Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patty's defense against a .30-06
 

Attachments

  • PattyFarts..gif
    PattyFarts..gif
    48 KB · Views: 144
Bobbie

>>>According to that interview, Patterson cast juvenile tracks off the sandbar at Bluff Creek. We know nothing about the tracks of a little one cast that day in Bluff Crk.

How do we know those were juvenile BF tracks and not from human feet?

>>>In reviewing that photograph of Roger with his California tracks, what other explanation can you have than there existed other individuals on that sandbar in Oct of 1967??

Heres one, RP was building a case for his documentary. There is no "evidence" ( by the accepted definition of the word) that anything other than a film crew was at Bluff Creek

>>>Like the story we were told, the figure varies … I would have to look up that video again…

I wouldnt invest any time with that because ( given the description of the load) a few feet wouldnt make any difference. It could have been 25 feet or 250 yards- the result would be the same.

>>> I want to know what was in those wooden boxes.

I believe we all share that sentiment but in the absence of factual information, its logical to accept ( if you believe their "storyline" that they were on a mission to search for tracks) that those boxes contained digging tools, plaster,water,mixing containers and such.
 
Bobbie Short:
Roger (it appears) was looking for a windfall, he thought finding & photographing a BF “in those days” would mean fortune and fame. There is no money in a hoax, although I guess plenty has been made off the MDF & the asscast….
Click to expand...
If he thought that, why didn't he return to the site with more resources and actually look for the creature ?

A site where he could now be sure was the home of a family of Bigfoots...

( Please don't give me : ...." He asked for tracking dogs from Canada, but they wouldn't come .. " )
 
Last edited:
LONGTABBER PE said:
>>> I want to know what was in those wooden boxes.

I believe we all share that sentiment but in the absence of factual information, its logical to accept ( if you believe their "storyline" that they were on a mission to search for tracks) that those boxes contained digging tools, plaster,water,mixing containers and such.
Click to expand...
...which they left behind at the camp when they finally actually found something. D'OH!
 
I was going with the "official storyline." Which in this case is the one most likely to be wrong.

There's no official account (even cherry picking Roger and Bob G's statements to get the best fit) of the time of filming, what they did afterward, how the film was transported, when and where it was developed, and delivered for the first showing, that seem even remotely possible, let alone likely.
 
bobbieshort said:
<Snip>
I don’t know the reason, but here is something interesting that might be applicable. Recently (Oct 2008) M.K. Davis sat down in Al Hodgson’s living room and recorded an interview with him and his wife. According to that interview, Patterson cast juvenile tracks off the sandbar at Bluff Creek. We know nothing about the tracks of a little one cast that day in Bluff Crk. In another 2008 interview with Patricia Patterson in her home, the following photograph was giving to M.K. Davis…it shows the juvenile casts. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/JREFimage.htm (Pictures #5 & #6 on that page, scroll down) It shows her husband posing with the Laird Meadow track; another pair that I assume is the same as the Laverty track and unknown multiple Bluff Creek tracks, some of them different from Patty’s imprints. The juvenile tracks can be seen on the ground next to Patterson. In reviewing that photograph of Roger with his California tracks, what other explanation can you have than there existed other individuals on that sandbar in Oct of 1967?? Was Patty trying to lead Patterson’s party away from others? A juvenile? I simply do not know, I cannot account for all the tracks cast on the sandbar that day, the Laird Meadow Rd tracks notwithstanding… It was cast on a different date.
<Snip>
Click to expand...


Why do people automatically assume that just because someone says something that it is true? (especially someone who has a vested interest in stirring up interest)

Other than Hodgson saying the "juvenile cast" was made at Bluff Creek that day - what actual corroborating evidence do we have?
When/where was that photo taken of Patterson and the tracks?
Patterson said nothing about juvenile tracks. Gimlin said nothing. Patterson's wife said nothing.
Now, 40 years later, somebody says something and we must believe it?

As far as the photo - the small cast shown in the photo means nothing. Patterson could have made that at anytime - anywhere.

This whole thing with MK Dufus Davis sounds like another attention grabbing scheme by a person who has demonstrated a vivid imagination or severe psychological problems.

Massacre at Bluff Creek - give me break!
 
rockinkt said:
Why do people automatically assume that just because someone says something that it is true? (especially someone who has a vested interest in stirring up interest)

Other than Hodgson saying the "juvenile cast" was made at Bluff Creek that day - what actual corroborating evidence do we have?
When/where was that photo taken of Patterson and the tracks?
Patterson said nothing about juvenile tracks. Gimlin said nothing. Patterson's wife said nothing.
Now, 40 years later, somebody says something and we must believe it?

As far as the photo - the small cast shown in the photo means nothing. Patterson could have made that at anytime - anywhere.

This whole thing with MK Dufus Davis sounds like another attention grabbing scheme by a person who has demonstrated a vivid imagination or severe psychological problems.

Massacre at Bluff Creek - give me break!
Click to expand...

Agreed and let me add some more

>>>Patterson said nothing about juvenile tracks. Gimlin said nothing. Patterson's wife said nothing.

Put on your RCMP harness and look at it from the other side- it gets worse.

"IF" RP had so many varied tracks that he "believed" were really from a BF ( as an innocent person would)- he would have to realize there was at least a small community of them locally. ( that many varied tracks, if real could indicate nothing less)

OK, he was on a "mission" to find tracks and he "found" them. The next logical step would be to find the owner of the feet that made them. THAT would be the 'money" shot and he would know that science ( and everyone else) would be on his bandwagon and throwng money at the "find of the century" and not only would he make money ( and maybe a spot on Marlin Perkins Wild Kingdom) but would go down in legitimate history.

The biggest indicator of hoax ( in addition to everything else) isnt so much what RP did as what he didnt do ( that would normally be expected)

I would strongly move the PGF from the hoax column to at least the legitimately undecided column IF RP had

continued the everlasting search

produced multiple PGF's ( different but similar type creatures)

All he did from the PGF forward ( other than a token effort when needed) was go to the market. Thats what one expects of a con and not what one expects from a person who actually "found" what he dedicated so many years searching for.

After all, Robert ballard was an explorer and he didnt stop with the Titanic.
 
rockinkt said:
<snip>
This whole thing with MK Dufus Davis sounds like another attention grabbing scheme by a person who has demonstrated a vivid imagination or severe psychological problems.

Massacre at Bluff Creek - give me break!
Click to expand...
----------------------
You know Rockinkt, you criticize a man for his opinions and hide behind an avatar name. It’s easy to attack man ad hominem (& hide behind an avatar) than it is to look at his work and decide for yourself what the images show.

Anyman is entitled to his opinion, at least Davis is participating in research; I don’t know what qualifies you.

“Massacre at Bluff Creek”……so what?
Is that pronouncement any worse than the MDF nonsense, the asscast overkill and that ridiculous midtarsal break pronouncement. Come on….
 
bobbieshort said:
----------------------
You know Rockinkt, you criticize a man for his opinions and hide behind an avatar name. It’s easy to attack man ad hominem (& hide behind an avatar) than it is to look at his work and decide for yourself what the images show.

Anyman is entitled to his opinion, at least Davis is participating in research; I don’t know what qualifies you.

“Massacre at Bluff Creek”……so what?
Is that pronouncement any worse than the MDF nonsense, the asscast overkill and that ridiculous midtarsal break pronouncement. Come on….
Click to expand...

>>>It’s easy to attack man ad hominem (& hide behind an avatar) than it is to look at his work and decide for yourself what the images show.

I've seen his work and not commenting on him personally but his "work" and conclusions are pretty much an insult to human intelligence.

>>>Anyman is entitled to his opinion, at least Davis is participating in research; I don’t know what qualifies you.

In all honesty, "researcher" and "research" in ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT Science has a definition all its own and NOT shared or accepted in quality,standards,methods, training, or anything else by any legitimate established science. Not speaking for Rock but what qualifies him ( as well as myself) is that we are legitimate investigators with extensive LE backgrounds. Both of us have advanced degrees and decades of doing "real" investigations in the "real" world. Its easy to spot a flawed one when you know how a real one is supposed to work.

This is not directed at you, MK or anyone specific but is true in the world of BF.

>>>Is that pronouncement any worse than the MDF nonsense, the asscast overkill and that ridiculous midtarsal break pronouncement. Come on

In the way you put that, no I agree- they are all equally unsupported by any legitimate evidence.
 
BobbieShort
Is that pronouncement any worse than the MDF nonsense, the asscast overkill and that ridiculous midtarsal break pronouncement. Come on….
Click to expand...
I applaud you and find it interesting that you feel free to make such a pronouncement in a skeptical venue.

Did I miss where you made similar comments over at BFF ?

There was even one thread where Dr. Meldrum himself was participating. I suspect your ' midtarsal break ' comment, would create quite a buzz over there, even today ..
 
rockinkt said:
Why do people automatically assume that just because someone says something that it is true? (especially someone who has a vested interest in stirring up interest)

Other than Hodgson saying the "juvenile cast" was made at Bluff Creek that day - what actual corroborating evidence do we have?
When/where was that photo taken of Patterson and the tracks?
Patterson said nothing about juvenile tracks. Gimlin said nothing. Patterson's wife said nothing.
Now, 40 years later, somebody says something and we must believe it?

As far as the photo - the small cast shown in the photo means nothing. Patterson could have made that at anytime - anywhere.

This whole thing with MK Dufus Davis sounds like another attention grabbing scheme by a person who has demonstrated a vivid imagination or severe psychological problems.

Massacre at Bluff Creek - give me break!
Click to expand...

It should be the same for bob h.
 
This one reminds me of the Wallace Alderfoot...


4ac571a1.jpg
 
Actually, my dog is named dufus. I'm thinking about trading names with him though, he's not nearly as foolish as I am. M.K.
 
M.K.Davis said:
Actually, my dog is named dufus. I'm thinking about trading names with him though, he's not nearly as foolish as I am. M.K.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that...

Care to answer the questions in my post?

I'll add to them these two questions:

What is your training/experience in conducting investigative interviews?

What training/experience qualifies you to ascertain something is a bullet strike on film?
 
I thought Davis was primateer on JREF. Is there a conspiracy theory involving a switch of name that we should be aware of?


m
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom