• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
SweatyYeti said:
Green and McClarin went there about 8 months after the filming...and they said that most of the tracks had faded-away....but some were still visible.
Click to expand...

Waitaminute - 8 months?! Patty's prints -some of them at least - survived a Bluff Creek winter and were still apparent in May??

If this is true, how do people travel in the great outdoors without finding bigfoot prints to cast?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Also Titmus didn't seem to mention seeing tracks that had already been cast. He should have found Roger's casting spots.

Try again. :D
Click to expand...


He did. Titmus reported that four of the tracks had been cast (plaster poured). But interestingly, Patterson only showed two plaster casts. Nobody seems to have ever asked him or Gimlin about that. The Patty believers just don't ask those kinds of questions.
 
The Shrike said:
Waitaminute - 8 months?! Patty's prints -some of them at least - survived a Bluff Creek winter and were still apparent in May??

If this is true, how do people travel in the great outdoors without finding bigfoot prints to cast?
Click to expand...

Yes. I was told by Roger Knights at BFF a couple years ago, that the consistency of the sand at Bluff creek means prints could last up to six months.

Including the seasonal flooding? and the trees and logs rolling down the river, and the river bank changing?

If so, why did BobG have to cover the trackway with Cardboard/ Bark chunks?

I found a second mention of this at BFF http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23427&pid=482203&mode=threaded&start=

Drew said:
Roger Knights said somewhere that experts determined that Patty's tracks would last for 6 months where they were at, why didn't the three sets they set out to find hang around for that long?
Click to expand...
Roger Knights said:
The tracks they went to find were in dirt by a roadside. They naturally turned to mud after the first rain. The tracks in the gravel bar lasted longer because the material there is not sand, but tiny fragments of slate. It takes a heavy weight to make an impression in that material, although the fact that it's lubricated each morning in the fall by heavy fogs makes it more malleable. Once the impressions have been made, they "set" and last, because the porous material drains well, so it doesn't slump.

Incidentally, in his interview last year on Bigfoot Live, BH inaccurately said the sand there was "white as snow" (it's a light gray at best, and a dark gray when damp), and it only appears white in the film because it was overexposed. BH also said that it would have been easy for P&G to moosh down tracks in it using mere plaster casts of footprints, another absurdity. That "black sand" is extremely dense and hard to "moosh," and plaster casts are too fragile to make tracks with except in mud, which an irrigation-worker friend of his (Prentis Beck) in Yakima did. That's no doubt where he got the idea.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
seriously, Laverty had no reason to lie, and he was a very reputable guy. He said he followed the trackway for several hundred feet. Titmus casts include one of the prints Laverty photographed. There is no reason to doubt that the trackway was there in the days following October 20.
 
William Parcher said:
He did. Titmus reported that four of the tracks had been cast (plaster poured). But interestingly, Patterson only showed two plaster casts. Nobody seems to have ever asked him or Gimlin about that. The Patty believers just don't ask those kinds of questions.
Click to expand...



That's right. I knew there was something there. 4 prints in the film, 4 prints had been cast according to Titmus, but Roger only had 2 casts.

Would have been Laverty who'd have seen Roger's fresh casting remnants.

Still no trackway, though. :D
 
They were deep and very numerous...several hundred feet of trackway, according to Laverty; probably dug out and then stomped on. They were candidates to become fossilized, they were so permanent. imho.:)
 
Last edited:
parnassus said:
seriously, Laverty had no reason to lie, and he was a very reputable guy. He said he followed the trackway for several hundred feet. Titmus casts include one of the prints Laverty photographed. There is no reason to doubt that the trackway was there in the days following October 20.
Click to expand...

Who said Laverty lied? I don't think Laverty lied. I just don't recall him saying he saw a trackway, or photographing same.

All you need to do is document what you wrote. :D

Besides the point is the connection between any trackway and the subject of the film. That's what's needed.

Roger had plenty of time to create a trackway for people to see and follow if the film is indeed a hoax.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Roger had plenty of time to create a trackway for people to see and follow if the film is indeed a hoax.
Click to expand...


LTC8K6 wrote:
To date, as far as I know, there is no evidence of any trackway. None.
Click to expand...


It's nice to have OPTIONS, when you're Skeptical. ;) :D

You just use whatever explanation 'fits best', at the time.
 
This was originally reported in the Bigfoot Times, and is retold in Meldrum's book, p. 233. "Laverty followed the tracks along the sandbar for several hundred feet."
 
well, I guess you should document that assertion. The Laverty photos don't show that, and the Titmus casts show several that are pretty darned clear. And remember, they were an inch deep, and all that was needed to follow them was traces. They didn't need to be able to see hangnails and "dermal ridges" to see which way the tracks went.
 
Last edited:
I think what LTC meant by "there is no evidence of any trackway" is that we have no real record of it other than various testimonies. Because of this, we cannot examine the trackway. We have a filmstrip that shows 4 tracks but we can't be certain that that is supposed to be Patty's tracks according to the P&G story. Roger made a track demo film and it might be that one instead.

Laverty didn't photograph the trackway - just individual tracks (KKZ is going to ask him a bunch of questions about this). Walt Kurshman didn't photograph anything (can you track him down, KKZ?). Bob Titmus didn't photograph anything. John Green didn't film the trackway or any individual tracks.
 
I'll admit I know almost zilch of the seeming vast amounts of minutiae concerning the PGF 'site situation', i.e. tracks, trackways, routes, casts, trees, logs, who was there sooner/later, who was/wasn't reputable, who's camera was there, what horse's ass is in what picture, blah blah blah...BUT...I do know that in the bigger scheme of things, and I believe all this is being done for a 'bigger scheme', you cannot (logically) propose that Roger Patterson & Bob Gimlin were just simpleton cowboys from Yakima werkin' a get-rich scheme and then proceed to explain in great and exacting detail all the (supposed) grand complexities that were involved in making it happen. Not because any of it is or isn't true, but because nobody will buy/believe it if they can't follow it and/or understand it and/or reconcile it back to the supposed perpetrators.

You're gonna need some quantity of 'actual visible proof' of some of this stuff so that the significance of any one important thing isn't lost to being simply conjecture. Establishing a revised timeline that fits better with all this detail, for instance, surely won't be enough. Nor will declaring certain tracks to be either hand made or 'creature' made. Nor will proclaiming exactly which horse was or wasn't there. Nor will BH saying, simply, he was the guy in the suit. And FTR, I do understand the genuine scarcity of 'hard evidence' in this case, but that still doesn't preclude its 'necessity' if you're trying to convince others that it all happened differently than has been professed.

In my opinion, the final 'solution', regardless of it's inherent complexity, has to appear to be as 'simple and believable' as the film itself. Or at least as simple as the explanations that were given out by Patterson and/or Gimlin over the years. I have the original Argosy magazine article and I can read their entire 'story' in about 5 minutes. Just sayin', a 37 page narrative or a 60 minute filmed 'explanation' as to 'how it all went down' just won't cut it because you'll have lost most everyone who was paying attention long before the punchline ever shows up.

Anyway, I'll take a little credit for warning (KK) this endeavor was going to be more daunting than it first appeared. And I think it is in fact turning out that way. No? I think BH himself is partly responsible for that as he seems to have given the situation a false notion that there was an 'easy solution' if one just connected the dots. There's just too many missing dots me thinks.

Yet again, seriously, continued good luck with it KK. I know you have the persistence and tenacity necessary and it will surely take that and more to make it all happen 'right' in the end. :)
 
William Parcher said:
I think what LTC meant by "there is no evidence of any trackway" is that we have no real record of it other than various testimonies. Because of this, we cannot examine the trackway. We have a filmstrip that shows 4 tracks but we can't be certain that that is supposed to be Patty's tracks according to the P&G story. Roger made a track demo film and it might be that one instead.

Laverty didn't photograph the trackway - just individual tracks (KKZ is going to ask him a bunch of questions about this). Walt Kurshman didn't photograph anything (can you track him down, KKZ?). Bob Titmus didn't photograph anything. John Green didn't film the trackway or any individual tracks.
Click to expand...

Hey we're all trying to keep track of a blobsquatch of accounts and images. LTC gives me pics, I give him text. no problemo.

Speaking of which I need more help. I am looking for an image of the Bluff Creek casts, I believe it is from Krantz, showing casts against a crosshatched background. Like a police lineup for casts. Anybody help me? plz?
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I'll take a little credit for warning (KK) this endeavor was going to be more daunting than it first appeared. And I think it is in fact turning out that way. No? I think BH himself is partly responsible for that as he seems to have given the situation a false notion that there was an 'easy solution' if one just connected the dots. There's just too many missing dots me thinks.
Click to expand...
Anybody who has ever written anything for publication knows how hard it is just to fashion a persuasive paragraph, let alone a whole paper, book or script. So yes, it is hard. The important thing to remember is that there will always be a Roger Knights or a Moneymaker in the audience, and there will always be the talking points and the name calling. It is not important, useful or even reasonable to try to persuade the hardest core, nor is it realistic to think that, even with the best evidence, there won't always be millions of people who will never bother to understand, and will be afraid of bigfoot every night and every time they go into the woods. All that can be done is to persuade the reasonable folks and keep this stuff out of our schools, and even that requires a sustained effort on several fronts.
 
Last edited:
parnassus said:
Speaking of which I need more help. I am looking for an image of the Bluff Creek casts, I believe it is from Krantz, showing casts against a crosshatched background. Like a police lineup for casts. Anybody help me? plz?
Click to expand...


Here. These are 8 of the 10 that Titmus cast.


dded1994.gif
 
parnassus said:
The important thing to remember is that there will always be a Roger Knights... in the audience...
Click to expand...


That is debatable. He seems to be one-of-a-kind and is now missing for a long time. It's obvious that he is not in the audience, nor is there another like him, when KKZ is running Heironimus Powersled throughout the BFF.

IMO, the BFF appears impotent and flailing against KKZ's BH without Knights himself. Put a cape on him and bring him back... quick!
 
Last edited:
William Parcher wrote:
Upon their arrival, Patterson showed the film to all present and the group discussed how Patterson and Gimlin should go forward with the new evidence. Patterson did not show the group the general movie footage he had taken (i.e., the first 76-feet of the first roll). Nor did he (Roger) show the other footage on the second roll if he did, in fact, have the developed roll.
Click to expand...



Here is what John Green said about his viewing of the 2nd Reel....in his book "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us"...


"There was also some film taken later when they were making casts of the tracks. It seems to have been lost somehow - I have seen it only once - but it clearly showed that when the men walked beside the tracks their feet did not sink appreciably into the packed sand. The prints of the creature, on the other hand, sank about an inch deep, indicating tremendous weight."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom