Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Stop making false accusations, please.
Stop assuming bad intentions, and get your mind out of the gutter.
You have no reason to accuse me that way.
Fortunately everyone can see that.

I never said Titmus and Laverty didn't see a trackway. I never said a trackway was not there. If Roger was hoaxing the incident, he would surely have put a trackway there. So it's nothing if people saw some sort of a trackway.

O.k., LTC....I'll be more careful in quoting you, in the future. I thought those two lines sounded a bit contradictory.

Why you can't manage to pay attention, and keep cherry picking and misinterpreting is really beyond me. Nothing that I said about the trackway or lack thereof reflects any inconsistency on my part.

I said "we" haven't seen evidence of any trackway. All we have are 1 first hand account from Titmus, which doesn't seem to match the incident too well, and now I see we have a second hand account of what Laverty may have said, from a book.

Still no pictures or film of this trackway so that we can subject it to examination. Nothing but anecdotes.

Well, there are the testimonies of at least a few people, who went to see the filmsite, early-on....and the footage on the 2nd reel.


All of that is evidence of a long, extended trackway...and, even though it may not rise to the level of 'proof'...it still indicates a certain chance/probability that the trackway did exist....as described.

What I want to know, is if the trackway that we have been told of, bears any relationship to Patty's path in the film. Unfortunately, I cannot make the comparison from anecdotes.

Here's an interesting picture I found on the internet, somewhere, but I don't know anything about where it originated from...and who put it together...(though I would guess it's from M.K. "20/20" Davis')......it shows one of Patty's footprints in the ground, lining-up with her foot, in the other image...

Why no one bothered to document the trackway is an exercise for the class, I guess.

Nobody back then had the foresight, to see how long this film was going to be debated and analyzed for.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Apology wrote:

In Six Rivers National Forest, it isn't unusual for the river to jump its banks and migrate to a different location entirely over the course of a winter. It wasn't uncommon for a lovely camp spot or swimming hole to disappear over a winter. The Trinity River is impossible to cross for months at a time and sweeps logs and even giant boulders miles downstream.

This piece of wood was still in the same location....and appears to even have the same orientation, as it did when Patty walked by it.....8 months earlier...

And....wouldn't the ground have been frozen, for about 3 of those 8 months?

Yet, again, we're supposed to believe that some piddly 1" footprints survived from October, when they were made, to the following May. It's ridiculous. It's more likely that the "tracks" in May were actually pits left behind when the boulders that originally sat there were swept away.

John Green said that some....(possibly only a few)...impressions were still visible, when he and Jim were there.

You could actually call him, and ask him about it, yourself, Apology.

I called him several months ago....he was very friendly, on the phone.

 

[William Parcher]

it shows one of Patty's footprints in the ground, lining-up with her foot, in the other image...

 

[Vortigern99]

Pattipithecus pastafarius

Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Apology]

And....wouldn't the ground have been frozen, for about 3 of those 8 months?

No, it wouldn't be frozen solid. It would freeze at night and defrost during the day, which would be more likely to destroy the tracks than preserve them. The climate there isn't terribly cold all winter long, but it is terribly, terribly wet. The nearby town of Orleans has 52.7 average inches of rainfall a year. The average January temperature there is 36F to 52F. It's rare to have snow on the ground for very long, or for temperatures to be below freezing during the day. Sub-freezing temperatures are very common at night, though. I remember being out one particularly bitter night---the temperature was 20 F. Cold to me, but nothing to someone from, say, Fargo, ND, or Maine, or Washington State.

That branch is more like a log, actually. Please note that it's partially buried, indicating that it might have been under water at some point. It's possible that the water level could rise and recede over that log without dislodging it. Unfortunately we can't time-travel back to 1967 and see what kind of winter they had that year and where the river ran. Either way, I still find it hard to believe that a trackway could survive pounding rain, frosting over and defrosting, and the traffic of other animals near the river, through an entire autumn, winter, and spring, and still be discernible as a trackway at the end of it. The kind of rain that takes out roads doesn't spare footprints even when they're deep. I find it highly unlikely that the "trackway" found in May was the same path left in October. The odds are strongly against it. Perhaps it was the tracks left by another animal, such as a black bear, or perhaps it was some trickster who went out and made a new "trackway", or it might have even been random pitting that they interpreted as a "trackway". I'm sure there are many other possibilities I've left out, the least likely being Bigfoot tracks.

 

[DennyT]

You do understand that if the PGF is a hoax, P&G can really tell all kinds of lies about all kinds of things. This includes the story of the unfolding of events and the "2nd Reel".

my theory is that whatever is missing is missing for a reason. The film, the suit, these are things that the Pattersons had, and now they just don't know? where they are. So I wonder if there is something on Roll 2 that they don't want people to see.

HAS ANYONE SEEN MORE THAN 10 SECONDS OF ROLL 2 ????

Also I have another photo need: the 1982 tracks from Blue Mountain Washington used by Grover Krantz in 1983 as type specimen of Giganto. (rejected).

 

[SweatyYeti]

my theory is that whatever is missing is missing for a reason. The film, the suit, these are things that the Pattersons had, and now they just don't know? where they are. So I wonder if there is something on Roll 2 that they don't want people to see.

HAS ANYONE SEEN MORE THAN 10 SECONDS OF ROLL 2 ????

Yes....John Green, and Thomas Steenburg, I believe.....among others. Rene Dahinden most likely saw it, also.


The "highly mysterious, and highly suspicious footage" of the 2nd reel is only an invention of the present-day "skeptic".

 

[SweatyYeti]

No, it wouldn't be frozen solid. It would freeze at night and defrost during the day, which would be more likely to destroy the tracks than preserve them. The climate there isn't terribly cold all winter long, but it is terribly, terribly wet. The nearby town of Orleans has 52.7 average inches of rainfall a year. The average January temperature there is 36F to 52F. It's rare to have snow on the ground for very long, or for temperatures to be below freezing during the day. Sub-freezing temperatures are very common at night, though. I remember being out one particularly bitter night---the temperature was 20 F. Cold to me, but nothing to someone from, say, Fargo, ND, or Maine, or Washington State.

That branch is more like a log, actually. Please note that it's partially buried, indicating that it might have been under water at some point. It's possible that the water level could rise and recede over that log without dislodging it. Unfortunately we can't time-travel back to 1967 and see what kind of winter they had that year and where the river ran. Either way, I still find it hard to believe that a trackway could survive pounding rain, frosting over and defrosting, and the traffic of other animals near the river, through an entire autumn, winter, and spring, and still be discernible as a trackway at the end of it. The kind of rain that takes out roads doesn't spare footprints even when they're deep. I find it highly unlikely that the "trackway" found in May was the same path left in October. The odds are strongly against it. Perhaps it was the tracks left by another animal, such as a black bear, or perhaps it was some trickster who went out and made a new "trackway", or it might have even been random pitting that they interpreted as a "trackway". I'm sure there are many other possibilities I've left out, the least likely being Bigfoot tracks.

I don't think the issue is a big deal, anyway, Apology....because Jim McClarin went and saw the filmsite very shortly after the film was shot....and so he probably had a very good recollection of the path of the trackway, 8 months later....when he walked it.

In comparing his walk with Patty's....it looks as though he did walk very close to where she walked.
At the small log on the ground...(in the image I posted)...it looks like Patty stepped just in front of it, while Jim walked just behind it. The 2 paths are very close, at that point, anyway.

 

[Apology]

I don't think the issue is a big deal, anyway, Apology....because Jim McClarin went and saw the filmsite very shortly after the film was shot....and so he probably had a very good recollection of the path of the trackway, 8 months later....when he walked it.

Or he could have been entirely mistaken, because he wanted to believe it was there. You'd be surprised how hard it is to find the exact same spot twice in a wilderness area like that, without GPS. Once somebody left their sunglasses on top of a boulder, we went back for them less than an hour later, and we still couldn't find the same boulder. Even if he did manage to find the exact location of the previous "trackway", that does nothing to prove that the "trackway" he thought he found in May was the same "trackway", or related to the Patty film in any way whatsoever. The story is far-fetched to the extreme.

Also, if McClarin went and saw the site very shortly after the film was shot, why didn't he investigate the "trackway" then? Why did he wait through what he had to have known was going to be a harsh autumn, winter, and spring? It makes no sense.

If I were McClarin, I would have come back the same day with a movie camera and a bag of plaster. I wouldn't waited for the next rainstorm to roll in and destroy my evidence, or hope that the river didn't rise high enough over the winter and the spring thaw to do it in. I'd have made haste in collecting my evidence before it was gone. Nobody who was even remotely familiar with the area would have expected the evidence to remain unharmed for that long. If nothing else, P & G's story about the road being washed out should have put a sense of urgency into the guy. The kind of rain that washes out a road doesn't discriminate and leave tracks, sorry, it just doesn't.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Or he could have been entirely mistaken, because he wanted to believe it was there. You'd be surprised how hard it is to find the exact same spot twice in a wilderness area like that, without GPS.

Have you seen the 're-creation' film that John Green and Jim made? They were in exactly the same location where Patty walked.

Once somebody left their sunglasses on top of a boulder, we went back for them less than an hour later, and we still couldn't find the same boulder. Even if he did manage to find the exact location of the previous "trackway", that does nothing to prove that the "trackway" he thought he found in May was the same "trackway", or related to the Patty film in any way whatsoever. The story is far-fetched to the extreme.

It's not far-fetched at all.

Jim McClarin had an interest in the subject of Bigfoot, at the time...and the news of Roger's film footage was a big deal to him.
The filmsite is not a quick, easy drive to get to, so it's logical to assume that once Jim got in there, he would have spent a good amount of time there, inspecting the site....and, especially the trackway.


I don't find it the least bit "shocking" to think that Jim's first inspection of the site...considering he believed the film to be authentic....left a SOLID impression on his brain.

Also, if McClarin went and saw the site very shortly after the film was shot, why didn't he investigate the "trackway" then? Why did he wait through what he had to have known was going to be a harsh autumn, winter, and spring? It makes no sense.

The reason why Jim went back to the site, 8 months later, was because that was the first time that John Green was able to get there, to see it...(I believe that was John's first visit). He went along, to help John make the re-creation film.


Edited to add:

One interesting little side-note....about John Green.

When I talked to him on the phone...(not long before the Ohio Bigfoot Conference)....I was talking about the PG Film, and I referred to Patty as "Patty"...and, he objected to me calling her by that name...because, he said, "that's Patricia Patterson's name"...and he didn't think it was proper to refer to the subject of the film....a Sasquatch...using Patricia's name.

In his book, John refers to the subject of the film as "the creature", or "the Sasquatch".

I just think it's a good sign of 'moral character'....on John's part...showing that kind of respect for Roger's wife.

 

[William Parcher]

Also I have another photo need: the 1982 tracks from Blue Mountain Washington used by Grover Krantz in 1983 as type specimen of Giganto. (rejected).

 

[Apology]

The reason why Jim went back to the site, 8 months later, was because that was the first time that John Green was able to get there, to see it...(I believe that was John's first visit). He went along, to help John make the re-creation film.

Honestly, Sweaty, if you found bigfoot tracks, would you wait until spring to document them so your friend Joe could make it, or would you document them right away, before they could be destroyed? Come on, now, use a little logic here...

Incidentally, you haven't answered my question on why Bigfoot means so much to you. Seen one? Run a Bigfoot tour guide service? Member of the First Church of Sasquatch? Why?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Incidentally, you haven't answered my question on why Bigfoot means so much to you. Seen one? Run a Bigfoot tour guide service? Member of the First Church of Sasquatch? Why?

I've been too busy, working, to get into that.


No, I ain't seen one....('cept in my dreams...)


I just think the existence of some type of 'early man'...or, 'ape-man' is really COOL. (Hence, my first username..."Coolfoot". That was my name on the BFF.)

I'm hoping someday....someone finds one......somewhere.

 

[kitakaze]

There isn't anything weird going on, with the 'line' on Patty's thigh....in this better-quality image, you can see that it's just a little ruffled hair...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PattyThighLine1.jpg[/qimg]

Also....I've shown this before, but Patty's hand passes by the leg at a point lower than where the "hip-wader line" is.

Patty's hand absolutely and without doubt can touch and in fact does touch her leg in the PGF. Watch it here from 00:34...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o

There it is right there. When Patty is looking back we can see her hand touching her leg over and over. The hand swings forward, it marks the leg where it passes making a lighter line. You can see this easily by doing this to a rug. Run your foot one way - lighter, the other way - darker. This is exactly what is happening right in front of our eyes. When the hand swings back, the area goes dark again. Back -dark, forth - light, back -dark, forth - light. Clear as day.

Now try this yourself. Walk like Patty walks. Are your hands brushing your legs? Keep walking. Turn your shoulders slightly and your head back and give the Patty look. Keep swinging. Notice something? That would be your hand brushing your leg.

Patty's hand does touch her leg and it's right there for all to see. Now is it this that causes the fingers to bend or the hand inside doing it.

Both have been demonstrated.

 

[kitakaze]

I just think the existence of some type of 'early man'...or, 'ape-man' is really COOL.

That would be because it is really cool. Human evolution is cool. Evolution period is cool. You don't need any sky spooks writing code in our DNA. It works all by itself. In fact, divine creator hooey falls apart when you take off the fortean addiction glasses and look at our world. It's for people so close-minded, they can't bare to think of a universe not made just for them. Take a look at The Origins of Life Clock.

The clock starts at midnight with the beginning of the Earth. At 3:12 am the Hadean Eon ends. Named for Hades, The Underworld, this was a period after the Earth first formed 4.57 billion years ago when the world was a hellish surface of extreme heat and volatile gravitational collapse. Sometime in this period heavy bombardment stops and the first life forms. Simple prokaryotes. Not even goop. It's not even till around 8:00 pm-ish that multicellular life forms. 9:07 pm -boom goes the dynamite and the Cambrian Explosion begins. The first animals with hard parts evolve. The reign of the dinosaurs doesn't come until about 11:00 pm and doesn't even last an hour. That's 165 million years right there. We humans don't show up until about the final 2.5 seconds, that's seconds, of that day. And where does this divine creator goofball fit into all of this? What were they doing for all those eons and supereons? Sitting in the dunce corner of divine creator school for sucking so bad at writing genetic code? That's what your Intelligent Design hooey is too lacking in intelligence to even comprehend and account for in its self-absorbed me-me-me half-thinking. Have a closer look yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Now back to Bigfoot. Absolutely, yes. The existence of some type of apeman would be very cool (stepping around the fact that we are apes ourselves). It is cool because apemen did exist. This is a fact. You don't need to have them running around now being spotted like Reptoids and Mothmen for them to be cool. Go learn about human evolution unhooked from any divine creator utter nonsense. It's awesome. What we know and considering what waits in the fossil record for us to find. Even if you start getting the fortean addiction shakes, you can hit the bong and ponder over the variety of human species that once existed before our own took the world over. You can spark that doobie of the insane closeness of H. floresiensis to us. These little cousins lived nearly into historical time. You can even snort some fortean rails and wonder if we could stumble across some little Hobbits still alive in some hidden pocket of some isolated Indonesian island.

When your high wears off, you'll have to deal with some burnout to deal with. You will still be hurting for your Bigfoot fix. You need that junk right in the vein. You need your Bigfoot. You need it there, right there. In your neighbourhood, in your yard. Somewhere you could drive to, turn out the lights, and OMG, OMG, OMG... aaahhhh. There it is. Do you hear it? Do you smell it? That's the $#!%. That's my Bigfoot. *shudder*

But while you're twitching in the corner in your fortean addict delirium, the world of the clean and free moves on. People understand by and large that no matter how ninja stealth and intelligent your giant near-human apemen are, they simply can not live across Canada and America without being a known and catalogued member of the animal kingdom. You can't have them living and dying in breeding numbers and over and over and over coming into the places we live, work, farm, hunt, etc, and remain an unknown species. We would have had our type specimen long ago. Bigfoots would be as much apart of everyday life as gorillas. What Bigfoot is now and will always be is a part of everyday life in the way that Dogmen and Flying Humanoids are. People want to believe in fantastical things. Some people yearn so much for the fantastical, it becomes an addiction and then boom, there you are, reading your copy of The Anomalist over morning coffee and shooing away the hums and haws of the TV repair shop with your dreams of Martians, and Bigfoots, and that divine creator in the sky smiling down on the gong show they created. It's a shame such people can't be more interested in the real mysteries of our world.

 

[tube]

Now back to Bigfoot. Absolutely, yes. The existence of some type of apeman would be very cool (stepping around the fact that we are apes ourselves). It is cool because apemen did exist. This is a fact. You don't need to have them running around now being spotted like Reptoids and Mothmen for them to be cool.

"The ape is dead, and I must conjure him." Mercutio, Act 2, Scene 1.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Patty's hand absolutely and without doubt can touch and in fact does touch her leg in the PGF. Watch it here from 00:34...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o

There it is right there. When Patty is looking back we can see her hand touching her leg over and over. The hand swings forward, it marks the leg where it passes making a lighter line. You can see this easily by doing this to a rug. Run your foot one way - lighter, the other way - darker. This is exactly what is happening right in front of our eyes. When the hand swings back, the area goes dark again. Back -dark, forth - light, back -dark, forth - light. Clear as day.

Now try this yourself. Walk like Patty walks. Are your hands brushing your legs? Keep walking. Turn your shoulders slightly and your head back and give the Patty look. Keep swinging. Notice something? That would be your hand brushing your leg.

Patty's hand does touch her leg and it's right there for all to see. Now is it this that causes the fingers to bend or the hand inside doing it.

Both have been demonstrated.

In this animated-gif.....it's clear that Patty's fingertips pass by her leg well below the "line of ruffled-hair".....in fact, they pass by just about where the thigh bulge appears...

It certainly would not be impossible for Patty's fingers to touch the side of her leg....but there is simply too much distance, laterally, between the fingers and the leg, for them to come into contact when her arm is hanging straight down.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You don't need any sky spooks writing code in our DNA. It works all by itself. In fact, divine creator hooey falls apart when you take off the fortean addiction glasses and look at our world. It's for people so close-minded, they can't bare to think of a universe not made just for them.

I plan on posting something more about this, in the 'DNA Code/Divine Creator" thread, that I started....but the actions/reactions going on within the DNA strand go beyond simple straight-forward chemical reactions. Certain sequences are 'active', while others are 'inactive'...certain sequences 'turn on', while other sequences 'turn off'.
(That, for now, is the very short explanation.)


These non-straightforward chemical reactions would, logically, require the input, and control, of a thinking mind...in order for them to occur in such a manner....(Hence....DNA CODE/Creator/LIFE. )

 

[Drewbot]

These non-straightforward chemical reactions would, logically, require the input, and control, of a thinking mind...in order for them to occur in such a manner....(Hence....DNA CODE/Creator/LIFE. )

Sweaty, forget everything I've ever said about you, I was wrong. I now realize that I was wrong to call you just "another kooky Bigfoot believer".

 

[dafydd]

kitakaze wrote:



I plan on posting something more about this, in the 'DNA Code/Divine Creator" thread, that I started....but the actions/reactions going on within the DNA strand go beyond simple straight-forward chemical reactions. Certain sequences are 'active', while others are 'inactive'...certain sequences 'turn on', while other sequences 'turn off'.
(That, for now, is the very short explanation.)


These non-straightforward chemical reactions would, logically, require the input, and control, of a thinking mind...in order for them to occur in such a manner....(Hence....DNA CODE/Creator/LIFE. )

Wow,just wow.It's worse than I thought.