Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Dancing David]

I made direct comparisons with direct relative species. I thought JREF members could discern subtleties, but I was wrong.
You've lost my respect already.

Uh huh, polieness met with rudeness, okay.
There are many issues with your statement but since you make your choice I won't bother you further. (Diect comparison of what?) (Cave bear=grizzly bear?)(OMG! NA brown bear is EA brown bear?)(Dire wolf>grey wolf?)
Whatever.

 

[RayG]

SweatyYeti used the word "inhuman" when referring to Patty's body proportions here.

Sweaty made additional mentions in post #9998, page 250, of the same thread, and post #607, page 16 of the Simple Challenge thread.

Not that anyone is counting mind you...

RayG

 

[GT/CS]

Wipe the drool.

BTW, what do you call it when someone stalks you from forum to forum?

Just so you have a clue, I've been dealing with the likes of LT, CN, K Ky, etc.
You're like the snot nosed kid standing in the middle of the street.

Luv ya MOTS!

Keep up the good work.

Now back to the PGF. What do you think about the visible wrist band on Patty's right arm? Do you think that proves without a doubt that Patty is a bloke in a suit?

 

[Correa Neto]

Wipe the drool.

BTW, what do you call it when someone stalks you from forum to forum?

Just so you have a clue, I've been dealing with the likes of LT, CN, K Ky, etc.
You're like the snot nosed kid standing in the middle of the street.

Following the pattern you've been displaying in the last months, you, once faced with evidences and reasonings that contradicted your positions, instead of countering the arguments, chose to rely on ad homs.

You claim you are being stalked by me and others from forum to forum.
Care to show us all what forums I have stalked you? Better have good evidence to back this claim. You must be able to present evidence that I am member of the other www forums you are. Show it.

Or the claim was poorly worded and you actually want to say I am stalking you at other threads?
You know, like having a sockppupet, its against the rules.

Oce again, you must have evidence to back such an accusation. Go ahead and report me to a mod. Or remove this ridiculous accusation. If the material you have to back it is of the same quality of the pro-bigfoot evidence you presented so far, it'll be just another blunder of yours...

Cozy little corner you like to paint yourself in, eh?

 

[Drewbot]

Parcher or LTC do you have a source on P&G finding 3 different size prints at bluff creek after the PGF was filmed?

 

[William Parcher]

I think you are talking about Bob Titmus finding those tracks before P&G arrived at Bluff Creek.

 

[rgann]

Drew

I have two sources and as you might guess they are a bit confusing

This link is an article by Green, where he states

Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks René and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14". If it is the same as the 14" from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/bctracks.html

However in the 1992 Interview Green did with Gimlin, others are credited with contacting P&G on the tracks.

Green: So you went to an area where you heard tracks had been seen fairly recently?

Gimlin: Yes. Just prior to the time we had gotten there, they had sighted tracks on that Tuesday after being off over the Labor Day weekend. It had also started raining all up and down the West coast. By the time we got down there, these tracks supposedly were 3 different sizes and were just globs in the mud as far as I was concerned. We couldn’t get any plaster cast definition of them at all.

Green: I never realized that you went down there for that specific set of tracks....

Gimlin: Yes, that’s the reason we went into that area. I wasn’t real anxious to go down there because I needed to go back to work, but Roger kept saying these guys were pretty good down in that area, I can’t remember the fellow’s name that called up here...

Green: ... probably Al Hodgson.....

Gimlin: Yes! It was Al Hodgson, but there was somebody else who had talked to Roger too, a guy that worked for the Forest Service.

Green: Syl McCoy maybe?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

Hope That helps

Rick

 

[William Parcher]

Thanks, Rick. Numerous early Bigfooters found prints and had encounters around Bluff Creek. Exactly who found what and when may be less important than simply knowing that Bigfooters were finding evidence at Bluff Creek with such consistency that it was an obvious hotspot.

The strong skeptical position on Bigfoot is that the creature does not exist. All Bigfoot prints are intentional hoaxes or gross misidentifications (bear oversteps or substrate pareidolia). The various 'classic prints' that were cast around Bluff Creek all have enough detail and definition to rule out error. Every single one of them is a fake. So what was going on at Bluff Creek?

