Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[LONGTABBER PE]

He's also filthy and unshaven as would be expected considering the mission. The casts he's holding have the grey cast of freshly set plaster. The pour photo could be staged but I'm of the opinion that the frames where Patterson is holding the casts is during the outing of the filming. Does it matter if there's film of Patterson demonstrating cast pouring? Only if we know its phony and only if the Bluff Creef casts are actually cast from the demonstration. No evidence of either.

Yes, no and maybe.

I'll be the first to stand and say the questionable pictures as "stand alone" entities say little to nothing but one thing that does is when all pieces are viewed as the total body of information.

Its like when we stop a known fence with a box of watches in his trunk. Its not "hard evidence' they are stolen but it would merit probable cause.

Same with this.

In the "storyline" RP et al had a stated and vested interest ( personal and financial) in producing a BF "documentary" of some sort.

So for any decent doco, you would need prints, witness accounts, even a few reenactments ( and a real BF would top it off)

I could give it a bigger slide IF all the backstory surrounding the PGF followed one consistent storyline and had evidenciary support but it doesnt. ( its not even close in some parts)

Its like the guy in my example above. Theres 10 Rolexes in that box and he claims he bought them but works at the local 7-11. At that point, hes going in on grounds. Same with the PGF.

 

[manofthesea]

Sorry, but I need to nitpick here.

Cement is a fine powder so it can't be used as a track-making medium. If you mix it with water, and sand or gravel, you'd get concrete or mortar.

Negative. Concrete is cement mixed with rock. Mortar is a type of cement used for brick laying and dressing.

 

[tube]

I've got a plaster casting catalog from 1966 that shows both Hydrocal and Hydrostone were available at that time:

Frankly I think ordinary plaster of Paris would be too weak to "pound into the ground" to make a fake track. Whether stronger cements could withstand such forces remains to be tested. Sounds like something I should get around to one of these days...

Remember, an impression in the ground does not have to be the result of compression only, a "track" can be made by excavation, or, in my opinion more likely, a combination of excavation and compression.

 

[JcR]

Is it true Laverty only took a few pictures of these footprints ?
I think I already know the answer, but I was hoping some more might
surface.

 

[William Parcher]

>>>When Lyle Laverty showed up at the sandbar on Sunday, Oct. 22, some of the tracks he found were covered with pieces of bark.

I've heard Sat, Sun and Mon- is Sun the correct one?

It was Monday, Oct. 23. I made a mistake and knew the correct date. You can find me with the correct date in the 411 PGF...LOL

 

[William Parcher]

Is it true Laverty only took a few pictures of these footprints ?

He took six color slides. Unfortunately it seems he took none of the trackway - all are of single prints.

 

[JcR]

Thanks WP
That is just nuts, was hoping he had taken more pictures
of the area and trackway. Since as far as he knew it could have been
a great event for history.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like your refering to projector burn. If it was that the color in the entire frame would have been tainted. Which its not.

Not if they caught it in time, which is why I wrote what I did.

I would also like to point out that Roger Patterson said he had a still camera with him as well and that it was 3:30, and not 1:30.

At three-thirty on the twentieth of October (1967) we were packing our horses back into one of the last remaining great wilderness areas, northeast of Eureka, California. Our saddlebags contained on one side rifles and grub and, on the other, ready-loaded movie- and still-cameras and other equipment. We were following a creek which had been washed out two years previously in the terrible floods that devastated most of northern California. This was some twenty miles up the access-road for logging, and about thirty-five miles in from the nearest and only blacktop road in this vast and as-yet-not-fully-mapped area of National Forest.

Why Roger apparently took no stills is anyone's guess.

Maybe the Laverty story is not quite true?

 

[kitakaze]

Just in case anyone would like to join me, there's a thread in the SMM&T on Homo floresiensis that I'm getting into:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4319510#post4319510

People with an appreciation for the Bigfoot myth usually have an interest in that sort of thing.

 

[Crowlogic]

Not if they caught it in time, which is why I wrote what I did.

I would also like to point out that Roger Patterson said he had a still camera with him as well and that it was 3:30, and not 1:30.



Why Roger apparently took no stills is anyone's guess.

Maybe the Laverty story is not quite true?

Obviously cowboys aren't scientists. Heck we got us an expensive rental camera might as well put that sucker to good use. I've seen other cases where motion capture and still capture were available and motion capture was chosen over still capture. But lets consider this for a moment with regards to what is on the PGF as we know it. If you're demonstrating a recipie for roast beef and potatos does the growing of the potatos and raising of the cattle need to be included in the recipie? Cowboys are meat and potatos types. They got the meat and potatos on the 16mm motion film what more at the time did they really need?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Obviously cowboys aren't scientists. Heck we got us an expensive rental camera might as well put that sucker to good use. I've seen other cases where motion capture and still capture were available and motion capture was chosen over still capture. But lets consider this for a moment with regards to what is on the PGF as we know it. If you're demonstrating a recipie for roast beef and potatos does the growing of the potatos and raising of the cattle need to be included in the recipie? Cowboys are meat and potatos types. They got the meat and potatos on the 16mm motion film what more at the time did they really need?

Lets put it in context tho.

If one believes the storyline- RP's "end goal" was to film a BF documentary ( not film a BF) and they were there ( at Bluff Creek) to film TRACKS. ( and yeah, maybe some filler for the documentary)

If the above premise is true- then one would expect to see "posed' shots in stills and "action" shots with the camera.

Makes sense, I'll buy that

Now, all of a sudden- HEEERES Patty. For the next 90 odd seconds theres complete cinematic chaos.

It seems to me that if they tracked it- there would be continuous filming of the "tracking". ( 3 [insert tracking story here] miles would have been "perfect" fodder of a real time documentary that accidently encountered the desired subject. ( stills and film)

This didnt happen. They had the equipment with them, loaded and ready for use AND ( yes, if it were real) a POSSIBILITY of ANOTHER Patty encounter somewhere down the trail.

They concentrated all film resources on one little area.

I can tell you why ( if you dont already know)

 

[William Parcher]

If you're demonstrating a recipie for roast beef and potatos does the growing of the potatos and raising of the cattle need to be included in the recipie? Cowboys are meat and potatos types. They got the meat and potatos on the 16mm motion film what more at the time did they really need?

No way is that analogy gonna work in an audience of critical thinkers. Nobody needs evidence of cattle for a roast beef cooking demonstration. But these cowboys didn't deliver a film showing meat and potatoes. They expect us to accept a film of something like roast unicorn and potatoes. No, look, you gotta just believe us that the meat is unicorn. OK?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Maybe the Laverty story is not quite true?

Lets turn that upside down and call Mr. Occam

Suppose Laverty was nothing more than a mark and he found exactly what he was 'supposed to".

If they wanted credibility and to keep the hoax in a small circle- it would make sense to plant clues so others who were not involved would "find" them and back them up.

( even many con artists "let" 1 or 2 people "win" to spread the word)

 

[GT/CS]

Crow, at what point in the Georgia Bigfoot in a Freezer escapade did you realize it was a hoax? Was it after WP found the suit on the web or after the boyz admitted to the hoax?

 

[William Parcher]

We don't know the circumstances of Laverty finding the tracks on Monday. He could have read about the encounter in the news, or been told by someone. I suppose he could have been totally oblivious to the situation and just found them on his own, but I really doubt that.

 

[makaya325]

well im for one open to the possibility of bf existing or existed, so dont view me as some kind of woo. i find it baffling why no body?

 

[kitakaze]

well im for one open to the possibility of bf existing or existed, so dont view me as some kind of woo. i find it baffling why no body?

Welcome to the JREF, makaya. We are all open to the possibilty of Bigfoot existing. We just expect to be given some reliable evidence for the idea rather than all the fluff that Bigfoot enthusiasts go on about.

 

[makaya325]

well kitz, thats great to here.

i believe only a small # of sightings could possibly be true. but since its impossible to accept sightings at face value, their useless, but u skeptics, dont any sightings interest u? its fun reading em.

i recently watched on unsolved mysteries that hair in colorado was sent to sf university for dna testing, and they concluded that the hair cant rule out man and chimpanzees.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What does the hair from a man or chimpanzee have to do with Bigfoot ?

 

[makaya325]

well, dio, it was on unsolved mysteries days ago. i forget the name of the man who tested it, and he concluded the dna is related to a branch of hominid. interesting neverthless