Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Mad Hom]

That's why I asked, and need hands up for the record. I'd like to put this stupidity to bed for good this time.

Naw.

I'd like to focus on the word ELECTED, especially when it's used in conjunction with "lazy and disinterested."

Further comment? Naw. Why bother? You wrote enough.

Predictably Fudd keyed in on exactly what I figured he would....whatever Fudd like I said....L-A-M-E.....lame.

Fact is regardless of who found it...it remains proven that Bigfoot Fan by and large considers hoaxers in general to be stupid and immoral. They also seem to have set the PGF at some sort of impossibly high level of difficulty based on the Limited Edition Footers Cut of the movie that they all cherish so much. The only version that matters is the original...or 1st generation copies...and why that is still a mystery to you is a testament to your denial.

I have mentioned why I think the PGF hasn't been replicated....it's the vintage Fudd.(the filmstock,speed of the camera etc) coupled with the creativly cobbling together of a hairy suit.

If we and by "we" I mean society at large were still using old school filming technology I'd forward the notion that we'd have come up with a filmed match for Patty already.Unfortunately for modern day hoaxers video makes this difficult...hence the reason all films since have easily been declared hoaxes.

No.

Exactly

Not yet. I want all who wonder "where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar" to cast their lot.

There is no argument that they were on the same sandbar...at least not from me. For my part I'm just saying that they weren't made my Patty....they were made by Patterson. There's a difference Fudd.

 

[LTC8K6]

Who said the prints weren't on the same sandbar?

 

[Huntster]

Fact is regardless of who found it...it remains proven that Bigfoot Fan by and large considers hoaxers in general to be stupid and immoral.

So you consider hoaxers to be smart and moral?

They also seem to have set the PGF at some sort of impossibly high level of difficulty based on the Limited Edition Footers Cut of the movie that they all cherish so much.

Actually, I base "the PGF at some sort of impossibly high level of difficulty" on the realism of the evidence as well as the complete failure of anyone else to equal it (even 38 years later).

You know; evidence. The shyt that skeptics are supposed to love.

The only version that matters is the original...or 1st generation copies...and why that is still a mystery to you is a testament to your denial.

That "original" crap keeps coming up.

I guess you're too young to remember the original.

If we and by "we" I mean society at large were still using old school filming technology I'd forward the notion that we'd have come up with a filmed match for Patty already.

Hell, forget the "old school." Show me some "new school" that can compare.

Unfortunately for modern day hoaxers video makes this difficult...hence the reason all films since have easily been declared hoaxes.

What a sorry excuse! What a bunch of manure!




Originally Posted by Huntster :
No.


Exactly




Originally Posted by Huntster :
Not yet. I want all who wonder "where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar" to cast their lot.


There is no argument that they were on the same sandbar...at least not from me. For my part I'm just saying that they weren't made my Patty....they were made by Patterson. There's a difference Fudd.

 

[Huntster]

Who said the prints weren't on the same sandbar?

Nobody.

But you implied that they weren't.

Diogenes backed your lame questioning.

Am I wrong?

 

[LTC8K6]

I remain unaware of any evidence connecting any prints to Patty.

 

[Huntster]

I remain unaware of any evidence connecting any prints to Patty.

Simply put, there were prints in the same location as the film was shot.

Right, or wrong?

 

[LTC8K6]

Simply put, there were prints in the same location as the film was shot.

Right, or wrong?

I don't know. I have seen nothing that would pin that down any closer than the general area. Titmus had trouble finding the prints and with their direction of travel, etc. Laverty was suspicious.

I don't actually think there could have been any prints found the next day even if Patty was a real sasquatch. The flooding rains would have obliterated them, imo.

The one consistent thing is that it rained very hard that night, to the point of washing out roads. Gimlin doesn't even claim to have put bark over the prints until the next morning, and bark won't do anything to protect the prints in a flooding rain anyway.

 

[bruto]

Simply put, there were prints in the same location as the film was shot.

