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.
The downfall (or brushpile) was "in" 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.
Are you serious? Why would you think the chances are minute of anyone ever getting another shot at a bigfoot out in the open like P&G did? Are you saying we should all just forget it because it's never going to happen again?
Actually they have been apparantely tracked for miles. Read the reports.
I think a lot of what the problem is that some people (you, Lal, Sweaty, and some others) are perfectly content going by word of mouth alone. If someone said it then it must be true, whereas others are not content to rely on what people say they saw or say they did or say about anything much related to the subject. That's why I don't think anything short of a body is going to convince everyone of the existence of something like this. People lie or can be fooled, Tracks can be faked, photos and films can be altered or made up.
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???
Tracks are tracks and should be able to be followed if not by an amateur then by a professional and/or dogs.
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.
Do you think sasquatch, because they are a "hell of a lot smarter than the average deer, bear, or mountain lion" are covering their tracks or managing some how not to make any when it suits them? If they exist, I think the second part of your statement is the relevant part. There just aren't that many of them.
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.
I don't understand that statement at all. It sound like you are accusing somebody of falsely accusing Patterson of not doing something that he was on record of not doing. If he was on record of not doing it then wouldn't the person you're accusing be correct in saying Patterson didn't do it?
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.
There's a two way street. I've seen some proponents make assumptions based on nothing tangible because they "feel" that's what happened.
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??
Why would he KNOW tracks weren't going to be there? The only way he'd KNOW tracks weren't going to be there is if he KNOWS where the tracks were supposed to be. That's probably the strongest statement I've seen so far for hoaxing and and I'm relatively sure that's not what you meant. Can you rephrase this?
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.
This makes more sense but are you sure you know what the substrate was on the other side of the creek? I wonder why dogs and an expert tracker was not called in on a situation as momentous as that.
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.
Low blow. How many onsite investigations have you been on Lyndon? Again, Titmus' word might be the end all be all to you, but that isn't necessarily so for everyone.
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.
And on an occasion as momentous as this every effort should have been made to document. I again have to wonder why a professional tracker and scent dogs were not utilized. The mystery might have been solved right there in Bluff Creek. Patty didn't live on the road. She had to gain access to the road at some point and tracks should have been made beside the road before she accessed the road if indeed that's what she did.
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.
We are lucky he got what he did? In my opinion, everything should have been examined. All stops removed in discovering everything there was to offer surrounding that sighting. We'd expect no less from researchers today. Science dictates thorough investigation and examination. Only Mr. Titmus knows why he didn't do more to tediously investigate and document. You say trackways have been followed for miles on other occasions. In your opinion do you think Mr. Titmus examined what was right there handy and thought that "okay that'll be enough"? It sounds a bit like that's what you're saying he did.
Another item I have to ask you about is your contention about Gimlin's alleged disbelief about the globs of mud being tracks. Didn't Green and Dahinden tell Patterson's wife those were tracks? If Gimlin didn't believe Green and Dahinden then how can you seem so frustrated with the people here for not believing what you say? We can't even agree whether Gimlin's rifle was cocked or not. Nothing in the accounts ever says he cocked his rifle, however, LAL says he did.
I do not find anywhere that Gimlin did not believe those were tracks. He said at the time he and Patterson got there there wasn't anything left but globs of mud. He never said he did not believe those could have been tracks to my knowledge.
