I'm well aware of the layout of the area.
I would dispute that. It's clear that you most certainly aren't otherwise you wouldn't be insisting the downfall tree pile was up against the forest. It was in fact in the middle of the stream.
Patterson says Patty was back up against the trees.
You are saying this means one thing, and I am saying it means another. There is no disagreement about the layout of the area.
Of course there is. The trees Patterson spoke of were those in the downfall pile. This what both Patterson and Gimlin refer to time and time again. Not once did Patterson or Gimlin ever say the creature was backed up against the forest. No, she was by a hunk of downfall trees. This is where the sasquatch was located, right by the stream, when they rounded part of this downfall system.
Yeah, maybe I ought to look at that...
Well here it is then. This is the very first second or two of the P/G footage. This hunk of fallen trees on the left is the end part of the downfall pile of trees that Patterson and Gimlin talk about. This are the trees Roger Patterson mentions the creature being backed up against.
If you then follow on from these frames the subject is moving in a direction away from these trees and not the trees of the forest. The forest is the dark background which continues at the same distance away to the left.
Tom Steenburg brought the downfall tree pile to my attention. I never noticed it until a few months ago. Additionaly, we can see the reason why Patty and P and G were obscured from each other until the very last moment. This tree pile downfall was substantial and offered cover for Patty, in the middle of a clearing, where she could probably drink from the stream.
No wonder nobody else has had the 'luck' that Roger Patterson had in filming a sasquatch. I don't suppose anybody else armed with a movie camera at hand has ever surprised and come right upon a sasquatch in the middle of a clearing like this where the creature has to come out in the open to walk away. It's an encounter that is unlikely to ever be repeated. The chances are minute.
Not all the time, no. It's only Sasquatch that can never be tracked anywhere.
Actually they have been apparantely tracked for miles. Read the reports.
Animals are often tracked from their bedding areas to their feeding areas, etc.
Ah you mean populous abundant animals where the trackees also know a hell of a lot more about the animals they are tracking than anybody does about the sasquatch???
They are often tracked down and photographed or hunted. The paths they travel are found and staked out.
See above. Sasquatch is likely to be a hell of a lot smarter than the average deer, bear or mountain lion....and there are far fewer of them to boot.
Save the childish sighs for high school, please.
Why? You are frustrating to try and debate with. You even falsely accuse Titmus of 'not being able to' find where Patty arrived and won't back down on the fact that Patterson was refering to the trees in the downfall pile.
There's no evidence that Patty walked through the stream, is there?
Yup. She was right by the stream when first encountered by P and G so it's a two in one chance she came over the stream or she didn't. There is evidence her feet were wet by the reasoning that the loose soil/dirt seems to be stuck to her soles, seeing as they appaear to be the same colour and tone as the surrounding substrate. Titmus also must have had his reason for saying she crossed the creek.
Stop trying to dictate what I see and think. I'll decide where I see faults, thank you.
When I see you falsely accuse somebody who is dead of failing to do something that he in fact is on record not doing, then I'll dictate what I like, thank you very much.
Why I am trying "so hard" has been explained already.
Yes, because you are a scoftic who will try any game to discredit the P and G footage, even when you try and make scenarios up.
Yeah, it wasn't that important a site or trackway. Bob musta' been bored out there.
He got 9 or 10 consecutive prints, looked around the whole area and made notes of other things. You ever bothered trying to find tracks you know aren't going to be there?? Titmus was more concerned with the tracks he found on the left side of the creek. He explained he spent hours just examining the tracks in situ. Then he followed those tracks for a while.
Honestly, what is the big problem in Patty coming along the hard road on the right side of the creek, crossing the creek by the downfall log to rest and probably drink water sheltered by the fallen tree pile then retreating back on the left side of the creek after she encountered Patterson and Gimlin???? She couldn't cross back over to the creek onto the hard road again the way she likely came because P and G were on that side so she retreated via the left side of the creek.
Bob was certainly interested in where Patty went, though...
Of course he was.....because the substrate on the left hand side of the creek was more suitable for tracking whereas the substrate on the right side of the creek (the hard road) was not. This has already been explained to you and was explained by Bob Titmus.
Makes far more sense to follow tracks you
can find rather than those you know aren't going to be there because the substrate precludes it.
I'm beginning to think you trully believe tracks should be left in all and every kind of substrate and all and every kind of terrain. It doesn't quite work like that. There can be a number of tracks in soft ground, then when the soft ground ends and the hard ground begins they aren't going to be there anymore. There's no mystery to it.
Where she came from could be far more important than where she went. She could well have just come from where she lived, for example. She could, like some animals will do, have been trying to draw the threat away from her area where her family might be. That could explain her stroll. By not researching where she came from, critical info may have been abandoned in the field. How hard could it have been to find her tracks if she came from nearby?
See above. Titmus gave us a hell of a lot of information, particulary the consecutive print series....and it still isn't enough for armchair debaters like you.
Even if the last part of her trek there was obscured by terrain, a little effort may still have discovered where she was previously? What if she came from close by, in fact?
Titmus concentrated his effort on the trackway on the left side of the creek and those tracks he could follow on the left side of the creek. If Patty had come down the hard road on the right of the creek as Titmus thought then it most likely would have taken more than a 'little' effort to discover the tracks. He was a one man show remember? He was on his own. We are lucky he got what he did. He was more concerned with examining and casting what was in front of him and probably not thinking that 40 years later some scoftic on the JREF forum was pulling his hair out complaining that he didn't pull out all stops to examine every minute bit of ground (including the hard road) on the right hand side of the creek to try and find where Patty came from.
By the way, I'm still interested in if you think that after months of meticulously planning and carrying out this 'hoax', that P and G simply forgot or didn't bother to include Patty's arrival tracks??? Let's see, they bother to include breasts which we can't see too much, but 'didn't bother' making a convincing arrival trackway for Patty? LMAO!!!
