The downfall (or brushpile) was "in" the stream?
Haven't you seen Bob Titmus' map? Page 88 in Krantz' book. The creek goes right up to where the downfall treepile is. It actually goes through it and continues on the other side on his map. The hard road also appears to go right up to this downfall tree pile. The downfall tree pile seems to have been substantial in size, as we can see from the left part of it in the first few seconds of the P and G film. The downfall tree pile crossed the creek, according to Titmus' map.
Have you also not read the accounts? P and G had to
cross the creek at the downfall tree pile to follow the animal.
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?
I did write to 'come right upon' a sasquatch while it was out in the open and getting a shot. That was the important part. Has it happened since?? Has anybody since '67 armed with a movie camera suddenly almost bumped right into a sasquatch in a clear part of terrain?
There's your answer.
Are you saying we should all just forget it because it's never going to happen again?
Nope, but I doubt that anybody will ever again almost bump right into a sasquatch while rounding a downfall tree pile and then having a chance to film the sasquatch while it has to cross open ground to walk away. What do you think the chances of that happening again are? Would you say minute??? Fair to good? Midling? Reasonable? Excellent?
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.
Nope. I don't buy that sasquatch inhabits the entire U.S and almost every state. Word of mouth says so. The evidence (or lack thereoff) doesn't. I also go by the evidence. There is plenty of it regarding the P/G footage. I also look at that and decide for myself.
If someone said it then it must be true,
Not at all.
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.
No, because these people are scoftics.
That's why I don't think anything short of a body is going to convince everyone of the existence of something like this.
I agree with you there.
People lie or can be fooled, Tracks can be faked, photos and films can be altered or made up.
Yes, some can be. Some probably can't. I have seen no practical demonstration that says the P/G film could have been faked. Not even close. Every hoax and every bigfoot suit I have ever seen actually points against it.
Tracks are tracks and should be able to be followed if not by an amateur then by a professional and/or dogs.
Providing they get there. And often tracks don't carry on forever. They often dissapear and cannot be followed any longer.
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?
Well they have managed to keep mainly hidden and to avoid capture somehow so there could well be something in that. Not positive but perhaps. I don't know.
If they exist, I think the second part of your statement is the relevant part. There just aren't that many of them.
Not nearly as many as some believe.
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.
Nope. You should have read my post. It was Bob Titmus. He was accused of not being able to to find Patty's arrival tracks. In fact, Titmus himself said he spent
little time trying to backtrack Bigfoot. The poster claimed Titmus failed in his effort to locate them whereas Titmus didn't have much of an effort to backtrack Patty and wasn't engaged in that effort. Titmus never once said there were no arrival tracks up on the sandbar coming out of the creek.
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?
Nope.
Titmus (not Patterson) claimed he didn't spend too much time backtracking. He shouldn't then be accused of
looking but failing to find anything, when he didn't make an effort to backtrack Patty.
Now do you see?
There's a two way street. I've seen some proponents make assumptions based on nothing tangible because they "feel" that's what happened.
What's
that got to do with
me in
this discussion? I simply repeated what Bob Titmus himself said. I didn't assume he said it. He said it. I didn't feel it was the case. It is written down and documented in John Green's book.
Why would he KNOW tracks weren't going to be there?
Because it was a hard road??? Titmus must have walked over it to see it was a hard road. He drew a map and everything. A map that seems to have been pretty accurate by all accounts. Nobody who ever visited the site (Patterson, Gimlin, Green, Dahinden, McClarin etc etc) has disputed Titmus' map of the area to my knowledge.
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?
Are you saying you think Bob Titmus was in on the hoax? Wow. Do you think Green and Dahinden were also in on it too?
This makes more sense but are you sure you know what the substrate was on the other side of the creek?
I don't know exactly what the physical geological make up of the substrate was but Titmus said it was an old hard road. This was immediately parrallel to the creek acording to his map and Titmus seems to think Patty came down that way to the creek where she crossed over.
I wonder why dogs and an expert tracker was not called in on a situation as momentous as that.
Patterson asked for them. He got word out to Don Abbot at the BC museum for him and John Green to come with tracking dogs asap. This is confirmed by both Green and Abbot. Green couldn't find the money to come and nobody would help him out. Green tried to round up some scientist to come but none were interested. Then, the weather broke. I don't think that (the weather breaking) was planned and hoaxed by Patterson.
Low blow. How many onsite investigations have you been on Lyndon?
None. But I'm not knocking those who
HAVE been. Do you see me, in my armchair, knocking and criticizing investigators who have been on the scene of supposed sasquatch incidents??? Do you see me criticizing somebody who has, saying they should have done so and so and that they were wrong for not doing this but doing that???
Again, Titmus' word might be the end all be all to you, but that isn't necessarily so for everyone.
I can see that the scoftics don't take the word of
anybody. As ol' Grover used to say, even if there was a body you'd have to physically drag it from meeting to meeting and rub people's faces in it before they believe it.
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.
See above. Patterson urged them to come but none did, then the weather turned. Not his fault nobody came. And anyway even if they did, the weather would have likely ruined it.
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.
That's supposing the ground was soft enough in such places. Tracks aren't made everywhere. Don't be mistaken into thinking tracks should be everywhere.
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.
This is today. That was then. Investigators were fewer and further between back in the 1960s. The three most reknowned investigators at the time were Green, Dahinden and Titmus. Green and Dahinden lived some 600 miles away and had just spent money going to Bluff Creek 7 weeks before. Titmus did go to the area. Titmus lived in Kitimat, British Columbia at the time. That's 1,000 miles away.
A consecutive number of 10 prints is a hell of a lot better that what anybody has managed lately isn't it? So why try and downplay what Titmus did??
Science dictates thorough investigation and examination. Only Mr. Titmus knows why he didn't do more to tediously investigate and document.
I think he did a bloody good job and I pat him on the back for it.
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.
Nope, by all accounts he did a thorough enough investigation for a one man band. Could he have done more? Well everybody can always do more. He apparantely diligently and minutely examined what he had and what he saw. Perhaps if he had a partner or two then more could have been accomplished. There aren't many investigators these days who actually get off their backsides and out of their trucks and cars and hike for miles and miles and do what Bob Titmus did
ON HIS OWN. According to his report he walked between 14 and 16 miles up Bluff Creek the first day. That's walked. On his own. On his footsies. With nobody else. I presume he camped there that night. On his own. He came 1,000 miles to do just this.
I think that deserves a
big pat on the back even if you don't.
How many investigators today do you think would do similar things??? Travel 1,000 miles to a location then walk and camp for miles and miles on their own. Do you know of anybody who has done this or would do this?? This is a serious question. Just trying to see how many potential Bob Titmuses we have. I have heard on the grapevine from people in the know that a fair few researchers don't like to go more than 5 minutes away from their SUVs while supposedly out researching. A lot of people are way too pampered these days LOL.
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?
Yes.
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?
Because most of them are nerks LOL. Green and Titmus weren't. At least I don't imagine them to be/have been.
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.
He never said he thought they were tracks either, just 'globs of mud'. Apparantely, he wasn't convinced by them and wasn't convinced about the reality of sasquatch until he actually saw Patty......so there's your answer. He even said on t.v interview when he saw Patty "I was like oh they do exist!!" when he saw her. Obviously he wasn't convinced before.
Course Gimlin said Patterson was a gymnast and great athlete. 
