The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty - Part III

[LTC8K6]

Continued from here.

Posted By: kmortis

Titmus said that he walked along Bluff Creek and it's tributaries looking for the site, so the bank should not have been a factor for him.
He also should have seen several other people's 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.

 

[Cervelo]

Yes, if you actually just filmed bigfoot, you would certainly not immediately release control of the undeveloped film like that.

And at that point, what do you need DeAtley for?

You have a big gold nugget.

Well kinda.....DeAtley is the goose that lays the nuggets.

 

[Resume]

You’re aware of the rebuttals to that claim . . .

There can be no rebuttal to the fact that this cryptid is absolutely absent from the fossil record of NA, and (other than retrofitted legend) its natural history

. . . and it’s off-topic (Heironimus) . . .

On topic; absence of this creature means presence of someone in the pattysuit whether that person was Bob Heironimus or Bob Hope.

 

[HarryHenderson]

No reason for that, but there was a reason to hang around for a tracking number. In 1968 if your **** got lost in the mail and you didn't have a tracking number you were SOL. Of course the hoaxing industry has changed a lot since then, but it's still all about tracking numbers at the post office. He's lucky the rocket scientists at the FBI didn't hear about the cancelled tracking dog order.

The More You Know™

The dog Patterson asked for was one that had been brought to the area to accompany Don Abbott, a scientist from BC, plus John Green, in the late August / early September track investigation on nearby Blue Creek Mountain (i.e., only seven weeks earlier). There's a photo of Abbott and the dog on page 39 of Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal. The dog handler may have been Canadian. He and his dog came down in a small plane with Abbott and Green (I believe) and landed at the small, little-used Orleans airport.

AFAIK, no tracking number was needed then. Are you alluding to something related to a hunting license? And what's with your link? If it is supposed to tell me about tracking numbers, your link needs to be more specific. It only took me to the home page.

Well that didn't work AT ALL!

Maybe I needed some keyword definitions: satire, absurdity, sarcasm, spoof, folly, ridicule, mockery, humor.

 

[kitakaze]

Roger Knights from the last page of the second Heironimus thread...

You’re aware of the rebuttals to that claim, I presume, and it’s off-topic (Heironimus), which I hope we’ll get around to when Kitakaze returns, so I won’t reply.

I'm just checking in now, I haven't been following any of the conversation since my last check in three weeks ago.

Fire away.

 

[DennyT]

Of course, the above quoted Titmus story of the "perch" is not compatible with the Patterson and Gimlin fabrications, though Gimlin has in recent times "embroidered" his story to try and make it so.
Any credibility Titmus might have had in determining what was a bigfoot "trail" was exploded during his days with the Slick expedition. In this case, he mentions no actual bigfoot tracks, hairs or other reason to believe that what he followed was not, for example, the traces of Roger Patterson scouting a camera location.
Patterson had two models for a filmed encounter. One was the Roe model, with a guy on foot peeking through the bushes, the other was his cowboys and Indians mounted expedition. Both required the sun be behind him. Had Patterson chosen that high spot, he probably would have had Heironimus walk along the creek, to be close enough (but not too close) to get the shot he wanted.
Of course, Mr. Knights could posit the possibility that the Titmus perch was made by yet another bigfoot, perhaps "Patty"s youngster, father, or spouse. Perhaps it was usual meeting place for the bigfoot ladies' Friday afternoon coffee klatch. Unfortunately, we are not writing children's books here.

 

[comncents]

It's true that it seems ridiculous from the outside for him to have lied about the date. But, if the film couldn't have been developed at Technicolor on Saturday, and couldn't have been developed in a home lab, and if there was no record at the Arcata airport of planes flying from there to Yakima or Seattle that night (per Peter Byrne), and if the Post Office in Eureka closed before Patterson arrived (he was clocked into Willow Creek at 6:15), then fibbing about the filming date is the only explanation for what happened.

Roger, it is the only explanation for those who blindly want to hold on to the fantasy that Patty was real. Everyone else realizes that the development timeline is just another nail in the coffin.

regarding the "homebrew" excuse...why would anybody take the time and effort, even if it was possible, to learn how to develop the film at home. You certainly wouldn't risk this film (if it was real) on a first attempt.

Simple explanation:
P&G came to the area a week or more early. They found a good spot and made the film with whoever in the costume. They sent it to DeAtley (or someone) who had it developed. They checked back with DeAtley a few days later and were told it looked good. They then go back and stage the prints and ride into town for the rest of the "discovery" show.

Numerous things support this version, especially the development time-line. There is also a huge clue in the Green-McLarin re-enactment film. McLarin claimed to have followed the tracks, but he is way off when the two films are compared. The easy explanation is that the fake tracks didn't follow the same path Patty walked. Combined with the lack of ever finding a bigfoot anywhere...

 

[Roger Knights]

It's really too bad that absolutely no one thought it was important to document the film site.

If Laverty or Titmus could have just been bothered enough...

Pics of the trackway, the horse tracks, Roger's tracks...they'd have been so valuable.

Titmus and company really have no excuse at all. They had plenty of prep time and they knew they were visiting the site of an important event to bigfooters.

After the filming, Green left a message at Dahinden’s hotel in SF to contact Hodgson. After contacting Hodgson, Dahinden traveled to Willow Creek, where he met Jim McClarin, who was already there. (He may have been a resident then.) Patterson, on his way home, called Hodgson from Orleans and told him of events. Dahinden and McClarin then headed to Yakima to see the film the next day. (From Chris Murphy’s Bigfoot Film Journal, pp.35–36.)

Dahinden later said he regretted leaving Willow Creek and failing to examine the site while it was fresh. I suppose he could have gone back, but I guess he didn’t have enough money for that.

 

[Roger Knights]

Continued from here.

Posted By: kmortis

Titmus said that he walked along Bluff Creek and it's tributaries looking for the site, so the bank should not have been a factor for him.

He presumably walked along Bluff Creek by means of the streambed road, the same one that Laverty & crew drove along. If the bank on the far side blocked Laverty's view from that road, it would likely have blocked Titmus's view too. The tracks weren't things that would have stood out--they were impressions below the surface, not above it.

He also should have seen several other people's tracks.

Not on the hard-packed streambed road. And not on the bar, not only because of its height above the road, but because human footprints make little impression on it. It's not made of ordinary silica beach sand, but of shards or platelets of slate (rock). It doesn't compress when pushed down; noticeable tracks aren't made unless the weight is great and the foot or hoof also makes a horizontal or sliding motion.

Incidentally, Titmus's map has a little "N" on its left side, because the creek ran pretty much east/west at the filmsite and (I assume) Titmus was using a sheet of paper with more height than width. This might be most of the reason why Streufert & company's map looked unfamiliar to Parcher and others here.

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
You’re aware of the rebuttals to that claim

There can be no rebuttal to the fact that this cryptid is absolutely absent from the fossil record of NA, and (other than retrofitted legend) its natural history

Well, that’s a different (and more limited) claim from the two you originally made. You’re right this time, of course, and it is considerations like that one that make me mostly skeptical of Bigfoot’s existence. See my comment #3146 on page 79 of the continuation thread #2 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11426305#post11426305

. . . and it’s off-topic (Heironimus) . . .

On topic; absence of this creature means presence of someone in the pattysuit whether that person was Bob Heironimus or Bob Hope.

The “presence of someone in the pattysuit” is off-topic, because the thread’s topic is not whether there was someone in the suit—that’s (implicitly at least) the topic of the thread(s) about the PGF and its authenticity. I don’t care if someone else was in the pattysuit. Heironimus would still be making a false claim. In this thread the issue of the film’s authenticity is, or should be, moot. This thread’s title is not, “Was Someone in the Pattysuit,” it’s “Bob Heironimus and Patty.”

 

[William Parcher]

Incidentally, Titmus's map has a little "N" on its left side, because the creek ran pretty much east/west at the filmsite and (I assume) Titmus was using a sheet of paper with more height than width. This might be most of the reason why Streufert & company's map, with north at the top, looked unfamiliar to Parcher and others here.

That's not the problem. It's that the new map is densely cluttered with things that weren't there during the filming. It can cause visual and mental confusion. It seems that they could make a new copy of that map and remove (even using wite-out) the things that are not present in the film. For example, there are lots of new trees. Just get them out of there.

Present two maps. The one we have from them now, and another that erases new features. But do leave the creek the way it is now because you cannot accurately recreate its path at the time of the filming.

IMO, right now it's a freaking mess. The 3rd grade level spelling errors might be troubling too because it could suggest haste and lack of attention to details. We can't look at that map and really know if they made mistakes just like what we can see was done with the spelling.

 

[William Parcher]

Roger, this thread is a long continuation. Throughout it contains discussions which are not specifically related to Heironimus. This has been going on for many years here. The moderators largely tolerate it and so do the members. The same is true with our PGF thread. There are mucho plenty of discussions about Heironimus in that thread as well. It is simply not practical to always keep them strictly separate.

Having said that, anyone is still welcome to report any posts that are off topic. But the downside to that is that off topic posts might be sent to Abandon All Hope instead of being moved to an appropriate thread.

 

[Vortigern99]

The “presence of someone in the pattysuit” is off-topic, because the thread’s topic is not whether there was someone in the suit—that’s (implicitly at least) the topic of the thread(s) about the PGF and its authenticity. I don’t care if someone else was in the pattysuit. Heironimus would still be making a false claim. In this thread the issue of the film’s authenticity is, or should be, moot. This thread’s title is not, “Was Someone in the Pattysuit,” it’s “Bob Heironimus and Patty.”

Implicit in the subject "Bob H and Patty" is the question as to whether Bob H is in fact in the Patty suit. If he isn't, and there is a more probable candidate for the suit-wearer, the question as to who that is is relevant to the thread.

At the very least, showing that another person could have been in the suit addresses the thread question. So, yes, it is on-topic.

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger, it is the only explanation for those who blindly want to hold on to the fantasy that Patty was real. Everyone else realizes that the development timeline is just another nail in the coffin.

“Everyone else” is a great exaggeration. The development timeline problem is, IMO, the result of Patterson’s and DeAtley’s attempt to improve the film’s credibility. I hope to improve the film’s credibility by undoing their “improvement.” The case for falsehood isn’t proved, because attempts to re-create Patty have been such miserable failures. (I’m tempted to say, “pix or nix.”)

regarding the "homebrew" excuse...why would anybody take the time and effort, even if it was possible, to learn how to develop the film at home.

Hypothetically, an employee at a development lab who had a home lab could offer customers a cheaper rate “off the books.” Another reason is given by Chris Murphy in his Bigfoot Film Journal, page 45:

This conclusion would be especially true if the man was doing a lot of “personal” or “illegal” film processing. Keep in mind that back in the 60s there was likely a fair demand for such processing of what are now called “adult films.”

You certainly wouldn't risk this film (if it was real) on a first attempt.

DeAtley might have, not believing it was real, and being a tightwad.

 

[William Parcher]

The development timeline problem is, IMO, the result of Patterson’s and DeAtley’s attempt to improve the film’s credibility. I hope to improve the film’s credibility by undoing their “improvement.”

You're going to do all that work just to improve the credibility of a film of a Tulpa.

I can imagine you talking to another Pattycake.

Other Pattycake: Roger, you sure have done a lot to show that Bigfoot really exists.
You: Thanks, but I've really shown that Tulpas exist.
Other Pattycake: What?
You: Yes, you see if Bigfoots really exist then they are Tulpas.
Other Pattycake: What the hell is a Tulpa?
You: Well, I'll explain it if you will lend me your ear for an hour.
WHOOOOOOOSH
You: Hey where are you going? I didn't tell you about the Tulpa yet.

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
Incidentally, Titmus's map has a little "N" on its left side, because the creek ran pretty much east/west at the filmsite and (I assume) Titmus was using a sheet of paper with more height than width. This might be most of the reason why Streufert & company's map, with north at the top, looked unfamiliar to Parcher and others here.

That's not the problem. It's that the new map is densely cluttered with things that weren't there during the filming. It can cause visual and mental confusion. It seems that they could make a new copy of that map and remove (even using wite-out) the things that are not present in the film. For example, there are lots of new trees. Just get them out of there.

Present two maps. The one we have from them now, and another that erases new features. But do leave the creek the way it is now because you cannot accurately recreate its path at the time of the filming.

IMO, right now it's a freaking mess. The 3rd grade level spelling errors might be troubling too because it could suggest haste and lack of attention to details. We can't look at that map and really know if they made mistakes just like what we can see was done with the spelling.

Here’s what Stephen Streufert e-mailed me on Sept. 13:

the site itself has not flooded over since 1964, and . . . 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.

And on Sept. 16:

The map IS the site, surveyed foot by foot. North is the top. We removed all objects from the survey that were younger than some 40 years, leaving behind only the old artifacts, trees and stumps. The creekbed course is largely the same as 1967, due to geological restrictions.

And on the 17th:

Why don't you point them in the direction of our mathematical proof in comparison with the Dahinden "aerial" photograph? [ http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/pgf-bigfoot-film-site-mathematically.html]
That is the film site exactly as it is, as I said, taken in a survey using ten-foot squares on a grid. It makes no difference what they think of Robert's spelling difficulties or his artistic abilities. The maps were made as tools to show what is present at the site. They do that, regardless of the mental image Parcher, who has NEVER BEEN THERE, might have. . . . The question should be, Are they accurate? And yes, they are. And that is with certainty the film site. Bill Munns, for example, signed off on all of these things, confirming our work.

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
The development timeline problem is, IMO, the result of Patterson’s and DeAtley’s attempt to improve the film’s credibility. I hope to improve the film’s credibility by undoing their “improvement.”

You're going to do all that work just to improve the credibility of a film of a Tulpa.

I can imagine you talking to another Pattycake.

Other Pattycake: Roger, you sure have done a lot to show that Bigfoot really exists.
You: Thanks, but I've really shown that Tulpas exist.
Other Pattycake: What?
You: Yes, you see if Bigfoots really exist then they are Tulpas.
Other Pattycake: What the hell is a Tulpa?
You: Well, I'll explain it if you will lend me your ear for an hour.
WHOOOOOOOSH
You: Hey where are you going? I didn't tell you about the Tulpa yet.

Funny. But I’m not a believer-by-preference in a supernatural explanation. It’s my last-ditch attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance. Chris Murphy came to give the possibility of a supernatural explanation some credence too, in Chapter 12 of his Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot, pp. 294–303.

An early Internet Bigfoot pioneer, Henry Franzoni, has a 2-page article reprinted there, “Beyond Rationality.” It contains this sentence, which I doubt has been a sig-line of anyone here: “After you’ve eliminated all the possible explanations, what’s impossible must be true.”

 

[William Parcher]

We removed all objects from the survey that were younger than some 40 years, leaving behind only the old artifacts, trees and stumps.

Is that legal?

Why don't you point them in the direction of our mathematical proof in comparison with the Dahinden "aerial" photograph?

Dahinden's photo doesn't show the area we would like to see. He's shooting too far to the right (east?). We can't see the logjam at the beginning of the PGF, nor the creek in that area because he shot only a partial section of the area seen in the PGF. It's a damn shame that he didn't move to the left and shoot another picture.

The question should be, Are they accurate? And yes, they are. And that is with certainty the film site. Bill Munns, for example, signed off on all of these things, confirming our work.

Accurate because Streufert and Munns say so. That has to count for something!

 

[William Parcher]

Roger, why are you constantly quoting yourself in posts? It's really rare for anyone to do that anywhere in this forum. What makes you so different with that?

 

[Roger Knights]

Six reasons for doubting an October 20th film-mailing date

Here are three more reasons (#4–6) why I doubt that the PGF was mailed to DeAtley on the 20th, beyond the three I supplied in my comment #3443 on page 87 the other day. Because a new continuation thread has been started, I’m reprinting the first three reasons below.

1. The contradictory stories about whether the film was sent from the Eureka post office (which anyway would have been closed by that time (7 PM)) or the Arcata airport.

2. The inconvenience of driving some 80 (?) miles from the Bluff Creek Road roadhead to Arcata vs. eight miles to the airport at Orleans, whence their package could have been picked up and shipped. It seems to me that the main "advantage" of going to Arcata was to obtain witnesses in Willow Creek to his (Patterson’s) doing so on the date he claimed the filming had occurred.

3. Patterson's failure to drop in to the Eureka newspaper office (only six or so miles from Arcata) when he was in the vicinity. Patterson was a publicity hound and would have wanted his mug in the paper, along with a photo of his casts. Instead, he called the paper at 9:30 when he was back near Willow Creek, at the ranger station. I suspect the reason he didn't go to the paper was that he didn't drive to its vicinity at all. Instead, I suspect he drove a few miles in its direction and pulled off into a roadside bar, restaurant, movie theater, or pull-off and waited three hours, then turned around to go to the ranger station, claiming the film had just been sent off.

4. Dennis Jensen, Patterson’s assistant after 1967, said that one day when he was in Patterson’s house and Patterson was cleaning out his desk and files, Patterson tossed a piece of paper into a wastebasket, saying that it was the registered mail receipt from when he shipped the film from Bluff Creek. A mailing couldn’t have happened on the 20th, because the post office in Eureka closed at either 5 or 6 PM, and he couldn’t have arrived there until 7. (Given that he was at Al Hodgson’s in Willow Creek at 6:15.) (I can’t find where I read the Jensen quote now, but I presume some other Bigfooter will know where it was.)

5. Gimlin would have had too little sleep if the filming, the mailing, and the drive home all occurred on the 20th and the 21st. Consider what Gimlin’s schedule in the preceding 36 hours would have looked like:

· Friday, 10:30 AM: Awake, eat, mess around camp, Patterson goes off exploring on his own, etc. Saddle up and head upstream.

· Friday, 1:30 PM–4:30: Encounter Patty, retrieve horses, track Patty, retrieve plaster, cast tracks, return to camp.

· Friday 4:30 PM–12 PM: Drive 100 miles to Eureka, yak with Hodgson on the way there and Syl McCoy et al. at 9 PM on the way back.

· Saturday 12 AM–1 AM: Talk between themselves at the campsite.

· Saturday 1 AM–3:30 or 4:30 AM (It’s unclear how long Gimlin slept—he has made various statements on times.): Sleep (2.5 or 3.5 hours for Gimlin; Patterson slept 4 hours until 5.)

· Saturday 5 AM to 6AM: Get the truck across the creek and up Onion Mountain, Gimlin pulling it with a front-end loader. He’d located the loader on foot in a driving rain and gotten soaked. At this point he was suffering hypothermia (shivering violently).

· Saturday 6 AM–8:30 PM (Chris Murphy somewhere gives a later arrival time: Late night on Saturday or early Sunday): Drive to Yakima (14 hours), with Gimlin at the wheel the whole time. Chris Murphy wrote, in Bigfoot Film Journal, p. 36, “Bob Gimlin was not present [at the projection at DeAtley’s on Sunday, the 22nd]. He was at home resting, having driven the entire way home.” In another source (which I read two days ago and can’t locate now) it was said that he wouldn’t let Patterson drive, because he was a bad driver. And I’ve seen (but can’t immediately locate) a transcript of one of Gimlin’s talks in which he said that he drove the whole way home.

So, following weeks of riding in rough country, Gimlin had only 2.5 or 3.5 hours sleep in 34 hours or more of sometimes demanding work, while suffering half the time from hypothermia as he drove all the way home. That schedule is superhuman.

So it seems unlikely to me that the filming and the actual film-shipping occurred right before the drive home. I think that only a phony film-shipping event occurred before the drive home, which was not preceded by a day full of intense activity. And, during the phony shipment event, Gimlin and Patterson could have snoozed for three hours parked somewhere while they were supposedly driving to Eureka and back. So no superhuman endurance was needed.

6. Here’s what Gimlin said recently

At that point in time being as Roger fell down, we had no idea that we had any good film footage at all. Naturally we got the cast made and the pictures made of what we had to do there for what evidence we could get. Then we went in to mail that to Yakima or wherever he mailed it to. There has been a lot of controversy on where that film was processed and where it was mailed to. I never paid that much attention to it because I was very tired from being down there two weeks, riding horses every day long hours and driving the truck at night.”
—Gimlin Interview and Gimlin talk-Transcript from Sasquatch: The Search for a New Man (2013), ISBN 978-1490587848, CreateSpace publishers (Amazon), by Thom Cantrall (pp. 4–24) It in turn is quoting from: “Presentation from Bob Gimlin Concerning the Origin of the Patterson-Gimlin Film” By Thom Cantrall; From the 2010 Ohio Conference
https://kindle.amazon.com/user_anno...35HDPF_&note_text=&return_to=/your_highlights

The use of “mail” supports Jensen’s observation about a “registered mail receipt” in item 5 above.

The use of “two weeks” suggests that the filming occurred on the 14th, because in a recent interview by Connie Willis on Coast to Coast AM radio (a late-night, often paranormal talk show) on April 16, 2016, Gimlin said that he and Patterson went down to Bluff Creek “on the last day of September or October first.”

BTW, not knowing if their footage was good (see the first sentence) would have been a reason to send it off for development before announcing it.

A revision of the Standard Shipping Story is needed for the sake of the PGF’s credibility. I suspect Gimlin went along with Patterson’s story to avoid making waves, not because he wanted to fool anyone.