Right, or wrong?

Which is evidence of what? Evidence, perhaps, that if Patty was hoaxed, the hoaxers put some prints down too. Or perhaps that the people who faked Patty did so in an area that already had tracks of a real bigfoot in it. Or perhaps that Patty was a real bigfoot and made the tracks. Or perhaps that the people who hoaxed Patty chose a spot that other previous fakers favored, knowing that it would be a natural for believers. Or perhaps that Patty was real, but like some of the other instances people like LAL would like us to excuse, the observers felt thay had to enrich the evidence by faking tracks in hope of persuading the scofftics. Or maybe the tracks were made by Patty's boyfriend. Or who knows what? Nobody will ever know, because the whole thing was so sloppily done by people whose integrity, expertise and disinterestedness are subject to at least a little doubt. In other words, as it appears they were documented, separately from the filming and at a different time, the tracks are evidence of nothing but the presence of some tracks. which to me suggests that, as evidence, the tracks are about as worthless as the movie.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nobody.

But you implied that they weren't.

Diogenes backed your lame questioning.

Am I wrong?

Lame question, according to Huntster :

Where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar............?

I certainly understand that asking for evidence, would be considered a lame
question, as far as you are concerned ...


Anything else ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay then, I'll move on. I'll just assume Huntster has successfully answered the question.

How would footprints on a sandbar survive a heavy flooding rain?

Let's say that the material at BC would in fact hold the print very well, and someone put a piece of bark over each one early the next morning.

What would you find the next day at say, 9AM after an all night rain and washout of the area?

Would you find very nice prints?

Slightly degraded prints?

Badly degraded prints?

Any of the above also full of washed in dirt and debris?

Feel free to add more options if you wish.

 

[Huntster]

Simply put, there were prints in the same location as the film was shot.

Right, or wrong?

I don't know. I have seen nothing that would pin that down any closer than the general area.

Great.

As one who subscribes to every possible hoax theory, do you now posit that Patterson filmed the hoax on one sandbar, then faked the prints on another?

Titmus had trouble finding the prints and with their direction of travel, etc. Laverty was suspicious.

Titmus arrived many days later. Laverty was suspicious that he hadn't seen sign of a sasquatch during the time that he had spent in the Bluff Creek drainage, not suspicious of the location of the Patterson prints in relation to the filming site.

I don't actually think there could have been any prints found the next day even if Patty was a real sasquatch. The flooding rains would have obliterated them, imo.

Some of the best prints were covered with bark, remember?

The one consistent thing is that it rained very hard that night, to the point of washing out roads. Gimlin doesn't even claim to have put bark over the prints until the next morning, and bark won't do anything to protect the prints in a flooding rain anyway.

Apparently, it did. Well enough for Titmus to find them over two weeks later.

 

[Huntster]

Which is evidence of what? Evidence, perhaps, that if Patty was hoaxed, the hoaxers put some prints down too.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Or would you join LTC in doubt casting to the degree that you want to deny the prints were on the same sandbar as where the filming took place? That "the hoaxers" didn't even fake the prints on the same sandbar?

Or perhaps that the people who faked Patty did so in an area that already had tracks of a real bigfoot in it.

Which tells us.........what?

Or perhaps that Patty was a real bigfoot and made the tracks.

This is the exact reason LTC is blindly casting doubt. He doesn't even want people to believe that possibility.

Or perhaps that the people who hoaxed Patty chose a spot that other previous fakers favored, knowing that it would be a natural for believers.

Do you know of any previous hoax attempts at this site?

Or perhaps that Patty was real, but like some of the other instances people like LAL would like us to excuse, the observers felt thay had to enrich the evidence by faking tracks in hope of persuading the scofftics.

That would be stupid.

Nothing persuades scofftics.

Or maybe the tracks were made by Patty's boyfriend.

Before, or after the filming?

Or who knows what? Nobody will ever know, because the whole thing was so sloppily done by people whose integrity, expertise and disinterestedness are subject to at least a little doubt.

