Good idea 'cause Krantz uses the Titmus map to make his determinations. (read Krantz, page 88)
Page 88 here, too.
So was Krantz. (see page 88)
As I pointed out before, (from Krantz, page 91) - "...only 125 yards from the point where the encounter began."
Krantz even provides a diagram (page 88).
I'm having trouble interpreting it. It think my brain is still fatiqued from trying to figure out Dahinden's diagram.
Well, if Krantz is correct, <snipped to fit> (apologies if you don't understand football analogies).
Apologies accepted. Chess is more my speed.
If you mean the Titmus map, no, it doesn't show their route after Patterson stopped filming, only that of the creature.
And it doesn't show her route going up the mountain and then coming back to watch them.
Somehow they managed to follow her for 3.5 MILES, yet she had walked less than 200 yards away from them (according to the Titmus map, page 88 of Krantz).
That does seem a little weird; I think that's why I kept asking for a source to begin with. I know from experience what 3.5 miles is like on a small mountain, even with 1/2 of it on the level.
Oh, wait a minute. Maybe she returned after they started jumping and casting, et al, but if so, why didn't Titmus indicate that on his map? No, I think Krantz got it wrong. She wasn't watching them casting;; she was watching them catch the horses, then moved on and they followed her for whatever distance, returned, went to camp, went back to the site and then did the casting.
No idea, but I was assuming if Patterson said they tracked her, then that's what they had done, regardless of whether it was on foot or horseback.
If they'd caught the horses, why wouldn't they ride? Would they leave spooked horses in the area while they went after her and risk losing them for good, 20 miles up a dirt road?
Well they obviously did a horrible job of 'tracking'.
Not if she returned after they went to the base camp. The spot wouldn't have been there when they tracked her if she didn't come back 'til later. The map is wrong or Krantz' account is, one. He never went to the film site, did he?
If they were mounted they could have ridden right by it without seeing it, but did they go up the mountain at the same place or ride up the creek? I'd hestitate to take horses up a mountain with no trail.
It certainly does on the Titmus map that Krantz uses (page 88).
It doesn't show her going up the mountain and doubling back. It just shows a turn to the right. I don't see it as a circle. It's more of an arc.
You see a molehill, I see another discrepancy.
I think it's a mistake on Krantz' part. He corrects three in Chapter 4 in the appendix of the newer edition, but seems not to have caught that one.
How can we be certain? They seemed pretty inept at tracking, are they even sure it was Patty they were following?
Her trail would have been fresh.
And what would they have done if they caught up with her with a no-kill agreement? Shot close-ups?
I wasn't aware anyone had irrefutable proof either way.
They found a wet track, but where? I need to find the articles again. My impression was they rode up the creek bed.
I don't see where she doubled back either, but I do see where she circled back to a point where she could overlook the spot of the initial encounter. But then Titmus didn't track her for any 3.5 miles either. <snipped to fit> They can't both be telling the truth, the evidence doesn't match the testimony.
Unless they rode in the direction they thought she went and only partially tracked her. My impression was that the wet track was upstream. She could have gone up the mountain, sat and watched them while they collected the horses and changed film (maybe Krantz meant they changed film instead of made casts) then ambled down the mountain and back to the creek several miles upsteam (or is it downstream?). Which way did the creek run?
I'm not so sure you've been paying close enough attention. Numerous times now you've demanded sources when they were clearly provided for all to see.
Demanded? I didn't mean to sound demanding. I just want to get on the same page, so to speak. I've missed some posts by not scrolling back far enough. When I paste the thread address from my e-mail it often takes me to the last post, not the one that was the reply. I tend to answer the first one I see, then get back to the others. Sometimes people post while I'm composing my long answers and I don't see them 'til maybe the next day. Or maybe I didn't realize it was the same source because I didn't have time to look it up. I tend to post between the coffee and the eggs, and I'm usually running late. I now have Krantz back at my fingertips. Funny how I don't remember every word, even after two rereadings. I read late at night when I'm half asleep and tend to lose my place.
Umm, yeah, they do! Huge difference between 3.5 MILES and 130-140 YARDS!!
Evidently they went way beyond the film site. If they followed her to where she sat (but either didn't note it or didn't discuss it) and beyond and then went on down the mountain to the stream bed and followed that until they were sure they'd lost her.........yeah. I'd be getting hungry by then.
Too bad only one source is still alive. How can you be certain there was an error in the very first news story?
Murphy said so in the caption.
He said we know they were in the area for close to three weeks. Reporters make mistakes, especially when they're trying to make a deadline. Of course, Murphy makes mistakes too. But "last Saturday" would have been Oct. 14th. I've seen sceptics say they arrived and got the film the next day. Very suspicious, but not true.
Do you believe Patterson was only mistaken? Was he merely joking when he indicated they had followed Patty for 3.5 MILES? Why does his recollection differ so much from the physical evidence left behind (that was able to be followed NINE DAYS after the event took place)? Unless Titmus was making things up.
I think I've explained that above. What does Gimlin say?
Are you implying that Patterson and Gimlin were both involved in a hoax?
Me? I don't think there was ahoax.
Is there any possibility whatsoever that Patterson and Heironimus hoaxed Gimlin?
Gimlin didn't think so. If there was a hoax they both had to have been in on it and I don't think Heironimus would have been in on it at all.
No, you're not being clear. They only have one thing in common - they're both films. One is known to be historically accurate, the other may well be a hoax. Wishful-thinking doesn't change that fact.
Both are films that show something quite clearly, but there's still a storm of controversy over exactly what the something is. That's all I meant.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
I didn't take Logic 101, remember? I ran a strawman accusation past a cyber friend who did take it and he didn't see the strawman. You might try addressing me in Greek sometimes. I didn't take that either.
But it's only absurd if presented by skeptics?
They're absurd in their own right. It doesn't matter who presents them. The Chambers story is still cropping up even after he denied it and died.
No kidding, Patterson, Meldrum, Coleman... none of them can make up their minds. Patterson claims he tracked the damn thing for 3.5 MILES, yet the Titmus account refutes that claim.
No, I don't think it does. I think both may be correct. P&G just went further than Titmus did and may have ridden past the spot or not realized it's significance if they did see it. Titmus could be calmer and more collected.
I think little changes just tend to happen in retellings of any story.
Meldrum sometimes finds the Skookum cast compelling, sometimes he doesn't.
He's got his tenure now. He can be bolder.
Coleman seems to swallow just about anything, including mersquatch.
Might want to check Coleman's cheeks for a tongue. He seems to have a quirky sense of humor. He posted that silly Iraq story on his own website. I'm getting to like him.
Guess you didn't see my post where I stood corrected. I was mistaken, there weren't NINE 'species' roaming about in North America, it was TWELVE 'types'. Coleman does however, have NINE 'classifications' of beasties that have been reported as squatches.
I answered it. Didn't you see it?
Seems people mix up Swamp Apes and Sasquatches. My replacement copy of his new book has been shipped. It may reflect his current thinking.
At least they have fossils to deal with.
Lucky bastards. But at first they didn't know which continent to look on. Nowadays they search for likely spots via satellite (Johanson). Omo, Hadar, Olduvai, et al, also have fossil bearing strata. That
really helps.
Appeal to authority maybe? Just who is an authority on bigfoot anyway? Having an opinion never made anyone an authority.
RayG
No, just some big names in the "research business" which you would surely recognize, and some lesser names, like Herriot. I don't think they'd be posting there if Coleman was such a kook. He's no Dr. Ruehl, evidently.
