Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[LTC8K6]

Streufert wasn't just a site visitor. He is rather, an expert in the details of the site, having studied it itself and what others had written of it and the photos they'd taken of it for years in conjunction with several other knowledgeable Bigfooters, including members of his site rediscovery team. The links below should give you an indication of the depth of his involvement. These include detailed maps of the site, based on his team's site surveys. The sidebar contains links to additional threads of his on the topic.

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/patterson-gimlin-film-site-rediscovered.html

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/pgf-bigfoot-film-site-mathematically.html

A simple yes would have been fine.

 

[Roger Knights]

RK,
You're confusing the heck out of me. I'm no mathematician so I don't understand how you can be 67% sure that the Patterson film shows a real Bigfoot and 90% sure there is no Bigfoot.

I’m of two minds about Bigfoot. That’s not an unusual condition to be in regarding a puzzler. When I look at it through one lens (the two-dozen reasons-against double-sided business card I created and posted here a month or so ago), it looks really unlikely. When I look at it through the PGF, it looks likely.

Do I understand you correctly on another issue: You overwhelmingly think there is no Bigfoot, but if there is, it is a supernatural entity and not a WoodApe/ForestPerson? Why even go that route at all, since the very idea is unverifiable?

Saying “It exists but it’s not ‘real’” is a way of resolving the conflict in my mind between “It’s real” and “It isn’t.”

One more personal question: Are you in your death throes as a Bigfoot believer and are trying to rejuvenate your enthusiasms for the idea of Bigfoot by arguing with skeptics, or are you hoping to have your enthusiasm killed off altogether here at ISF?

I came here to argue about “Bob Heironimus and Patty,” as I’ve stated repeatedly since page 75 or thereabouts, not about the idea of Bigfoot or the authenticity of the PGF. (Unfortunately I’ve allowed myself to be drawn into discussion of those other matters in response to OT comments.)

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger-
Why have you come here after all of these years to start talking about the PGF?

Is it simply because your new found skepticism is leading you to talk with people who are not blinded by the Salt of the Earth Gimlin?

I came here to talk about “Bob Heironimus and Patty.”

Also, as one of the more famous Bigfooters, have you heard any inside scoop about upcoming revelations about the PGF film? Re: Biscardi, Pat Patterson, a documentary about the hoax where the truth is told (including BobG & PatP endorsement), etc...

I mentioned early in this thread (around page 75) that I’ve been mostly on the sidelines regarding Bigfoot for most of the past five years. And I’ve never been a Bigfoot insider. So I wouldn’t know about what Biscardi has cooking, but if it’s a confession, I hope it’s only about the too-short film development timeline. I suspect that was an invention of Patterson and DeAtley, two schemers, who may have thought it would validate the film’s authenticity for them to make out that it had been developed immediately after its filming (so no time for darkroom antics); and Patterson may have thought it would make a more dramatic Hollywood recreation that way.

(Back in 2002 Bigfoot Co-op published a six-page article of mine, “I gotta touch it to believe it” (a quote from DeAtley). (It’s also posted on BFF 1.0) In it I speculated that the film had been shot and developed a week or so earlier than October 20, in order for DeAtley to see if it looked authentic enough for him to let Patterson use his name in the newspaper story announcing the filming. Dahinden thought that was a possibility that didn’t discredit the film’s authenticity.)

 

[William Parcher]

I’m of two minds about Bigfoot. That’s not an unusual condition to be in regarding a puzzler.

Bigfoot is a puzzler? It sounds like you have rejected the evidence showing that Bigfoot doesn't exist. If so, then you are the puzzler.

 

[William Parcher]

I’ve never been a Bigfoot insider. So I wouldn’t know about what Biscardi has cooking, but if it’s a confession, I hope it’s only about the too-short film development timeline.

Biscardi is cooking something up? I've never heard about that. If true, it sounds like insider stuff.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I came here to argue about “Bob Heironimus and Patty,” as I’ve stated repeatedly since page 75 or thereabouts, not about the idea of Bigfoot or the authenticity of the PGF. (Unfortunately I’ve allowed myself to be drawn into discussion of those other matters in response to OT comments.)

It seems you're mostly just trying to reconcile your holding two opposing views - Bigfoot or hoax - simultaneously (cognitive dissonance?). You've literally fooled yourself into believing that either option is still potentially true. By arguing BH wasn't the guy (simply because there's little evidence beyond the anecdotal that he was), it allows the question to remain "open" for you. "Yeah sure it might be some other guy, OR MAYBE IT REALLY WAS BIGFOOT!"

No? Then pick a side (if you haven't already) and explicitly let us know what it is.

 

[captain koolaid]

...I mentioned early in this thread (around page 75) that I’ve been mostly on the sidelines regarding Bigfoot for most of the past five years. And I’ve never been a Bigfoot insider. So I wouldn’t know about what Biscardi has cooking, but if it’s a confession, I hope it’s only about the too-short film development timeline. I suspect that was an invention of Patterson and DeAtley, two schemers, who may have thought it would validate the film’s authenticity for them to make out that it had been developed immediately after its filming (so no time for darkroom antics); and Patterson may have thought it would make a more dramatic Hollywood recreation that way.

(Back in 2002 Bigfoot Co-op published a six-page article of mine, “I gotta touch it to believe it” (a quote from DeAtley). (It’s also posted on BFF 1.0) In it I speculated that the film had been shot and developed a week or so earlier than October 20, in order for DeAtley to see if it looked authentic enough for him to let Patterson use his name in the newspaper story announcing the filming. Dahinden thought that was a possibility that didn’t discredit the film’s authenticity.)

What???... that makes no sense. It doesn't fly. Why would Patterson or Deatley do such a thing? Because they're schemers? Come on, RK. Why the hell would even a chancer like Patterson cook up such nonsense? Why would he have to? Think about it. Patterson, supposedly, has captured a real Bigfoot on film. They wouldn't need any flim flammery. They wouldn't care what it looked like. Patterson has a slam dunk on film and wouldn't give a ****. It's the duck's nuts and he's gonna be cashing in, big time. Why complicate things with such nonsense? It serves no purpose. Patterson was a liar and a showboater, but, he was not brain damaged. What little extra zing he could wring out of such a story would simply be not worth the time, effort and risk. It does not add up... if it was real.

 

[Roger Knights]

Here are some of Steven Streufert & company’s maps:

Streufert e-mailed me this:

You might want to post our site survey map in there, and explain that the site itself has not flooded over since 1964, and that the landmarks even down to the piles of old-growth wood and stumps, plus the big trees in back, are all still there. Also, the creek has eroded down into its bed, so the "berm," or bank, rather, is about seven or eight feet high nowadays. Roger moved while filming, as well, so he filmed at first from the creekbed, then up on the edge of the bank, and then he moved forward to past the big log pile.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here are some of Steven Streufert & company’s maps:

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20PGF/SS%20Site-only%202nd_zps7hxkl4vw.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20PGF/SS--BC%20Film%20Site%20Map_zpsshrvzeaf.jpg[/qimg]

Streufert e-mailed me this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8759224&postcount=10120

Yes, because we've never discussed Streufert or seen those maps before...

Wasn't he a member here? Bigfootbookman?

EDIT - yep.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10054661&postcount=2

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132900&page=191

Streufert and his PGF site visit are not a new topic here...

 

[LTC8K6]

How can it not have flooded after 1964 when Gimlin himself says it flooded the night the PGF was filmed?

 

[William Parcher]

Here are some of Steven Streufert & company’s maps:

These maps look like a view into a manic mind. I have no idea how to relate anything because it doesn't look like what we see in the PGF. It is drastically different. It should quickly discourage just about any thinking person when they see these misspellings:

Rogger Patterson
Down Streem
Illistration
Munns Paty Frame #1
Gridd Start Point
Latter Fir (Ladder Fir)

 

[Resume]

Looks like someone got a new box of Crayolas. Is this magneted to your fridge Roger?

 

[Roger Knights]

I came here to argue about “Bob Heironimus and Patty,” as I’ve stated repeatedly since page 75 or thereabouts, not about the idea of Bigfoot or the authenticity of the PGF. (Unfortunately I’ve allowed myself to be drawn into discussion of those other matters in response to OT comments.)

It seems you're mostly just trying to reconcile your holding two opposing views - Bigfoot or hoax - simultaneously (cognitive dissonance?). You've literally fooled yourself into believing that either option is still potentially true. By arguing BH wasn't the guy (simply because there's little evidence beyond the anecdotal that he was), it allows the question to remain "open" for you. "Yeah sure it might be some other guy, OR MAYBE IT REALLY WAS BIGFOOT!"

No? Then pick a side (if you haven't already) and explicitly let us know what it is.

First, my arguments against BH’s case do not consist of nothing but pointing to the paucity of evidence for it; rather, my arguments are that he’s made many untrue, implausible, and self-contradictory claims. I have found many new-to-the-debate instances in all those categories. I’m not going to post all of them here (my compendium document needs months of work (both to repair and to complete) and is too big anyway), but I’d like to start by working through Kitakaze’s 26-item “Alphabet Soup” comment with him.

Second, it’s an irrelevant ad hom and a diversion to speculate about my motive for debunking Heironimus. It doesn’t matter what my motive might be. FWIW, you’re correct that the PGF does allow the question of the reality of Bigfoot to remain open for me. But that’s not my main motive: I have other, stronger motives too, which I’ve already listed in an earlier comment:

Long issued provocative challenges to disprove him that provoked me enough that I started assembling a collection of Heironimus’s contradictions, and then also of his errors and implausibilities.

Millions, maybe tens of millions, of Americans have got the idea that the guy in the suit confessed and passed two lie detector tests, so the film has been debunked. I think my work will have a big impact on that part of public opinion that bases its disbelief on Heironimus’s story, if I can debunk him. If I do debunk him, Skeptics who disbelieve in the PGF should not have any gripe with me, since they should not want to sell their position to the public based in part on an untruth.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Other reasons for my criticizing BH's story are that it has unjustly injured the reputations of Gimlin and Patty Patterson in Yakima. I'd like to Undo that. Also, it is a revolting fraud upon the public, for the sake of money via a hoped-for TV special, and its perpetuator (and his champions) deserve to be ridiculed.

Another motive for my sticking to the topic of this thread is that Kitakaze accused me of lying about Gary Record’s testimony (Record told Kitakaze that he was present at Heironimus’s suit display in October 1967, contrary to what he had told me earlier) and of my therefore being an unreliable and incompetent investigator. I want to turn the tables on him and give him a taste of his own medicine.

Third, because your accusation is an ad hom and a diversion, I’m under no obligation, by the decorum of debate, to “pick a side” regarding the authenticity of the PGF. However, I have already stated that I think it’s 2 to 1 that it’s authentic, implying that there’s a chance of Bigfoot being, in some sense, authentic too.

I think my degree-of-certainty approach to investigating puzzlers like this is a wiser one than your implicit claim to absolute certainty (of Bigfoot’s unreality). There’s enough evidence on the “pro” side, and enough importance in the outcome if the “pro” side is correct, to justify continuing investigation of the matter.

 

[Roger Knights]

These maps look like a view into a manic mind. I have no idea how to relate anything because it doesn't look like what we see in the PGF. It is drastically different. It should quickly discourage just about any thinking person when they see these misspellings:

Rogger Patterson
Down Streem
Illistration
Munns Paty Frame #1
Gridd Start Point
Latter Fir (Ladder Fir)

The map's legend says, "Illustrated by Robert Leiterman"—i.e., not Streufert.

I don't think Leiterman’s being a poor speller should make a big difference to "any thinking person."

I have no idea how to relate anything because it doesn't look like what we see in the PGF. It is drastically different."

Well, it could be that what you "see" is wrong. That possibility shouldn't be a revelation to a skeptic.

I'd be very interested to see you (or one other of your "we") draw a rough map of the filmsite and the paths of Patty and Patterson.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Here are some of Steven Streufert & company’s maps:

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20PGF/SS%20Site-only%202nd_zps7hxkl4vw.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20PGF/SS--BC%20Film%20Site%20Map_zpsshrvzeaf.jpg[/qimg]

Streufert e-mailed me this:

That's adorable, whose fridge does it hang on?

 

[Roger Knights]

How can it not have flooded after 1964 when Gimlin himself says it flooded the night the PGF was filmed?

There's flooding (1967) and then there's FLOODING (1964). The 1964 flooding wiped out bridges, relocated streams, knocked out power, and caused billions in damages. It was the result of prolonged rain. The 1967 flooding was the result of a short-lived downpour. It didn’t (AFAIK) uproot trees and overflow the creek’s western embankment at the filmsite.

 

[Roger Knights]

What???... that makes no sense. It doesn't fly. Why would Patterson or Deatley do such a thing? Because they're schemers? Come on, RK. Why the hell would even a chancer like Patterson cook up such nonsense? Why would he have to? Think about it. Patterson, supposedly, has captured a real Bigfoot on film. They wouldn't need any flim flammery. They wouldn't care what it looked like. Patterson has a slam dunk on film and wouldn't give a ****. It's the duck's nuts and he's gonna be cashing in, big time. Why complicate things with such nonsense? It serves no purpose. Patterson was a liar and a showboater, but, he was not brain damaged. What little extra zing he could wring out of such a story would simply be not worth the time, effort and risk. It does not add up... if it was real.

Even Patterson didn’t believe that he had a slam dunk at first, until he saw the film. (And the three Bigfooters who saw the film on Sunday weren’t all that impressed with it. The film was mostly blurry and jumpy, and Patty was far away. When I saw it in a theater in the mid-70s, it was no slam dunk. There was no stabilization, and either slow motion or close-ups may have been lacking.)

Regardless of their own impressions of the film, Patterson and/or DeAtley would likely have realized that they would be suspected by some of darkroom manipulation to produce an authentic-looking result—and therefore that it would be good to forestall such an objection by (falsely) claiming to have developed it the day after it was filmed. There was no “time and effort” involved in making such a claim.

And Patterson and DeAtley didn’t realize they were running a “risk,” either, by claiming the film was developed on Saturday. They had no idea of the Kodachrome 2 movie-film development schedule at Technicolor in Seattle, which would have made same-day development impossible, nor about the impossibility of it being developed there by a rogue employee, nor about the impossibility of amateur development of it.

(About seven years or more ago I interviewed, at length, Frank Ishihara, head technician at Technicolor, and he told me that any unauthorized development would have been easily detected, and that even if the film had been brought in on Friday it wouldn’t have been available for pickup on Saturday. (EDIT: Make that, "even if the film had been brought in on Saturday it wouldn’t have been available for pickup on Sunday.") I haven’t yet written up my interview, but I hope to do so eventually.)

Even if they did realize they were running a risk with their claim, that might not have mattered much—at any rate, not to DeAtley. It would be years before skeptics raised objections about the film development timeline.* By that time they’d have cashed in.

*Even 13 years later, skeptic Kenneth Wylie’s 1980 book, Bigfoot: A personal inquiry into a phenomenon, did not object to the one-day film development claim. It only notes, “the name of the camera shop that developed the film would almost certainly reveal further interesting problems with the above case.” (page 187)

PS: And, as I wrote, “Patterson may have thought it would make a more dramatic Hollywood recreation that way.” I.e., with a rush to ship off the film for development immediately.

 

[Roger Knights]

Captain koolaid:

I failed to get your drift when I replied to you above by saying that there was no time and effort involved in falsely claiming immediate filming development. Your implication was that by forcing Patterson to stay down in California until the film had been developed & reviewed, and forcing him to make a second (unnecessary) mailing, time and effort was spent.

I should have said that that was necessary anyway. If DeAtley was not a “witting,” pro-active hoaxer, which I disbelieve, he’d certainly have wanted to see the film before he let Patterson use his name when he called the newspaper with the story about his encounter. Otherwise, he ran the risk of looking like a fool.

 

[Resume]

This sort of misdirection and red herring baiting concerning the alleged creature in the pgf hoax-up is a wet dream for those invested in perpetuating the pgf hoax-up.

Nowhere in the natural history of North America, nor in its fossil record, is there any sort of substantive physical evidence for this legendary creature known as bigfoot. Neither the aboriginal people, nor the Europeans that followed have ever provided a scintilla, a scrap, a hint of any corroboration for this chimera. Nothing. No thing. Anywhere. Ever.

Those that appear fools for advocating such a creature will necessarily have to appear foolish because that is indeed what they are.