It wasn't sloppy, and people like LTC can cast doubt into any phenomenon in the Heavens and the Earth.

In other words, as it appears they were documented, separately from the filming and at a different time, the tracks are evidence of nothing but the presence of some tracks. which to me suggests that, as evidence, the tracks are about as worthless as the movie.

Yup. To you, the tracks are about as worthless as the movie.

But not to me.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/002.jpg

Why are the boot tracks just as deep or deeper than the bearfoot tracks, anyway?

 

[LTC8K6]

As one who subscribes to every possible hoax theory, do you now posit that Patterson filmed the hoax on one sandbar, then faked the prints on another?

Wait a minute, now. We know that Patterson practiced the casting of bigfoot prints on film for his documentary. We don't know if the film/stills of Patterson casting prints are from the practice run, or from the day of the incident.

We don't know if the prints being cast are ones RP created for the practice run or if they are the ones Patty made.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Great.

As one who subscribes to every possible hoax theory, do you now posit that Patterson filmed the hoax on one sandbar, then faked the prints on another?

And this would be impossible, because..............


Titmus arrived many days later. Laverty was suspicious that he hadn't seen sign of a sasquatch during the time that he had spent in the Bluff Creek drainage, not suspicious of the location of the Patterson prints in relation to the filming site.

And because he wasn't suspicious, this proves the prints were made by the subject being filmed, when it was filmed, exactly how ?



Some of the best prints were covered with bark, remember?

Prints made by whom, when, where ?



Apparently, it did. Well enough for Titmus to find them over two weeks later.

Made when ? By whom ? Where ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Why wasn't Patterson the least bit interested in saving the prints from the rain?

How did Gimlin pick out the best prints anyway? It was already pouring before he left to cover the tracks.

By then we decided it wasn’t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep! We were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road. I said "well I’m going to go ahead and cross the creek with the truck and get started out." And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.

Roger was left behind to take care of the prints, I guess....

What did they think tracking dogs were going to do after hours of heavy rain?

 

[Huntster]

Why wasn't Patterson the least bit interested in saving the prints from the rain?

Because he had casts, and he had the film, which he needed to get to the processer.

How did Gimlin pick out the best prints anyway?

With his eyes. How else? By scent?

It was already pouring before he left to cover the tracks.

Are you blinded when it rains?

Roger was left behind to take care of the prints, I guess....

Yeah. You guess a lot.

What did they think tracking dogs were going to do after hours of heavy rain?

I hope they didn't think that attempting to track the thing down with dogs would satisfy skeptics.

If so, they certainly learned otherwise later.

If they didn't try to do so, they'd be condemned for that, too.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

 

[LTC8K6]

When was sunrise at Bluff Creek in October of 1967? Around 7:15-7:30, I think. It's dark and raining heavily when Gimlin leaves at 5:30 to cover the best prints.

He needed to get the film to the processor? The film was already gone, wasn't it? This is the next morning.

 

[Huntster]

..He needed to get the film to the processor? The film was already gone, wasn't it? This is the next morning.

How did the film get "gone" by the next morning?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How did the film get "gone" by the next morning?

Haven't really followed the story, huh ?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

Gimlin: Yes we did. In fact right that afternoon. By the time we got the tracks cast and the different deals that we did to cast the tracks done, it was getting late. It was almost dark by the time we got back down to the truck and got the horses fed and tied up. By the time we got into town at Al Hodgson’s store, it was good and dark. I imagine it was about 8:30 or 9 o’clock. Then we went on over to...[reflecting]… oh whatever town that was to mail the film up to Al de Atley, Roger’s brother-in-law, so he could take it and get it developed to see if there was really anything on the film.

The Mail service must have been something back then.. Not to mention getting that film developed for the Sunday premiere ..

Which Gimlin supposedly missed.. Took a nap instead ..

He was really busting with apprehension about whether or not they caught anything on film..