The Bluff Creek area had become a traditional location to hoax your Bigfoot prints and possibly even an encounter. It wasn't the only area the hoaxers were working, but it certainly ranks prominent especially after Oct. 1967. Hoaxing at Bluff Creek dropped off after the PGF.

Lyle Laverty was a forestry worker at the Bluff Creek watershed in the vicinity of numerous found prints and of course the Patty encounter. Laverty spent his days in this forest and on the roads. He never saw a Bigfoot nor any evidence for them until he saw the Patty tracks a few days after the encounter. His only critical comment after seeing these tracks was that he was generally skeptical that Patterson could waltz into Bluff Creek and get lucky enough to film a Bigfoot. After all, Laverty had not seen any signs of these things in spite of being in that area on a daily basis for years. But Laverty missed the opportunity for seeing the bigger picture of what was going on at Bluff Creek. He didn't mention that over the years numerous other Bigfooters had waltzed into Bluff Creek and found enormous Bigfoot prints. These eccentric Bigfoot believers had been coming into "his forest" and finding evidence that he never found himself. WTF? Does a person have to have a belief in Bigfoot in order to find tracks? Should we just summarize the paradox by saying that Laverty's job didn't require him to look at the ground?

No. What is rather obvious to strong BF skeptics is that there is an undeniable association between those who hoax BF tracks and those who find them. That association may be direct or indirect. A hoaxer only needed to know where a Bigfooter would do some searching and have the opportunity to create the fakes in advance. Things were easier for a hoaxer at Bluff Creek because the sandbars were a perfect medium and that was a logical place for anyone to look for tracks. If the association was direct then you have the finder in cahoots with the hoaxer and they also could be the same person.

 

[LTC8K6]

Patterson's reference to being worried about the male bigfoot is the only thing that comes to mind at the moment. They supposedly had seen bigger tracks.

 

[LTC8K6]

Meldrum sure goes all over the place regarding bigfoot. Now Bigfoot is related to the orangutan...

Didn't Meldrum just get bigfoot DNA that would conflict with that?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/04/BAFDU8QON.DTL

Meldrum, an expert on primate morphology, says the hoax stories don't hold up under scrutiny.

"If you watch the film as a student of anatomy, primates and locomotion, you can see the movement of the shoulder blade under the skin," he said. "I can see the calf muscles contract at the appropriate moments. When anyone tries to replicate it in any way, it doesn't look like a primate."

His theory?

"You can never be 100 percent sure of anything, but beyond a reasonable doubt I am convinced it portrays a real animal," he said. "My working hypothesis is they are a species of great ape restricted to the ground but having an arboreal legacy. They would most likely be related to the orangutans."

Meldrum said the lack of Bigfoot corpses is not a mystery, given the remote spots where they are believed to live as well as the dampness of the forest and the acidic quality of forest soil, which encourages decomposition.

Upstairs in his office, Perez plays the Patterson-Gimlin film on his computer again and again.

He thinks as many as 100,000 Bigfoots could be roaming North America, but he knows he may never find one.

"A lot of early researchers thought we would solve the mystery in a few years, but we haven't," he said. "I can't prove Bigfoot exists, but either someone has been fabricating tracks for over a hundred years or there is a real animal out there."

 

[LTC8K6]

We couldn’t get any plaster cast definition of them at all.

More casting going on in the area...they apparently had plaster with them.

They claim to have had no plaster with them when Patty sashayed by...

 

[LTC8K6]

From the first news story:

LATE LAST NIGHT Patterson was anxious to return to the campsite where they had left their horses. He had been to Eureka in the afternoon to airmail his film to partner Al De Atley in Yakima. De Atley has helped finance Patterson's expeditions.

He and Gimlin were equally anxious to return to the primitive area. "It's right in the middle of the primitive area" for the chance to get another view and more film of the creature.

He said there's strong belief that a family of these creatures may be in the area since footprints of 17, 15 and nine inches have been reported found.

The writer jested that these sizes put him in mind of The Three Bears.

"This was no bear," Patterson said. "We have seen a lot of bears in our travels. We have seen some bears on this trip. This definitely was no bear."

 

[LTC8K6]

The Province 10/25/1967:

"Bob started to follow on his horse, but I called him back. The tracks we'd seen earlier indicated she was part of a family group, and that could be dangerous. I was shaking quite a bit, so the film isn't too steady, but it shows the thing clearly. I've believed they existed for a long time, just from talking to many eye-witnesses. Now there's no doubt at all."

So far no mention of sets of tracks found after.

 

[Geno]

Patterson m-a-i-l-e-d the film

Patterson and Al DeAtley both lived in Yakima and Patterson mailed the film to him? Why not personally deliver the gold nugget worth millions to DeAtley when you get back to Yakima to avoid loss or damage by sending it by mail?

 

[manofthesea]

Luv ya MOTS!

Keep up the good work.

Now back to the PGF. What do you think about the visible wrist band on Patty's right arm? Do you think that proves without a doubt that Patty is a bloke in a suit?

Almost everyone who knows me loves me.

You're kidding right? Wristband? I've addressed the issues I have with the PGF. I suspect the stills used here have been manipulated. Same with the photo used to compare a bear to the Jacob's creature. Manipulated.

Now, if Mr. Noll were to provide photos available through him, then I'd gladly have an appreciative look at them. Until then, forget it.

 

[manofthesea]

How Can I Not Use Adhoms Concerning This Nonsense? Seriously

Following the pattern you've been displaying in the last months, you, once faced with evidences and reasonings that contradicted your positions, instead of countering the arguments, chose to rely on ad homs.

You claim you are being stalked by me and others from forum to forum.
Care to show us all what forums I have stalked you? Better have good evidence to back this claim. You must be able to present evidence that I am member of the other www forums you are. Show it.

Or the claim was poorly worded and you actually want to say I am stalking you at other threads?
You know, like having a sockppupet, its against the rules.

Oce again, you must have evidence to back such an accusation. Go ahead and report me to a mod. Or remove this ridiculous accusation. If the material you have to back it is of the same quality of the pro-bigfoot evidence you presented so far, it'll be just another blunder of yours...

Cozy little corner you like to paint yourself in, eh?

I made no such claim whatsoever. I asked what it was called when someone stalks another member from forum to forum. No answer as usual. Just a bunch of nonsense. Pure nonsense.

If you believe that you've made a point anywhere in your posts, then you need help. Really.
Granted, you can ask questions. Anyone can, including children. But you really need to have your mental health evaluated.

What you really mean is this, you want me to argue against your questionable links. Forget it.

 

[mangler]

MOTS,

Rick Noll, you mean my neighbor Rick Noll? You gotta be joking me.


m

 

[kitakaze]

How Can I Not Use Adhoms Concerning This Nonsense? Seriously

(snip)... But you really need to have your mental health evaluated.

MOTS, if you feel your only recourse is to make an ad hom than my advice is to just leave it only and move on to something else. I don't mean leave the thread or forum, just the particular interaction in which you feel compelled to use ad homs.

Seriously, just let it go. You've made enough AAH contributions already and nobody wants to see the main BF thread be set to moderated status. Let's discuss the subject like adults and spare the insults. Fair enough?

 

[Correa Neto]

Mots, This will be the last time I will bother answering to any similar unproductive claims and bravados from your part.

I can pinpoint the occasions where you've insulted me and made insinuations about stalking and sockpuppetry. If you feel somehow insulted by my posts, I encourage you to gather the evidence and fill a complaint against me to a moderator.

If by any chance you present something worthy in the future, I may eventually discuss it.

For the last time, ad homs can't counter evidence and arguments. They backfire. They are backfiring at you. They can not hide the fact that the evidence and reasonings you presented so far are weak and or flawed and they also make you look pretty bad.

 

[Hitch]

If the Bigfooters can move the goalposts, why not the sceptics?

After 256 pages and being no closer to agreeing on anything, maybe it's time to shift the debate.

We can't seem to get anyone on either side to admit the possibility that "Patty" might be a real creature or a "bloke in a suit." How about we skip to real brass tacks. Does the Patterson Gimlin Film exist?

Might seem like a stupid question -- how could we argue for over two years about it if it doesn't, but has anyone ever actually seen it? I mean, I've seen lots of still images, animated GIFs, digital video clips, etc. that are supposed to represent what it shown on the film, but can anyone make a plausible claim for having actually seen the actual film?

I don't think we need to debate what the film shows until somebody can prove the film even exists.