Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
A long discussion and question period followed Daniel's talk. There were lots of questions; and a couple of interesting longer comments. I had a comment that will never be answered probably. Why didn't Gimlin watch the "movie of the year;" The object of their; at that time; existence? Perez says in his book; "Gimlin missed this premiere showing and was home in bed; completely exhausted from the trip back home and the soaking experience getting his truck out of the Bluff Creek area;" (BigfooTimes; 1994; D. Perez). If they had the film in some time earlier; and didn't view until around 4-5 PM; as Rene' Dahinden recalls...wasn't that enough time for a nap? Would you want to sleep through your premiere? John Green; at the meeting; was asked at what time the film was viewed; but replied; "well;
it doesn't really matter what time we saw it; because we had it (film) for quite a while before we saw it." Rene' had left the meeting earlier.
Click to expand...

From the same IBS link referenced earlier. Is it true that Gimlin did not even bother to watch the movie after it was developed?

I note the mention of "the soaking experience getting his truck out of the Bluff Creek area". Yet those prints survived?

Both of these are just very difficult to believe....
 
LTC8K6 said:
And if he hadn't "blown it"?
Click to expand...

He may have shown a suit that was as real looking as the PG film subject.

But, then again, he may have shown a suit as pathetic as the BBC suit.

Now he's proven that we can't trust him.

Doesn't matter about the trust, actually. The hoax was discovered quite quickly.

Unlike the Patterson film.

After 38 years.
 
LTC8K6 said:
From the same IBS link referenced earlier. Is it true that Gimlin did not even bother to watch the movie after it was developed? ....
Click to expand...

I don't know.

But I do know how tired I've been after great, wet, and even exciting outdoors adventures. I've hit the sack and stayed there for 24 hours in the past.

...I note the mention of "the soaking experience getting his truck out of the Bluff Creek area". Yet those prints survived?...
Click to expand...

Sure. Why not? The Laverty photo even shows the signs of heavy raindrops.
 
LAL said:
Back when I suggested you write to Meldrum. It will take a while to find the post. I'm not sure I remember the name of the thread. I think it was the one where you posted your physics argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly where, LAL? Would you care to back it?

BTW, have you managed to back the other things you wrote about me, such as the use of a sockpuppet and the insinuation that I am a poseur?

LAL said:
I haven't seen you taking advantage of the opportunity to address Meldrum on BFF. He's still posting.

If it's too much trouble to join the board, perhaps Diogenes could post your argument for you.

Here's the link again, in case you missed it:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14342&st=0
Click to expand...

So, it seems you just can't find the answers to the issues I raised. And here you are, insisting on a variant of the appeal to authority.
 
An still, even with all this "distrust", Huntster wants to lower the quality standards of data.

Anwer me, why should one trust in P & G?

Why trust in sighting reports?

Why trust in those who claim the footprints are not hoaxes and misinterpretations?
 
Correa Neto said:
An still, even with all this "distrust", Huntster wants to lower the quality standards of data.

Anwer me, why should one trust in P & G?

Why trust in sighting reports?

Why trust in those who claim the footprints are not hoaxes and misinterpretations?
Click to expand...

Because, unlike the Dfoot and other such hoaxes, there's no evidence to show that they are incorrect or hoaxed.

Aren't you one who likes evidence?
 
Dfoot jumped the gun. There is a big difference between being "on to something" and having a "solid case". I went through the exact same set of emotions when I was working on the "dermal" business, I knew I was onto something, but I had to force myself to wait.

Even then, before I had completed my investigations I sent Chilcutt several small cast "coupons" (test specimens) that he ended up calling "tiles" that are not completely representative of what is going on. It was those "tiles" that exhibited flattened ridge peaks that LAL made so much of.

Today, I have test casts that have "rounded ridge peaks" and in fact duplicate the "ridge flow pattern" of the Onion Mountain cast very closely. The "ridge flow pattern" of the Onion Mountain cast appears to be a function of the shape of the track it was made in.

If I were Dfoot, I would lick my wounds, go home, and build a suit that backs up his claims. Then enlist someone else (perhaps Scott Herriott who also lives in LA) to help in videotaping. Clearly you will need to find an actor who can walk with a convincing compliant gait.

Best of luck Dfoot!
 
tube said:
Dfoot jumped the gun.....

.....If I were Dfoot, I would lick my wounds, go home, and build a suit that backs up his claims. Then enlist someone else (perhaps Scott Herriott who also lives in LA) to help in videotaping. Clearly you will need to find an actor who can walk with a convincing compliant gait.

Best of luck Dfoot!
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Like I've said before, everybody is a liar. If you're not, somebody will turn you into one anyway.

Show us......................
 
Huntster said:
Sure. Why not? The Laverty photo even shows the signs of heavy raindrops.
Click to expand...

I suppose the raindrops reshaped it so it doesn't resemble Patty's foot ?


Whadaya' think ?

patgim3.gif



Also there seem to be a lot more raindrops around the print than in it..

What's up with that ? Some sort of Bigfoot print rain repellant effect ?
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
Because, unlike the Dfoot and other such hoaxes, there's no evidence to show that they are incorrect or hoaxed.
Click to expand...

Why should I trust in your statement?:D

Anyway, I think you can not back the claim that no evidence points to errors or hoaxes. Remember what I was asking about?

I wrote:
why should one trust in P & G?
Click to expand...
There are no evidences of a hoax? None? Not a single suspicious issue?
Sure?

I wrote:
Why trust in sighting reports?
Click to expand...
No evidence for hoaxes and misinterpretations at bigfeet sighting reports?

I wrote:
Why trust in those who claim the footprints are not hoaxes and misinterpretations?
Click to expand...
No evidence for bigfeet footprints being hoaxes and misinterpretations?

Now Huntster, go ahead and make my day: say I'm behaving like a lawyer!

Huntster said:
Aren't you one who likes evidence?
Click to expand...

Hey, at last I can write "Huntster, you are correct"!

I am -very proudly- one of those annoying persons who like evidences. Reliable pieces of evidence, BTW. One of those annoying skeptics who check sources, verify the falsifiability of a proposal, etc.
 
Diogenes said:
I suppose the raindrops reshaped it so it doesn't resemble Patty's foot ?


Whadaya' think?.....
Click to expand...

I think I remember statements that there were prints from more than one individual seen in the area during that timeframe.

...Also there seem to be a lot more raindrops around the print than in it..

What's up with that ? Some sort of Bigfoot print rain repellant effect...
Click to expand...

I think I remember statements about Gimlin covering tracks with bark.

Don't you remember such statements?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom