• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huntster said:
Don't read and consider his analysis. Don't consider the phenomenon with an open, scientific mind.

You laugh, fool.

The world will continue to spin just as it has, and all will be well.
Click to expand...

Wow who pinched off a loaf in your Grape Nuts this morning Fudd?? Such anger.
 
Huntster, I tried to size up where we are on the Q&A. Thanks for linking Mangani's map, when you originally referred to it I didn't realize that it was the one LAL had already posted earlier. I checked and found three reports for POW on the BFRO but I'm as of yet not sure where any others might be?

My next question:
Do the Tlingit currently equate sasquatch with kushtaka?
 
All bigfoot tracks are that way. They just start and then end. Bigfoot never walks in, never walks out, and he never stands around twiddling his thumbs or contemplating the view or observing the elk or whatever.

Take the PGF. Patty has no tracks coming into the area according to Titmus.
 
LTC8K6 said:
All bigfoot tracks are that way. They just start and then end. Bigfoot never walks in, never walks out, and he never stands around twiddling his thumbs or contemplating the view or observing the elk or whatever.

Take the PGF. Patty has no tracks coming into the area according to Titmus.
Click to expand...

He figured out where she came from and where she went. Doesn't it occur to you people can check out your false statements?
 
LAL said:
He figured out where she came from and where she went. Doesn't it occur to you people can check out your false statements?
Click to expand...

Lu, wake up and smell the coffee of the differing accounts of P&G and Titmus. It's so bizarre that some have suggested they must have been tracking two different Bigfoots.

Titmus tracks Patty away from the film site to a place where she "sat down in ferns", and observed the cowboys observing her footprints alongside the creek. P&G never found that sitting spot, but instead tracked her for 3.5 miles away from the film site.

When Meldrum reviewed Daegling's book he said this:

Jeff Meldrum wrote: Daegling states that Gimlin tried in vain to pursue the film subject, implying that the tracks mysteriously ended after a mere few hundred feet. In fact Gimlin was eager to follow the evident trail leading up the steep mountainside, but Patterson understandably objected to being left behind on foot and unarmed, his horse having bolted. Titmus later tracked it a consider distance up the mountain. This sort of ignorant innuendo peppers the book throughout and underscores the tactics adopted by the skeptics.
Click to expand...

That might be confusing, because Meldrum has us thinking that P&G didn't follow Patty because Patterson objected. But Gimlin said they tracked her for 3.5 miles.... so Patterson must have changed his mind about following her.

Look again at Titmus' map. He seems to stop tracking her at the "fern sitting spot". It doesn't show how she got to the point where Roger started filming, nor show her movement after the rest stop.

index.php
 
Titmus' letter to Green:

By the end of the day it became apparent that a few of the viewers felt that there was a possibility the whole thing was a very elaborate and expensive hoax. I felt that this possibility was so extremely remote as to be almost non-existent. (None of these individuals witnessed more than one showing, I believe). However, I did have to take into consideration the fact that I believe that I viewed the film through somewhat different eyes than most of the persons present.

Firstly I think that a taxidermist will see and retain far more detail, while watching an animal, and is probably far more qualified to recognize anything unnatural, than the average person.

Secondly, evidence I witnessed in the mountains of Northern California about ten years ago changed me from a non-believer to a believer and since that time I have spent a major portion of those years, as you know, interviewing witnesses, investigating reports, collecting evidence, casting many, many different tracks, setting up camera and live traps, tracking the creatures dozens of times, etc., all of this was in an effort to capture one of the creatures. All of this experience only strengthened the case of the existence of the creature Bigfoot/Sasquatch.

Thirdly, many years ago I saw one of these creatures at fairly close range and watched it for about ninety seconds before it walked off into the timber.

Almost none of the persons present at the showing of the film had a background of experience like this so it is not surprising that there was some variance in the conclusions arrived at.

Since I know more about tracks than film and generally feel that they will tell me a more accurate story than film, I had a very strong urge to see the tracks that were being made during the time that Roger was shooting his film. I felt that the tracks could very well prove or disprove the authenticity of the pictures. No one else present seemed inclined or able so the following day I went on to California to have a look at the tracks.

My first full day up near the end of Bluff Creek, I missed the tracks completely. I walked some 14 to 16 miles on Bluff Creek and the many feeder creeks coming into it and found nothing of any particular interest other than the fact that Roger and Bob's horse tracks were everywhere I went. I found the place where the pictures had been taken and the tracks of Bigfoot the following morning. The tracks traversed a little more than 300 feet of a rather high sand, silt and gravel bar which had a light scattering of trees growing on it, no underbrush whatever but a considerable amount of drift debris here and there. The tracks then crossed Bluff Creek and an old logging road and continued up a steep mountainside.

This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns. About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him. The distance would have been approximately 125-150 yards. His position was shadowed and well screened from observation from below. His tracks continued on up the mountain but I did not follow them far. I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar. It was not difficult to find the exact spot where Roger was standing when he was taking his pictures and he was in an excellent position.

I spent hours that day examining the tracks, which, for the most part, were still in very good condition considering that they were 9 or 10 days old. Roger and Bob had covered a few of them with slabs of bark etc., and these were in excellent condition. The tracks appeared perfectly natural and normal. The same as the many others that we have tracked and become so familiar with over the years, but of a slightly different size. Most of the tracks showed a great deal of foot movement, some showed a little and a few indicated almost no movement whatever. I took plaster casts of ten consecutive imprints and the casts show a vast difference in each imprint, such as toe placement, toe gripping force, pressure ridges and breaks, weight shifts, weight distribution, depth, etc. Nothing whatever here indicated that these tracks could have been faked in some manner. In fact all of the evidence pointed in the opposite direction. And no amount of thinking and imagining on my part could conceive of a method by which these tracks could have been made fictitiously.

While passing through Weaverville I had phoned my sister and brother-in-law in San Diego and invited them up to Bluff Creek for a visit after my several years away and also to see the tracks. They arrived at my camp this particular evening shortly before I was preparing to leave. We stayed over another day. Allene was a skeptic and Harry a hard-headed non-believer. Both of them left there believing in the existence of this creature. I didn't try to convince them of anything. I simply took them to where the tracks were and let them examine them to their own satisfaction and draw their own conclusions. Harry has hunted big game all of his life. He has been all over Africa, Alaska, Yukon Territory, Canada, Mexico and the U.S. and stated that this impressed him more than anything he had ever seen in the bush in all of his travels. Harry made several tests and observations, one of which was walking briskly beside the tracks to try to match their depth of up to an inch and a quarter and more in places. Harry is a 200 pounder and the best he could do was an imprint of about 1/2 of an inch on the rear portion of his shoe heel and one-eighth of an inch and less on the rest of his shoe imprint. We both agreed, considering the depth of the two imprints and the difference in the amount of bearing surface, that the creature that made these tracks would have to weigh at least 600 to 700 pounds.
Click to expand...
 
Yep, going on 2500 posts, but the main point of this thread remains strong.
Since it's now been shown to be essentially impossible to determine a real from a well-executed fake print (the really bad ones like the Bluff Creek flat-bottom wood stompers are easy) based only on casts or photos, the arguments of those who claim to be able to do so are moot.
Therefore, the primary line of evidence for the existence of BF has been severed.
But this is nothing new.
Believers will never be convinced, but hopefully this thread has been instructive to those who weren't "caught up" on the current happenings and allegations surrounding BF.
The science doesn't back the claim.
But the believers refuse to back the science.
 
Remember, there were torrential rains and floods the night of the PGF filming. Bluff Creek flooded heavily and roads were washed out.

Yet 9 or 10 days later Titmus has no trouble spotting all these tracks and the place "where Roger stood", etc....
 
