Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[RayG]

It's open to scientists in a relevant field; Radford isn't a scientist.

Neither is John Green, but he not only got to examine the cast, his conclusions were written up on the BFRO website.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/green_statement.asp

I remember a thread on this on BFF. Did you ask Noll?

Noll participated in the discussion concerning Radford, though I don't remember his specific reason for the refusal to allow Radford access.

RayG

 

[LAL]

It HAS been mentioned on the BFF a number of times. I personally have pointed it out a few times over there.



Source: Krantz, Grover. 1992.Big Footprints. Johnson Books. pg. 91

RayG

That'll work for support. Thanks.

 

[William Parcher]

Roger got into the heavy brush, but they decided not to pursue her into the forest. Her stride had lengthened by then and she was way ahead of them. The second roll was taken later, with shots of tracks and scenery.

Why do you describe the event the way you do? You are leaving out so much. You need to do lots of reading and research on PGF before you can defend it. Your biased suckage might be at its crown moment here.

Gimlin says that the last time he sees 'Patty' (after the filming), she is going up the logging road. He says he saw her 300 yards away on this road, then she goes around a bend and he loses sight. According to Gimlin, at that point they begin tracking her on horseback. They track her 3.5 miles up the mountain before they lose her trail. Then they backtrack the 3.5 miles to the film site then go another 2 miles back to their truck to get the plaster. Then they go the 2 miles back to the site to begin casting some tracks.

At what point has the sun set and they are in darkness on horseback? Then they still have to get back to the truck and drive into town to deliver the film (which would then be viewed about 35 hours later after a round-trip flight and developing in Seattle). Then they return to the camp (which is about 2 miles from the film site) that night. In the night a torrential rain starts. Gimlin decides to ride his horse through this rain in darkness to cover up the tracks which are 2 miles away. He covers some of them with pieces of bark then rides back to camp.

Lo and behold, 9 days later Bob Titmus shows up and views the footprint scene (after rains). He even claims to find a spot where 'Patty' sat down in ferns overlooking the film site. He suggests that she was watching the men cast her prints. So P&G tracked her 3.5 miles away from the film site, then she returns to the site to sit down and watch them. But she can't watch them until they have returned from the truck with the plaster. Isn't it night by now? I probably don't need to mention that Titmus was a Bigfoot believer before this incident. Skeptics ought to be catching on to that stuff by now.

This bit doesn't include other huge problems and insanities that were supposed to have gone on surrounding this film event. There is a whole box of nails to drive into the coffin of the PGF. You are depriving a skeptical audience of them. Shame on you!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Isn't Wallace supposed to be responsible for some of the Bluff Creek tracks ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, in the Argosy article of Feb 68, Patterson claims Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author also says he watched the film and Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author makes the claim twice.

That seems to be an odd mistake for two different people to make. I cannot see how anyone can claim Patty stops dead anywhere in the P/G film.

I can see Patterson might have thought Patty stopped dead as he was running after her with the camera, but Patterson had certainly already viewed the film by the time of the article and he must have known that she certainly did not stop dead.

 

[LAL]

So you are supporting your position with cover art from a book you are proclaiming to be " terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence "... ?

It's not nearly as out-of-date as Hill. Lucy hadn't been discovered yet when he said that. Scientist in 1967 really had no idea of how many species of bipedal primates there actually were (we may not have them all yet........there've been about half a dozen discovered just since Tattersal wrote the book, so, naturally he wouldn't have been able to include them). Hairy breasts may have been common on bipedal primates. Of course, none of that gets preserved.

Of course we know what Sasquatch breasts look like!

We have the PGF .. Not to mention the description at BFRO ...

Not all reports are on the BFRO. The comment (and I can't remember who said it), was back in the late sixties or early seventies.

 

[William Parcher]

Lu, in the Argosy article of Feb 68, Patterson claims Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author also says he watched the film and Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author makes the claim twice.

That seems to be an odd mistake for two different people to make. I cannot see how anyone can claim Patty stops dead anywhere in the P/G film.

I can see Patterson might have thought Patty stopped dead as he was running after her with the camera, but Patterson had certainly already viewed the film by the time of the article and he must have known that she certainly did not stop dead.

For all we know she did stop and look at him. This may have been in the film that Patterson was showing in 67/68. I'm not sure that we can establish that what we would see now (say from the LMS DVD) is exactly what folks were seeing when Patterson rolled the projector in 67/68. The skeptical community is forced to accept what is shown to them at any given time. That 'evidence' is always provided and in the hands of Bigfoot believers. Use your imagination to think about what that could mean.

 

[LAL]

Lu, in the Argosy article of Feb 68, Patterson claims Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author also says he watched the film and Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author makes the claim twice.

I know. He's wrong. See the film. I thought she may have hestitated, but on just viewing it three more times I don't even see that.

Roger may have stopped dead when she gave him that outta-the-ball-game look.

That seems to be an odd mistake for two different people to make. I cannot see how anyone can claim Patty stops dead anywhere in the P/G film.

I can see Patterson might have thought Patty stopped dead as he was running after her with the camera, but Patterson had certainly already viewed the film by the time of the article and he must have known that she certainly did not stop dead.

The author may have misunderstood Patterson and not had the film available for study. Mistakes happened.

This is one of the articles I was trying to find:

"Next day, LIFE took Roger and Al with the film to the American Museum of Natural History where a showing was put on for some of the scientific staff: notably Dr. van Gelder, head of the Department of Mammals and Dr. Shapiro of Anthropology. The wire services were permitted to view but the owners were excluded and within fifteen minutes the 'scientists'* announced that "It is not kosher (a funny word to use for a spokesman of a scientific organization) because it is impossible". Upon this, LIFE washed their hands of the whole thing and LOOK followed suit on the grounds that if the AMNH said it was a phony, it was. At this point we pounced; and contract was signed between the owners and Mr. Hal Steeger, publisher of ARGOSY, late that night. We then went to work to round up some other scientists and notably physical anthropologists.

The results are fully recorded in the first ARGOSY piece. The film was flown down to Prof. W.C. Osman Hill at the Yerkes Primate Center, Emery University, in Atlanta, Georgia, and then Drs. john Napier, Vladimir Markotic and others viewed it at a closed showing in Washington at which Dr. A. Joseph Wraight Chief Geographer to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Mr. N. O. Wood Jr., Director of Operations for the Secretary of the Interior were present. A copy of the film was then handed to Dr. Napier of the Primate Biology Division of the Smithsonian for detailed analysis, a work that is of the time of writing, still in the process of being executed."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/pursuit68.htm


I'm thinking the other source was a book I returned to the library. Now all I have to do is remember which one and reorder it.

 

[RayG]

Then on what do you base your 90% certainty that they're real?

You mean the Skookum thread where I said this: "I'm also about 90% convinced that bigfoot is a real, undiscovered animal that may be living in the PNW. That's a far cry from a 'die-hard' skeptic, who would probably have 0% belief in bigfoot."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=80&#entry58376

It was something I said in comparison to the skeptical viewpoint of nearly 0% certainty. In the same paragraph that quote is taken from, I also said:

"Bigfoot is a subject that has continued to hold my attention over the years, and I am far less skeptical of bigfoot's existence than I am about some other topics. One thing I don't give ground on, is the evidence submitted for proof of something, and the methods used for providing said evidence. I guess you could say I have a fairly high standard concerning evidence."

At this point the ONLY thing that will convince me with 100% certainty is a dead body.

And what makes you think they [footprints] don't do much to prove anything?

Until you can slap the footprint cast up against the bottom of the foot that created that footprint cast, you don't have any absolute proof. Human feet can get rather large too, so a 14-17" footprint isn't impossible.

RayG

 

[LAL]

For all we know she did stop and look at him. This may have been in the film that Patterson was showing in 67/68. I'm not sure that we can establish that what we would see now (say from the LMS DVD) is exactly what folks were seeing when Patterson rolled the projector in 67/68. The skeptical community is forced to accept what is shown to them at any given time. That 'evidence' is always provided and in the hands of Bigfoot believers. Use your imagination to think about what that could mean.

I'm thinking it would be impossible to edit that out without leaving a big jerk in the film. That's as far as my imagination goes, especially since this seems to be the only article that says anything about her stopping. Reporting error seems a much more likely explanation.

 

[William Parcher]

Actually, Heironimus wasn't there.

In a sense, this is true. Heironimus wasn't at Bluff Creek on Friday, October 20, 1967. That is the day P&G said they filmed Patty. Heironimus insists that they filmed him in suit prior to that date (was it weeks before?). That helps the crazy timeline that was given for the film development and would also give Patterson time to do some splicing (editing).

If P&G were at Bluff Creek on the 20th (they probably were), they were making the fake tracks that Lyle Laverty would see and photograph the following day.

 

[LAL]

You mean the Skookum thread where I said this: "I'm also about 90% convinced that bigfoot is a real, undiscovered animal that may be living in the PNW. That's a far cry from a 'die-hard' skeptic, who would probably have 0% belief in bigfoot."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=80&#entry58376

It was something I said in comparison to the skeptical viewpoint of nearly 0% certainty. In the same paragraph that quote is taken from, I also said:

"Bigfoot is a subject that has continued to hold my attention over the years, and I am far less skeptical of bigfoot's existence than I am about some other topics. One thing I don't give ground on, is the evidence submitted for proof of something, and the methods used for providing said evidence. I guess you could say I have a fairly high standard concerning evidence."

At this point the ONLY thing that will convince me with 100% certainty is a dead body.

Until you can slap the footprint cast up against the bottom of the foot that created that footprint cast, you don't have any absolute proof. Human feet can get rather large too, so a 14-17" footprint isn't impossible.

RayG

Except that the footprints don't have the characteristics of human footprints. Besides the dermal ridges, there are things like the flatness (except in tracks of what seem to be very young individuals), the heel width, the toes..........

If you don't know anything about Wrinkle Foot, just say so. It was new to me too.

Again, what do you base the 90% on?

 

[LTC8K6]

The author may have misunderstood Patterson and not had the film available for study. Mistakes happened.

Can't be Lu. They are both looking at the film and stills. The author specifically says he viewed the film and that he and Patterson also went through the film frame by frame with a device that allowed them to do that without burning the film.
Patterson did the frame by frame to show that Patty was female.

The various descriptions of the event and the film are quite frustrating to me.

There are also other inconsistencies that are troubling, even if they don't refute the film. The Argosy article says that both riders were thrown and that Patterson's horse was like a mad bronco, for example.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'll let you know when I've had time to read it. I don't use the site much, except for the Skookum Cast, Green, the Denver Post article and the BBC's costume.

In addition to "Web site not responding....." and disappearing replys (that really gets me when it's one I've spent hours on, only to lose it by bringing up one two many articles for linking) I'm getting AOL errors and have to restart the computer when I try to close out the automaic virus scan results. Get's frustrating.

It shouldn't take all that long to read this..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586


I've sailed through it several times , making sure I didn't miss the disclaimer that said " We just made all this stuff up.. ) But no, it wasn't there...



What's to respond to? What are you asking them... Maybe something like:

" Do you realize this stuff makes your claim to be ' scientific ' downright ridiculous, makes a laughing stock of serious Bigfoot researchers, and ruins any chances we have for acquiring any credibility ? "


Have you tried to get their attention by saying you are interested in joining an expedition?

 

[Hitch]

I certainly have no proof that the P/G film is a hoax. But there are a number of bizarre inconsistencies in the story. (Which I won't repeat here because Lu has already posted them as evidence that it's not a hoax. I'm still working on the logic of that.)

But, if you play a little mind game and think about how it would play out if Patty (or Bob) was filmed a couple weeks earlier and then things were staged to report that the sighting and filming took place on Friday, October 20 then a lot of the strange things start falling into place, like how the film got developed so fast, why did they spend two weeks filming nothing in particular, etc.

Again, none of this is proof of anything, but it's enough to make a skeptic doubt that the film can be accepted at face value with no corroborating evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm thinking it would be impossible to edit that out without leaving a big jerk in the film. That's as far as my imagination goes, especially since this seems to be the only article that says anything about her stopping. Reporting error seems a much more likely explanation.

The big jerks are behind the camera creating the hoax.

But there are breaks in the sequence of her walk in what we see, aren't there? Viewers are sometimes confused by what they see, as if there are fluidity incongruences to her path. Some have suggested that she appears to enter the forest twice.

Then there are the first few frames of the LMS DVD, which blow past in a split second. Some have said that she appears to possibly be crouched at the creek when the camera first starts or is possibly just standing. But we really can't know when the camera started or if anything was removed... because we do not have the original and known to unedited film.

Here are the first few frames. Good luck figuring out what is going on.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm thinking it would be impossible to edit that out without leaving a big jerk in the film. That's as far as my imagination goes, especially since this seems to be the only article that says anything about her stopping. Reporting error seems a much more likely explanation.

Patterson says she stopped, and we are to doubt that part of his testimony, while believing everything else he said ?

Are you really that dense, or as someone once suggested, intentionally obtuse?

That film is so jerky, and there are parts where Patty isn't even in the field of view .. ( ground shots ) It could be spliced all to hell with no noticeable discontinuity ....


Again, where is the rest of the film, if there is nothing to hide ?

 

[LAL]

It shouldn't take all that long to read this..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586


I've sailed through it several times , making sure I didn't miss the disclaimer that said " We just made all this stuff up.. ) But no, it wasn't there...



What's to respond to? What are you asking them... Maybe something like:

" Do you realize this stuff makes your claim to be ' scientific ' downright ridiculous, makes a laughing stock of serious Bigfoot researchers, and ruins any chances we have for acquiring any credibility ? "


Have you tried to get their attention by saying you are interested in joining an expedition?

The only correspondence I 've had with them was regarding papers for peer review. I haven't had a chance to look at any of the stuff you're referring to. I'm not caught up with the older posts yet and the new ones are coming so fast I don't have time to keep up with them.

If you're just referring to the FAQ, I don't think any of that was even original with the BFRO. Check some of these old articles we've benn posting.

 

[LAL]

Patterson says she stopped, and we are to doubt that part of his testimony, while believing everything else he said ?

Show me more articles and interviews where he said she stopped. This is the first I've seen on that.

Are you really that dense, or as someone once suggested, intentionally obtuse?

That would be Bill. Are you two related? You kind our sound alike sometimes. Be advised that ad hominen attacks aren't going to get you antwhere.

I can think of two articles that have reporter errors. What makes you think that couldn't be the case here?

That film is so jerky, and there are parts where Patty isn't even in the field of view .. ( ground shots ) It could be spliced all to hell with no noticeable discontinuity ....

And you know this without having viewed a good copy?

Again, where is the rest of the film, if there is nothing to hide ?

I've already posted about the second reel not being returned to Patterson. Ten feet were removed and shown on documentaries. As to the first reel, ask Patricia Patterson. She may know; I don't.
I'm thinking it may have gone to her when Dahinden died.

 

[LTC8K6]

But there are breaks in the sequence of her walk in what we see, aren't there? Viewers are sometimes confused by what they see, as if there are fluidity incongruences to her path. Some have suggested that she appears to enter the forest twice.

Yes! That is what I was trying to say when I talked about shooting Patty twice, William. You have done a much better job writing than I have, though.

You could splice a film and then copy it, and show everyone the copy, I suppose.