Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[LTC8K6]

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.

We just need to talk about the flooding:

Murphy

Back at the campsite, weather conditions had gone from bad to worse. Fearing a possible landslide on the Bluff Creek road, Patterson and Gimlin decided to get out of the area. They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.

Gimlin

The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Otherwise, he ran the risk of looking like a fool.

You mean besides already looking like a fool for blurting out several vastly differing accounts of what he pretended to see on that day, including one very imaginative one regarding a sore leg and a bent stirrup?

As foolish as putting an Indian wig on some random bloke and taking him on tour as the fake Gimlin?

Everything the man did was foolish, and he clearly wasn't arsed in any way, shape or form. All he saw was dollar signs and his deathbed waiting in the distance.

 

[captain koolaid]

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...

It's a slam dunk, because it's "real". I'm not sure you get this. Once Patterson captures it on film and it turns out ok (even not great, but discernible)... that's it. The footage of the century. Anything proposed that is cooked up after that, that involves some complicated plot and flim flammery, that isn't needed, is just grasping at straws to justify the hinkyness of the whole affair.

Also, which is it? "Authentic looking" or too nebulous to make out? You're proposing that they may have been worried that people would suspect "darkroom antics"? If it's "not a slam dunk", why are they concerned about suspicion of darkroom antics? Honestly, RK, why the hell would they care, if Patterson had actually filmed a real bigfoot?

Patterson is going to delay the release, wait another couple of weeks (or whatever), hang around at Bluff Creek, pretend that they filmed... a "real" bigfoot, mind you, that weekend and not when they actually filmed it... spin some yarns about stirrups and post offices and whatnot... for what?... so that "they" wouldn't suspect dark room antics? I'll say it again. Patterson was a b******* artist, but, he was not a total dummy.

You come up with such convoluted lies and staging events, when you're hoaxing. Not after you've gotten your hands on the footage of the century. Patterson concocted a hoax, so that people wouldn't suspect a hoax, when in fact it was real?
.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not sure you get this.

I am sure that the getting is not gotten.

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger, there is a post waiting for your attention in our general PGF thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295766&page=36

Thanks for the heads-up. And thanks for posting that material in its proper thread, not here. (It debunks Les Patterson's claim that RP went back to Bluff Creek with ten horses, etc., which I just conceded there.)

 

[Roger Knights]

It's a slam dunk, because it's "real". I'm not sure you get this. Once Patterson captures it on film and it turns out OK (even not great, but discernible)... that's it. The footage of the century.

But Patterson wouldn’t have known it turned out OK until he’d sent it off to be developed and waited for several days. And DeAtley (whose OK was presumably needed too) wouldn’t know it had turned out OK until he’d seen it also. So there’d have been an unavoidable two- or three-day delay for the film to get shipped, developed, and projected, and for Patterson to call DeAtley (from Orleans, probably) to check on its quality. Right?

Anything proposed that is cooked up after that, that involves some complicated plot and flim flammery, that isn't needed.

But nothing very “complicated” is needed thereafter. Just drive down to Willow Creek, meet Hodgson, tell him that the creature has just been filmed, wave a camera box at him, make a phone call, and drive down 299 to the nearest bar. Return to Syl McCoy’s three hours later, yak for a few hours, and head back to the campsite. That’s no big deal—merely a 50-mile drive each way.

It doesn’t strain credulity to think that either Patterson or DeAtley would have suggested to the other, “It will forestall objections that the film has been tampered with in the darkroom if we create a tight timeline from filming to projection.” Those two schemers would likely have thought that was a clever move. (Too clever by half.)

If it's "not a slam dunk", why are they concerned about suspicion of darkroom antics? Honestly, RK, why the hell would they care, if Patterson had actually filmed a real bigfoot?

Because film evidence of such an unlikely creature wouldn’t have been sufficient to convince opinion leaders of its reality, and because besides them there were many instinctive scoffers among journalists and in the populace. If it were known to them that DeAtley had had the film in his possession for five days (say) before it was projected in his basement, some of them would have suggested that the film had been “improved” in the darkroom. That’s why the hell they would care.

You come up with such convoluted lies and staging events, when you're hoaxing. Not after you've gotten your hands on the footage of the century.

Not necessarily. The temptation to gild the lily can be strong (e.g., Mendel improving the results of his pea-studies), as I think it was in this case. (I wish other cases of succumbing to this temptation came to mind, and discrediting a valid claim thereby, although I have the impression that I’ve read of several of them. I urge anyone who remembers such a case to post it.)

And there’s another important factor at work: DeAtley had veto power over the story they would agree on. And DeAtley wasn’t 100% convinced, or even 50% convinced (he says) that Patterson had filmed a real Bigfoot, even after he saw the footage. (TMoB, p. 256: Long: “When did you first think it [the film] wasn’t authentic?” DeAtley: “When I first saw it.” See also p. 254.)

So minimizing the development timeline would have protected DeAtley from some of the jeers to be expected from opinion leaders and the public. That might have mattered a lot to him. From that perspective, why not tell Patterson to spend half a day creating a simple cover story that shifted the filming date ahead by five days or so? It wouldn’t be costly or risky to do. Patterson was down there already, with time on his hands. He was a convincing storyteller. Not tightening the timeline might have looked riskier, to DeAtley.

spin some yarns about stirrups and post offices and whatnot...

Those weren’t extraneous add-ons that a looser (true) timeline would have eliminated. Patterson would have sexed-up the event with the bent stirrup baloney regardless; and at some time he did visit a post office, so only its date needed changing—nothing convoluted about that.

 

[captain koolaid]

But Patterson wouldn’t have known it turned out OK until he’d sent it off to be developed and waited for several days. And DeAtley (whose OK was presumably needed too) wouldn’t know it had turned out OK until he’d seen it also. So there’d have been an unavoidable two- or three-day delay for the film to get shipped, developed, and projected, and for Patterson to call DeAtley (from Orleans, probably) to check on its quality. Right? ...

To start with, Patterson would have known what he had from the moment the camera started rolling. He doesn't seem to have been useless with the camera, so the chances are very good it would turn out ok. Once the roll is developed and it's not a total bust... boom... it's the bigtime for Rodeo Roger. Who cares about the development time? Roger? DeAtley? Why?

Also, why the hell would Patterson care about DeAtley's opinions, input or $$$ at that stage? Patterson has just gotten a golden ticket. To hell with DeAtley! Think about this stuff.

...But nothing very “complicated” is needed thereafter. Just drive down to Willow Creek, meet Hodgson, tell him that the creature has just been filmed, wave a camera box at him, make a phone call, and drive down 299 to the nearest bar. Return to Syl McCoy’s three hours later, yak for a few hours, and head back to the campsite. That’s no big deal—merely a 50-mile drive each way.

It doesn’t strain credulity to think that either Patterson or DeAtley would have suggested to the other, “It will forestall objections that the film has been tampered with in the darkroom if we create a tight timeline from filming to projection.” Those two schemers would likely have thought that was a clever move. (Too clever by half.)...

It is complicated. He doesn't need to do any of that stuff. Patterson has filmed a for real bigfoot. Objections? Who cares? Why would Patterson care? He. Filmed. A. Real. Bigfoot. Either the roll washed out, or it turned out ok.... it turned out ok. He's got the bee's knees in his hands.Everything else doesn't matter. Not the development time, not possible scepticism, not the circumstances of the filming. Patterson could have been down in Bluff Creek, banging Thai hookers when Patty showed up. Do you really think Patterson would give a damn about any of this stuff, if he had just filmed bigfoot? Think about this stuff from his POV, at the time. Not retrospectively, trying to wave away the dodginess of it all.

...Because film evidence of such an unlikely creature wouldn’t have been sufficient to convince opinion leaders of its reality, and because besides them there were many instinctive scoffers among journalists and in the populace. If it were known to them that DeAtley had had the film in his possession for five days (say) before it was projected in his basement, some of them would have suggested that the film had been “improved” in the darkroom. That’s why the hell they would care.

I still reckon that none of that would have mattered to them, one iota. Patterson got bigfoot on film. Done. Why the hell would he care about that stuff? Either the film convinces, or it doesn't. There's nothing that they could do to change that.

...Not necessarily. The temptation to gild the lily can be strong (e.g., Mendel improving the results of his pea-studies), as I think it was in this case. (I wish other cases of succumbing to this temptation came to mind, and discrediting a valid claim thereby, although I have the impression that I’ve read of several of them. I urge anyone who remembers such a case to post it.)

And there’s another important factor at work: DeAtley had veto power over the story they would agree on. And DeAtley wasn’t 100% convinced, or even 50% convinced (he says) that Patterson had filmed a real Bigfoot, even after he saw the footage. (TMoB, p. 256: Long: “When did you first think it [the film] wasn’t authentic?” DeAtley: “When I first saw it.” See also p. 254.)

So minimizing the development timeline would have protected DeAtley from some of the jeers to be expected from opinion leaders and the public. That might have mattered a lot to him. From that perspective, why not tell Patterson to spend half a day creating a simple cover story that shifted the filming date ahead by five days or so? It wouldn’t be costly or risky to do. Patterson was down there already, with time on his hands. He was a convincing storyteller. Not tightening the timeline might have looked riskier, to DeAtley.


Those weren’t extraneous add-ons that a looser (true) timeline would have eliminated. Patterson would have sexed-up the event with the bent stirrup baloney regardless; and at some time he did visit a post office, so only its date needed changing—nothing convoluted about that.

These are not the actions of someone who has filmed a real bigfoot. Storyteller Roger, Roger the liar, Showboat Roger, Roger The Hoaxer... all these Rogers would evaporate the moment he got the film shot. If you've got Bigfoot, for real, nothing else matters. Scheming and plotting cock and bull stories, staging make believe timelines and performances... all before there was even a reaction from the first screening? Come on. For Roger, it would have been all about the fat stacks, which he would justifiably have believed were about the pile up. Screw DeAtley, screw everyone. "I got bigfoot on film, baby. Now where can I pick up my Corvette?"

 

[Roger Knights]

In comment 3398 I wrote:

(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 now recall that both were true. The important detail Ishihara told me was that the Kodachrome 2 movie-film development team worked overnight—say from 8 P.M. to 4 A.M. or from midnight to 8 A.M. (I think it was the latter.) They didn’t work weekends; in other words, they didn’t work Friday night or Saturday night. So if a person brought in such a film for development on Friday or Saturday, he wouldn't get it back until Monday.

I didn’t take any notes when he was talking, and I didn’t write them up afterwards, thinking I’d type up an article in a day or two (which I didn’t do) and thereby avoid the need for an intermediate step. I’m a bit fuzzy on other details but what he told me indicated that it wouldn’t have been possible for a rogue employee to do unauthorized development because:

1) Only the leader of the development team had a key to the store (which was closed by the time the team arrived);
2) The machine and its troughs took hours to warm up;
3) The troughs would have had to be filled with expensive developer, using as much as processing much more film would have required, in order to work at all;
4) The amount of developer powder needed would have cost a lot (certainly over $100);
5) That fluid would be useless after 36 hours (or sooner)—it decayed, in effect;
6) If the machine had been used or powder had been taken, Frank would have been aware of it.

Like other experts on the Kodachrome development process I talked to (e.g., Herb Blisard at Yakima Community College and Mike McCoy (whose affiliation isn’t 100% clear to me from my notes)), Frank was emphatic that homebrew development was impossible.

The above information has convinced me that the film was very likely developed before October 21. I suspect that it was not developed at a Kodak lab, but rather at Technicolor in Seattle, because of what Ed Watton of Forde labs (which made copies from the original) told Greg Long (TMoB, p. 285; but see Richard Vedvick on page 284):

Greg Long: Did you see the words on the original, “Processed by Kodak”?
He said he couldn’t remember seeing such words on the film, or letters such as “P” or “PA,” which would stand for Palo Alto.

 

[Roger Knights]

You might want to post our site survey map in there, and explain that the site itself has not flooded over since 1964, . . . .

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

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
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.

We just need to talk about the flooding:

Murphy
Quote:
Back at the campsite, weather conditions had gone from bad to worse. Fearing a possible landslide on the Bluff Creek road, Patterson and Gimlin decided to get out of the area. They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.
Gimlin
Quote:
The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!

First, I think Murphy was mistaken to imply that the Bluff Creek Road had just caved away. I have a note in my files saying that this had happened years earlier, perhaps as a result of the heavy rains in 1964:

The actual Bluff Creek Road was abandoned by then [1967].
—John Green, e-mail to Loren Coleman’s Bigfoot@Yahoogroups list, April 17, 2004

Supporting this interpretation is that, when P&G’s truck slipped off-road when driving up the road up Onion Mountain, Gimlin remembered passing a front-end loader near the top of the mountain earlier, enabling him to get it to pull the truck. So, presumably, that was the road they used to get down to Bluff Creek, not Bluff Creek Road—suggesting it was blocked then.

Second, Gimlin’s “four feet” (I’ve also seen him quoted as saying “44 inches”) applied to the height at their campsite, about three miles downstream from the filmsite. The water level there might have been higher there than at the filmsite, if the creekbed there was narrower (I think it was) and/or if tributaries had contributed to the creek in the interim.

Third, it couldn’t have been four feet deep, because if it had been, Gimlin couldn’t have driven the truck across it—it would have swamped the engine. (The campsite was on the east side of the creek.)

Fourth, it’s unlikely that five hours of rain would have raised the water level in the creek at either the campsite or the filmsite by four feet. The ground wasn’t saturated or frozen in October (the fall and winter rains had hardly begun), so there wouldn’t have been rapid rain runoff.

Fifth, here’s what it took to overflow the embankment at the filmsite in 1964:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_flood_of_1964] The Christmas flood of 1964 was a major flood in the Pacific Northwest and some of Northern California between December 18, 1964, and January 7, 1965, spanning the Christmas holiday.[1] Considered a 100-year flood,[2] it was the worst flood in recorded history on nearly every major stream and river in coastal Northern California and one of the worst to affect the Willamette River in Oregon. . . . California Governor Pat Brown was quoted as saying that a flood of similar proportions could "happen only once in 1,000 years," and it was often referred to later as the Thousand Year Flood.[1] The flood killed 19 people, heavily damaged or completely devastated at least 10 towns, destroyed all or portions of more than 20 major highway and county bridges, carried away millions of board feet of lumber and logs from mill sites, devastated thousands of acres of agricultural land, killed 4,000 head of livestock, and caused $100 million in damage in Humboldt County, California, alone.[6][7]

An atypical cold spell began in Oregon on December 13, 1964, that froze the soil, and it was followed by unusually heavy snow.[3][8] Subsequently, a Pineapple Express storm brought persistent, heavy, warm rain.[3][8] The temperature increased by 30 to 40 °F (17 to 22 °C). This melted the snow, but left the soil frozen and impermeable.[8] Some places received the equivalent of a year's rain in just a few days.
. . . . . . .
Starting on December 21, intense downpours all across Northern California caused numerous streams to flood, many to record-breaking levels. California Governor Brown declared 34 counties in the region disaster areas.[1][7] Together, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Sonoma counties sustained more damage than the other 28 counties combined.[7] Twenty-six U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauges were destroyed.[7]

North Coast
The Eel, Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Salmon, and Mad rivers, as well as other rivers and large streams, all went well beyond flood stage and peaked nearly simultaneously around December 21 and 22, breaking previous records (notably those set in the "hundred year" flood of 1955 in most cases).[1][7] Sixteen state highway bridges were destroyed in California's 1st congressional district, most of them on Highway 101, and another 10 county bridges were destroyed in Humboldt County.[7] The flood devastated the tracks and multiple stream and river crossings of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, the region's only major railroad, and related spur lines.

Many communities of Del Norte and Humboldt counties suffered massive power outages and were left isolated (or completely cut off from the rest of the state for a period), including the region's larger populated areas around Humboldt Bay, such as Eureka and Arcata, despite the fact that those cities were located on higher ground and not in the path of raging rivers. Unfortunate riverside communities like Klamath, Orleans, Myers Flat, Weott, South Fork, Shively, Pepperwood, Stafford, and Ti-Bar were completely destroyed by flood waters; some of them were never rebuilt and none regained their former status. Metropolitan, Rio Dell, and Scotia were significantly damaged.[7] Crescent City, still recovering from the tsunami created by the 1964 Alaska earthquake only nine months earlier, also suffered from the floods.[7]

Over 22 inches (550 mm) of rain fell on the Eel River basin in a span of two days. By December 23, 752,000 cubic feet per second (21,300 m3/s) of water rushed down the Eel River at Scotia (still upstream from the confluence of the Van Duzen River),[6] 200,000 cubic feet per second (5,660 m3/s) more than the 1955 flood, and more than the average discharge of the entire Mississippi River basin.[9] Just under 200,000 cubic feet per second (5,660 m3/s) of water flowed down the South Fork Eel River alone, causing severe damage along its entire length.[6] Every single stream gauge on the Eel River was destroyed.[7] The flood crest at Miranda was 46 feet (14 m). Signs were later placed on top of tall poles to mark the unusual height of the water.[10]
. . . . . . . . . . .
The Klamath River reached flows of 557,000 cubic feet per second (15,800 m3/s),[12] submerging the town of Klamath under 15 feet (4.6 m) of water.[7]

The Trinity River, one of the Klamath's largest tributaries, also flooded and wrought destruction along its length. The Trinity, however, did not break the 1955 flood's records because of the newly constructed Trinity Dam, which stored 372,200 acre feet (459,100,000 m3) of runoff from the storm.[7] Nonetheless, an impressive 231,000 cubic feet per second (6,540 m3/s) of water rushed down the river at Hoopa.[13]

The 1967 "flood" probably caused $0 in damage.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why is the rain even consequential, since the whole scenario is essentially made up?

 

[Roger Knights]

Here are three afterthoughts on my comments on Frank Ishihara and Technicolor above

1. The developing machine (whose minimum cost was around $60,000) might have had a counter on it that recorded its hours in operation. If it did, then Ishihara would have had a sure means of detecting unauthorized use.

2. I’m not 100% convinced that the film wasn’t developed in a home-brew lab, without a machine. The machine just ensured that the developing fluid was at the proper temperature and that the film was exposed to it for the correct number of seconds. (There may have been another factor or two it controlled as well—I forget.) Conceivably, a knowledgeable person could have mimicked its control of those factors by hand, turning a crank with a stopwatch in his other hand. There’s a 2% chance that happened, IMO. (However, all the experts I talked to pooh-poohed this vigorously.)

3. A very far-out possibility few have considered is whether the film was developed at the Kodak lab in Vancouver.

 

[Roger Knights]

..<duplicate post>..

 

[HarryHenderson]

I regularly chuckle and/or sometimes sit in awe at the absolutely outrageous amount of time and energy that's been spent discussing and dissecting the second-by-second minutiae of the PGF. And Roger Knights isn't the only one I laugh at as the forum itself has no less than 12 distinct Bigfoot threads with the name "Patterson" in the thread title.

That is to say ask, Bigfoot is so real that the best evidence we've got in 2016 is that grainy 16 second piece of 16mm film taken by a crafty flimflammer and his own cast of merry pranksters in 1967? That's inconceivable. How come we've not been inundated with a thousand more pictures and videos of the exact same thing in the subsequent years? The beast obviously exists according to the PGF so where are the rest of them? They're nowhere mon frere!

Ergo why the PGF has been discussed to death, there's nothing else to discuss. Okay fine, we also talk about the sheer tonnage of the **** for brains Don Meldrum owns and why the name of special needs Sasquatch tracker Thomas Steenburg keeps cropping up, but that's just unexciting "reality" stuff and not near as fun as fantasizing about the still missing beast.

Now, I'd reckon that the notion of "what" and "where" a camera is in the present is not the same as it was in 1967. In some aspects it's probably not even close. And back then you only took a camera on vacation, to birthday parties and to film Bigfoot. Nowadays a camera is an almost universal human possession and literally numbers in the billions of units; hundreds of billions in the amount of pictures taken by such. Yet not a single clear picture of Bigfoot, dead or alive. Still. At least Roger Patterson had the balls to actually pick up a camera and show you a monster worthy of discussion for 50 years. He wasn't stupid enough to think you'd believe he saw a big hairy beast without some kind of "evidence".

 

[LTC8K6]

Why is the rain even consequential, since the whole scenario is essentially made up?

It's fun dissecting made up stories. Well, it was fun the first few times, but now that we are on the 1,000th iteration, not so much.

The heavy rain has always been a critical tale to me though, as it's an integral part of Bob Gimlin's stories.

The heavy rain is essentially a Gimlin construct, to go along with his tale of soggy cardboard and riding out to save the tracks from the flood by putting bark over them...

It is funny to me to think of how the story morphs to cover and fill in problems.

It rained heavily that night?

Oh yeah, I rode out and put bark over the tracks, that's why they didn't wash out.

 

[Resume]

This thread is divided between two things: Bob H, which is a real thing, and Patty Foot, which is not. As absent footie is, mapped against the reality of North America's natural history, so too is critical thinking absent from the toolbox of the bigfoot enthusiast. Undeterred by an utter lack of anything bigfoot anywhere ever, the average proponent is buoyed by the knowledge that his fellow credule is as gullible as he, and will believe varying degrees of just about anything, as long as that thing doesn't burst the bigfoot bubble.

 

[DennyT]

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.

What evidence are you citing for a 1967 flood? has anyone ever claimed such a thing? any participant? Al Hodgson? Jim McClarin? Patterson? Gimlin? newspapers? weather reports? or are you just "embroidering" an allegation by Gimlin that the creek rose to degree that he claims concerned him? creeks always rise when it rains....for someone who seems to put a lot of stock in nitpicky textual criticism on an old Bob H's 36 year old memory, you seem to play fast and loose when you want to.
and why would he have been concerned about a rising creek if they were really camped where he claims, at the topographically open space at the Bluff Creek ford? There would have been no danger there at all, as access to higher ground is simple, via the road that ran by their alleged campsite, and didn't require crossing the creek.

 

[dmaker]

I want to see more pencil crayon drawings littered with misspelled words. It makes me feel all sciency.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

for someone who seems to put a lot of stock in nitpicky textual criticism on an old Bob H's 36 year old memory, you seem to play fast and loose when you want to.

That's the entire strategy for a guy intentionally posting bollocks for the sake of it. I doubt if he believes even half of what he types, if he does, I worry for the lad.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I want to see more pencil crayon drawings littered with misspelled words. It makes me feel all sciency.

I concur. More crayon colours would be nice, too. I like green.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm still not sure how a map made of the site 40+ years later tells us anything at all about the PGF or BH. Even if it were the best map ever made of the site, I'm still struggling to find it even useful regarding the veracity of the PGF incident.

IIRC, we've seen other maps of the site made by people who visited it much earlier, and they differed quite a bit.

Not sure what a third different map does for the subject.

Also, there are probably 1000X or more cameras in the woods today than there were in 1967, so how come we are still left with just the PGF?