William Parcher said:
Lu, wake up and smell the coffee of the differing accounts of P&G and Titmus. It's so bizarre that some have suggested they must have been tracking two different Bigfoots.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous (did you see where Gigantofootecus thanked me on the maps?). Roger did not want to be left alone without a horse, so Gimlin came back, they rounded up the horses and tracked her at least as far as where she crossed the stream leaving a wet print.

So the "fern sitting spot" was where Bob sat down to take of his football helmet or what?

Titmus was an experienced tracker, BTW. He kept a low profile and didn't write books, but he brought in a lot of evidence.
 
LAL said:
Ridiculous (did you see where Gigantofootecus thanked me on the maps?). Roger did not want to be left alone without a horse, so Gimlin came back, they rounded up the horses and tracked her at least as far as where she crossed the stream leaving a wet print.
Click to expand...

Wrong Lu. Gimlin said they tracked her for 3.5 miles. So they tracked her for at least as far as 3.5 miles away from the film site.

So the "fern sitting spot" was where Bob sat down to take of his football helmet or what?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Maybe it was a deer bed. Maybe it wasn't any real sign at all.

Titmus was an experienced tracker, BTW. He kept a low profile and didn't write books, but he brought in a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...

Titmus was also a Bigfooter. His "experience" and "open mind" might be revealed when he declared that by looking at Patty's tracks, he knew it was the same Bigfoot he encountered years earlier. But he never saw the tracks of that Bigfoot. Was he a Bigfoot psychic?
 
LAL said:
And how does that support your case?
Click to expand...

This is very ugly on you Lu.

Titmus said this to Green (bolding mine)...

I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar. It was not difficult to find the exact spot where Roger was standing when he was taking his pictures and he was in an excellent position.
Click to expand...

That sounds like Titmus didn't see Patty tracks coming out of the forested mountainside and entering the creek bed. If he actually saw how she entered the area, he missed his opportunity to tell Green about it, or to indicate that pre-filming trackway on his map (above).
 
William Parcher wrote:
Look again at Titmus' map. He seems to stop tracking her at the "fern sitting spot".
Click to expand...
Question: If the film was a hoax...why did the tracks cross over the open creek bed, instead of turning left and going directly up into the woods, where they could disappear more quickly....thereby making a shorter path for the hoaxed footprints?

Why do you think Roger decided to make it a longer hoaxed route......unnecessarily?
 
Titmus also said in the letter....

About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him.....His tracks continued up the mountain but I did not follow them far.
Click to expand...
That was one DELUXE hoax...wasn't it?!
 
SweatyYeti said:
Question: If the film was a hoax...why did the tracks cross over the open creek bed, instead of turning left and going directly up into the woods, where they could disappear more quickly....thereby making a shorter path for the hoaxed footprints?

Why do you think Roger decided to make it a longer hoaxed route......unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

We're right back to the common necessity to take the testimony of Bigfooters at face value. Titmus not only wanted us to believe he was tracking a real Bigfoot (Patty), but also that he was certain it was the same Bigfoot he encountered years earlier. How can he do that if he never saw the tracks of the other Bigfoot? Also, don't forget that Titmus didn't even arrive on the scene until 9 days later, which included rains.
 
To all members posting in this thread but in particular Hairy Man, LTC8K6, and Huntster I would like to draw your attention to this link:

http://www.lorencoleman.com/raincoast_sasquatch.html

Concerning the current discussion of the Tlingit, kushtaka, and native traditions in relation to bigfoot I've found that I am remiss in not having read J. Robert Alley's 'Raincoast Sasquatch' or being fully aware of the depth and amount of discussion on the matter.

Huntster, thank you but I think I've found an answer to our latest round of the Q&A.

LTC8K6, have you already posted the above link?

Hairy Man, I regret to say that I have quite firmly come to the conclusion that you were not being forthright and to some extent dishonest on the matter of your confident professional assertion that kushtaka and kooshdakhaa are not the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom