Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[rockinkt]

I should have added that I am NOT attempting to pass judgement on or malign either the US or Canadian court systems.
Both are exceptional systems that get screwed up by stupid people who pervert the course of justice (or try to - LT knows what I'm talking about) every now and then.

However - I will state for a fact that Canadian beer is far better than anything the US can produce. (lol!)

Speaking of beer - a toast to one and all that they have a happy and prosperous New Year!

 

[JcR]

This is always handy to have around.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

From a recent lecture by Davis. This is a frame that he said has never been seen before. The cursor shows the "puddle of blood"...


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/da506418.jpg[/qimg]

Never seen as edited out of the film or never seen as from a second camera and never a part of the PGF?

 

[clayflingythingy]

It is the mind numbing intransigence of such people that has resulted in so much nonsense being brought forward as "good evidence" or "proof" of sasquatch/Bigfoot.
Trying to convince such rank amateurs why the back-story must be authenticated for the film to be worth any type of analysis is futile.
They obviously have their own reasons for their tunnel vision and it is certainly not for anyone's benefit but their own.

Bill Munns has gone on record that the back story is not important to his analysis of the PGF. None of that matterrs. Only the PGF.

2000 quatloos that Munns proclaims Patty a real bigfoot in 2009.

 

[Bill Munns]

Clay:

"Bill Munns has gone on record that the back story is not important to his analysis of the PGF. None of that matterrs. Only the PGF."

That's because the analysis I was doing was about material dynamics, like the way cloth (including fur cloth materials) folds, and such, and nothing about the backstory changes the way cloth folds, so in that respect, the backstory issues did not affect the analysis I was doing. I said that, clearly, many times.

Bill

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Bill Munns has gone on record that the back story is not important to his analysis of the PGF. None of that matterrs. Only the PGF.

2000 quatloos that Munns proclaims Patty a real bigfoot in 2009.

Well, in defense of Bill's effort, he is using his skills and experience in his area and his project is limited to film subject analysis. Thats all he has ever stated he was doing or going to do. He's a Hollywood type with experience in the areas he is employing his skills on. So from his perspective, the backstory regarding the PGF wouldnt apply.

OTOH, our little project is the backstory only and little to nothing in the film ( except something that may confirm, refute,define,clarify a part of the backstory) is a part of what we are doing.

 

[William Parcher]

Never seen as edited out of the film or never seen as from a second camera and never a part of the PGF?

I don't think he theorized that there was a second camera. I could be wrong. IMO, he seems to think that the 'blood puddle' was edited out of PGF copies for public view because P&G didn't want anyone to know that they had shot a bunch of Bigfoots and buried them with a backhoe. He doesn't seem to realize that the blood puddle is actually the flowing creek and can be seen (as the opening frames) in various programs. He implies that the frame (as transparency) given to him by PP is one that has never been seen by anyone before.

His grand theory is that Patty is actually human (but NOT a human in a costume) and is probably a member of a wild tribe of Indians. P&G shot and killed several of these on the sandbar and buried them. They returned to find Patty at the burial site and begin filming her. During the filming Gimlin actually shoots Patty and you can see the bullet hit her thigh. She gets away. Later, they cover up the massacre of hairy humans by:

1) Editing out the pool of blood.
2) Altering still frames to make Patty look like an "ape" instead of a human.

 

[Bill Munns]

Following up on what LT said above:

"Well, in defense of Bill's effort, he is using his skills and experience in his area and his project is limited to film subject analysis. Thats all he has ever stated he was doing or going to do. He's a Hollywood type with experience in the areas he is employing his skills on. So from his perspective, the backstory regarding the PGF wouldnt apply."

I have no experience investigating copyright claims or legal documents such as court rulings, indeed I wouldn't even know where to begin searching for such court records, so an investigator such as LT would be well qualified to do so while I would not.

Each person investigates according to their ability and where they can apply their knowledge effectively. Thus some people specialize or focus their investigation on a specific issue, subject, or area, where they may be effective.

Bill

 

[Crowlogic]

Following up on what LT said above:

"Well, in defense of Bill's effort, he is using his skills and experience in his area and his project is limited to film subject analysis. Thats all he has ever stated he was doing or going to do. He's a Hollywood type with experience in the areas he is employing his skills on. So from his perspective, the backstory regarding the PGF wouldnt apply."

I have no experience investigating copyright claims or legal documents such as court rulings, indeed I wouldn't even know where to begin searching for such court records, so an investigator such as LT would be well qualified to do so while I would not.

Each person investigates according to their ability and where they can apply their knowledge effectively. Thus some people specialize or focus their investigation on a specific issue, subject, or area, where they may be effective.

Bill

Not to mention those who aren't qualified in any aspect to speculate on every aspect!

 

[JohnWS]

Not to mention those who aren't qualified in any aspect to speculate on every aspect!

Personally I'd always be willing to listen to anything anybody brought to the table (in any walk of life).

 

[JcR]

I'm no longer convinced it is

Does your investigation lead you to believe the whereabouts of the
master copy ?
And I would like to add ( not addressed to you... just a statement) I do not intend to find an Ah-Hah gotcha moment in these copies.
I do realize their sources, their bad re-edits so forth.
So they are not completely reliable as witnesses if ya want to call them that.
Bad samples of evidence if they are not a true representation of events.
But still have relevant info commonalities so on etc.
I think they are all part of the puzzle.
Also LT... another question and one for anyone
Does Bob H's confession have any credibility ? Would you use him
as a credible witness ?

Maybe he's the irrelevant guy in the monkey suit (just a joke).

 

[GT/CS]

Has anyone been able to view the film filed with the copyright?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Does your investigation lead you to believe the whereabouts of the
master copy ?
And I would like to add ( not addressed to you... just a statement) I do not intend to find an Ah-Hah gotcha moment in these copies.
I do realize their sources, their bad re-edits so forth.
So they are not completely reliable as witnesses if ya want to call them that.
Bad samples of evidence if they are not a true representation of events.
But still have relevant info commonalities so on etc.
I think they are all part of the puzzle.
Also LT... another question and one for anyone
Does Bob H's confession have any credibility ? Would you use him
as a credible witness ?

Maybe he's the irrelevant guy in the monkey suit (just a joke).

>>>Does your investigation lead you to believe the whereabouts of the
master copy ?

At this point, I think so

>>>Also LT... another question and one for anyone
Does Bob H's confession have any credibility ? Would you use him
as a credible witness ?

I would NOT want him as a chief witness in anything but I do believe his testimony has "some" credibility. So, depending on how you mean it, "if" his word was all I had, I wouldnt enter a court ( I would get my azz handed to me) but compared with the other principles testimony (and their incongruities) he is on equally as shakey ground

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Following up on what LT said above:


I have no experience investigating copyright claims or legal documents such as court rulings, indeed I wouldn't even know where to begin searching for such court records, so an investigator such as LT would be well qualified to do so while I would not.

Each person investigates according to their ability and where they can apply their knowledge effectively. Thus some people specialize or focus their investigation on a specific issue, subject, or area, where they may be effective.

Bill

Bill and I have discussed a myriad of issues regarding the PGF. ( cameras, measuring, fur cloth versus indistrial insulation and taxidermy even)

We have shared stop motion animation stuff and various film techniques.

Bill knows I have my knives sharpened as I know he has his regarding textile questions. I'm good with that.

I'm content to let him present his case in chief before I come out swinging. ( thats only fair)

Regardless of what anyone believes ( Bill may do this or that)- I respectfuly suggest we wait until the final product- then open fire.

Just as my "project"- its going to take some time ( and now I have stated the PGF is a fraud based on the preliminaries) and I hope to factually establish my points- give Bill the same latitude ( the same rules apply to me- thats why I keep saying "yet to be verified")

I'm all for disbelief, scepticism, or whatever but let a man throw his cards on the table before the pistols come out ( then you can shoot him with a clear conscience)

 

[JcR]

LT.
Yes I really was thinking, Bob as more of a collaborating witness
in relation to the events and times.
I guess credibility is all relative to what that individual brings
to the table. If he had the suit in hand and more be definitive of the
time of events, figure he could have more of a lead role in court.
A lot of it circumstantial so far.
If I were the judge looking at Bob in a funny suit in front of me
in my court...
I'd be banging more than my desk with my Gavel.

 

[Bill Munns]

LT:

"I'm content to let him present his case in chief before I come out swinging. ( thats only fair)

Regardless of what anyone believes ( Bill may do this or that)- I respectfuly suggest we wait until the final product- then open fire."

Thank you for your patience and understanding. If only others would follow your example. . . .

To All:

My ETA for my full report is sometime in Summer 2009, after the Gimlin event in May to be sure, maybe after SIGGRAPH in August, if I am accepted to present there.

My report will be a PDF document, well illustrated with my own research efforts and the conventional material. I currently anticipate it will be released through a website, and there will not be any fee for people to download it for examination.

That's as much as i can say now. May all have a Happy New Year.

Bill

 

[Drewbot]

Bill Munns,
I understand that you are taking a purely film/technology/equip. tack to your study, and that you are attempting to undertake this without regard to the backstories/legalities which are prevalent throughout the history of this film. My question is this: IF Lontabber is able to consclusively prove that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin did not film the PGF on the date in question, and in fact filmed it weeks before the alleged Oct. 20ish 1967 date, would you then consider the backstory? What if the unedited roll of film had been located, showing someone getting in a bigfoot suit at bluff creek, walking thought the familiar steps etc... what would be you next action in regards to your study?

 

[Bill Munns]

Drew:

"Bill Munns,
My question is this: IF Lontabber is able to consclusively prove that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin did not film the PGF on the date in question, and in fact filmed it weeks before the alleged Oct. 20ish 1967 date, would you then consider the backstory?"

Yes, I would consider the backstory very seriously, under the above described circumstances.

"What if the unedited roll of film had been located, showing someone getting in a bigfoot suit at bluff creek, walking thought the familiar steps etc... what would be you next action in regards to your study? "

I would applaud his effort and consider any film showing a guy suiting up for his performance at Bluff Creek as conclusive proof of a hoax.

Bill

 

[LTC8K6]

That one frame that Davis uses, with the "damaged mouth", sorta looks like what happens when you stop the film for just a little too long...

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT.
Yes I really was thinking, Bob as more of a collaborating witness
in relation to the events and times.
I guess credibility is all relative to what that individual brings
to the table. If he had the suit in hand and more be definitive of the
time of events, figure he could have more of a lead role in court.
A lot of it circumstantial so far.
If I were the judge looking at Bob in a funny suit in front of me
in my court...
I'd be banging more than my desk with my Gavel.

>>>Yes I really was thinking, Bob as more of a collaborating witness
in relation to the events and times.

Thats why I would like to hear his account of the entire day- that would pretty much confirm or refute any involvement he had

>>>I guess credibility is all relative to what that individual brings
to the table.

Not directed to you ( or most people on this board) but "credibility" in BF dom has a unique meaning that simply doesnt apply in the rest of the world. Trust an old LEO, ALL people WILL lie or tell the truth AS IT SUITS THEM to gain or avoid "whatever" is important to them REGARDLESS of what their "life history", "appearance", eye contact" or ability to "look" honest say. "Credibility" isnt a measurement of anything because its MEANINGLESS and UNDEFINABLE.

Its what you said- what they bring to the table. Now BH has brought a story to the table. Some of it sounds "strange" and some of it contradicts itself- sure, I conceed that out of the gate. But, for the woos, heres a newsflash- several other peoples accounts contradict themselves and the accounts of others too.

I'm not going to "default" dismiss one story when all like stories have the same degree of relative flaws. I have not seen BH's story FACTUALLY refuted any more than I have seen RPs, BGs, DIFFERENT accounts factually proven either.

>>>If he had the suit in hand and more be definitive of the
time of events, figure he could have more of a lead role in court.

I'm not saying his account is true or false at this time but I really do find it hard to accept that if RP was the "mastermind" of a hoax that he would let "the" suit out of his direct control. ( I know I wouldnt) UNLESS, RP was the "broker" and had BH as the "suit man" to avoid a direct trail to him anticipating someone may look. That might explain BH's alleged other "pranks' as he was setting the stage and "practicing" for the "main event". ( or for that matter, BH was a man in a suit for one "take' of the PGF but that footage wasnt used in the final product)

>>>