown to Green and then to the others when they arrived. (Dahinden went to Willow Creek, met McClarin there and went with him to Yakima when they learned P&G had already left.)

Ask Murphy.The photos are from the Murphy File on Hancock House forums, aren't they?

There's nothing to indicate there was any splicing done to any original footage. Taking stills from both rolls (or 1st generation copies thereof, presumably Green's or stills now owned by Dahinden's son) years later and making a montage of them hardly indicates skullduggery. Who made the montage?

Dahinden cut 10' from the second roll, the part showing Roger casting the prints. The BBC didn't return the rest of the second roll. That's the only cutting I now of. I don't know if John Green's first generation copy has been cut at all.

There was no splicing or other tampering when the original first roll was examined by Kodak lab techs.

If he did a demo at some point for the documentary he was making what would be wrong with that? The prints they were finding earlier on the trip were too deteriorated to be of use.

Perhaps the camera shop owner wanted his 15 minutes of fame? Long seemed to have a knack for interviewing liars. Patterson supposedly said he slammed fakes into the ground to make deep prints. Unfortunately, there were no spatter marks at Bluff Creek.

I don't know if he said they were plaster. I'll have to look that up. But what hoaxer worth his salt would tell a camera store owner anything?

Roger was not in the area when the Blue Creek/Onion Mountain tracks were found. These evidently were the trackways Al Hogson called Patricia Patterson about; she informed Roger when he and Gimlin returned from Mt. St. Helens. (Green and Abott investigated those.) P&G then made the trip to California.

Have you read Long? Note how he made a big deal out of Gimlin's not remembering th name of the place from which they sent the film, but didn't seem concerned about DeAtley's repeated memory failures on the topic of how the film was sent.

I wonder how we can know if Roger had (or not) edited the film before showing to the guys on Sunday. Green said he did only show the Patty scene to them.

The guy at the camera store said that Roger was perfecting the appearance of faked track castings he was making. The guy seems to have caused Roger to make them more realistic looking. Why do you want to just call that guy a liar?

 

[LAL]

I wonder how we can know if Roger had (or not) edited the film before showing to the guys on Sunday. Green said he did only show the Patty scene to them.

Since the rest of the film has been viewed, it doesn't seem likely anything was cut out. The examination showed it had not been tampered with in any way.

The guy at the camera store said that Roger was perfecting the appearance of faked track castings he was making. The guy seems to have caused Roger to make them more realistic looking. Why do you want to just call that guy a liar?

According to Long, pg. 390, The Making of Bigfoot, Roger said of the first cast he showed him, "Well, it's from a walking man I have found out in the Ahtanum area."

Now I don't know where that is (Ahtanum Valley, I presume), but Roger had at some point cast prints found by a farmer.

After Roger supposedly told Anderson he'd seen the "giant" and it had lifted the front of his Volkswagen, Anderson said Roger was getting a gorilla suit out of a costume rental place in Los Angeles; he had to order it from Seattle (pg.392). He only had it for the weekend, Anderson said.

Anderson suggested improvements and Roger brought in another cast Anderson thought was better. (The original actually sounds more Sasquatchlike. Anderson assumed Roger was making them.)

Later, Anderson surmised Roger had made the tracks he read about in the Yakima Daily Republic and Roger supposedly said he did it with stilts.

In any event, all this supposedly occured prior to 1961. The PGF, of course, was shot in 1967.

Different camera, Roger sold it back, different film length, the store owner thought the PGF was shot in Yakima.....................

Long decided this all meant Roger was practicing hoaxing.

If Roger had a sighting, why wasn't it in his book?

Does it make sense that someone brilliant enough to pull off the greatest hoax in history would tell a camera store owner how he was doing it, "little by little" (in Long's phrase)?

He knew he was dying, he wanted to leave something for his wife and family, he was filming a documentary, and Bob Heironimus does not have an IM index of 88.

This isn't the incident I was thinking of. Now I'll have to find that one.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since the rest of the film has been viewed, it doesn't seem likely anything was cut out.

Viewed by whom ? When ? Seem ?

The examination showed it had not been tampered with in any way.

Just because someone says they were looking at a piece of film that hadn't been tampered with, how do we know what film they examined ?

Did they document what was on it ? Did they say Patty was walking away in the distance at the end ?