a few reply's for carcharodon
"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."
So are you saying that it's intent was to go back (retreat) to where it came from? Because if this is so, flags and rockets would go off for me. A few thoughts would instantly pop into my mind, backtracking, transition area and food source, in that order. Animals backtrack, they do this quite frequently. I'm not going to go into much detail but one example would be transiting from one feeding area to another. Now if said animal gets nervous for any reason it will often head back the same direction it came from, it will usually hook back into it's original path (if not the original path at least very close, half mile give or take). If it does not do this when it becomes nervous it will go to it's pushdown (the quickest route to cover, escape route), it obviously did not go to it's pushdown. Bluff Creek is a classic example of a transition zone, a transition zone is basically going from cover to the open and often associated with finding food/feeding, if an animal uses/crosses it once, odds are in favor that it (or others) will use it again. Last but certainly not least is food source. There is abundant bear sign as well as cougar and bobcat throughout the entire Bluff Creek drainage, all you have to do is follow the food-chain down and you know that this area (the basin) has now, as well as always, sustainable food sources.
Under the circumstances laid out in the PG story why would this particular animal react like no other animal on earth? It's hard for me to accept your rest and drink water theory because there are several water sources close by so it wouldn't have had to leave the cover of the forest. Why didn't it go to it's pushdown, maybe it's as simple as it did not feel threatened (maybe not), I don't know. Was it transiting from one feeding area to another, the answer to this would have to be on Titmus and how far upstream he traveled and/or how closely he truly surveyed the basin in that area, I do not have much faith in Bobs tracking ability at this point so again I guess we will never know for sure. Had it been hunting the cover of the transition zone, gave that up, got a drink, and well . . . So now lets read a statement Titmus made and think about it in the terminology of, how do we see bigfoot again?
"This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns." 1.)
Heavily timbered, remember that this is mostly old growth forest and possibly recent clearcut, believe it or not old growth is not good habitat to find animals, be it larger herbivores, carnivores or omnivores (unless there is a zone transiting game trail, remember, where herbivores go carnivores and omnivores go) on a regular basis. Why is old-growth not good habitat? Well because there is only
2.) some underbrush, herbivores live in habitats of thick undergrowth they also prefer a healthy variety of vegetation as there food source. So, it's beginning to look like the surrounding forests may not be large animal habitat but we really don't have enough information at this point
3.) deep carpet of ferns, if a bear eats a fern it's certainly at the bottom of it's list, I have never seen evidence of bear eating ferns. Deer also do not eat ferns, maybe it's because of the thiaminase in them, thou both deer and bear eat horsetail and it also contains thiaminase so I'm not sure what's up with them not eating ferns, all I know is that it is not a primary food source. What does all of this mean? Well apparently nothing to the bigfoot community, but, the fact remains, proper employment of these clues are what separate failure from success in the real world when searching for game.
ANIMALS ARE HABITUAL
I have to believe that sasquatch is not so much unlike other animals. Sure it could be the smartest, but it's not as smart as man, if it were, we'd be living in the forest and it would be living in houses. It's going to use major trails to transit, it's going to have runs like all other animals and it's going go pushdown when it wants out. About the only thing I can accept it would not have on a regular basis would be a recognized pushdown (pushdown used more than once), thou I'm certain the bigfoot club experts would never check for this, they always seem to be running the other-way.
"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."
It does work like that, that is exaclly how it works. Nothing personal but by implying this you are simply stating to what degree your lack of knowledge with this subject is. You ever hear the terms compression sign, side-heading, entrance point, displacement, slide spoor, do you know why one of the most important tools for daytime tracking is a flashlight? Again, just because you don't think it can be done doesn't mean it can't.
"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."
You've got to be F-ing kiddin with this one. Hot on the trail of one of the greatest discoveries of mankind and the guy can't put forth more than a
"little effort". That's just plain lazy ass BU(( S#!T !!!! The fact is you will learn more about everyday/common behavior following tracks backwards (in) after an animal has been spooked than you will cutting it's sign out.
"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". Says you, whatever. Titmus did what has become typical of the clown shows, he is one of the forefathers of the bigfoot SNAFU teams. There are only two possible explanations why these guys can never seem to achieve their goal. They either suck at it, or their chasing a ghost.
In Closing;
So again, what does all this mean? Patterson got one on film didn't he? I guess Roger understood animal behavior and the fact that all the animals in that area would eventually use the basins to feed, that all the old growth was simply used to transit from one basin or meadow to the other. He new the basins contained the variety of vegetation that all animals in the area would prefer and that there is good thick cover between the creek and timber, but mostly he seemed to know that unlike all other animal this one did/does not fear man and would chose the longest distance on its journey to cover.
When someone uses the argument that they have been that close to a bear or any of a number of other large animal then say it just sauntered off, I call BS. You don't spook large animals, make eye contact, cause a great deal of commotion (horse rearing or man falling off horse, man and horse crossing creek toward said animal, man chasing after large animal) and not see that animal stand it's ground in a very threatening manner, charge you, or didi mau the F out of there, it just don't happen that way in the real world.
But the film looks so fluid, I see muscle movement, you know what, I see/saw that also, so what I did was took out every interlaced frame and then rebuilt it, then I rendered it without interlacing or compression. You know what, I got something not quite so fluid and it seems to have lost a bit of that muscle movement and definition. I would strongly suggest for anyone seriously interested in this to find the highest resolution copy of MKs work and do that little experiment (it's a shame that more people were not allowed access to Nolls original work, but I guess it's all about self promotion with them). Make it an AVI no interlace and no compression, it will come out between 400-600 Meg's depending on what filtering you use (the large file size does not mean you are gaining information it simply guarantees you will not lose any, there is not much to start with). I think some might find it quite amazing, you can begin to see how a computer interprets then interpolates data, even crappy data. You may also begin to understand why some believe that they can see finger/thumb movement . . . To be quite honest if this is the best MK got out of Nolls work then they didn't get much and/or there wasn't much there to start with.
Basically all there is, is a blurry mess. If there was anything in MKs work that could truly validate claims, they would be hawking this clip big-time. Patricia Patterson would be dangling it in front of the highest bidder and many, many respected PHd's would be stepping-up for a look-see. Of course someone would probably have to come up with the original to verify that no major manipulation was incorporated,
damed those scientists from the real world.
There is a saying in editing/publishing/printing . . . Garbage in, Garbage out, folks this is what I believe we have here, Garbage! And I'm sorry if any of you find this offending but I have to state that anyone who claims they have anything more than simply an educated guess (pro or con) about what is on this film needs to start explaining it in an intelligent scientifically (provable) manner. This would involve arguments a little stronger than the half baked theories of Krantz, Meldrum, Green, Long, Glickman, Murphy . . . Certainly something stronger than some IM basically pulled out of thin air, not the measurements taken on scene without an instrument for measuring, or a camera (oh, wait a minute they had a stick they could use), no way to positively calibrate anything, exact camera angle/position in relationship to the subject, there's no way to validate the films fps. So far we have a hotbed for probable errors. It's no wonder some of these guys came to the same conclusions, they made S#!t up from start to finish when calculations didn't jive. They estimate this, they estimate that, but they don't prove anything. They assume this, will satisfy that, error analysis is not provided to verify accuracy or should I say inaccuracy. They write down a bunch of analytical jargon but sometimes I think they forget what the word analytical means. WTF. Come on, is this truly the best there is?
All these inaccuracies are making me thirsty, I must go, but don't get me wrong, I still entertain the possibility.
m
