• 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.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty - Part III

William Parcher said:
Roger, why are you constantly quoting yourself in posts? It's really rare for anyone to do that anywhere in this forum.
Click to expand...

Dwight MacDonald wrote that the best piece of advice he got from an editor was, "Put everything on one topic in one place." I like to provide full context to make it easy on readers. If I omit lead-in material, they may suspect I'm misrepresenting what preceded what I DO quote.

William Parcher said:
What makes you so different with that?
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it. You’re being snarky. Well, I don’t just quote myself; I quote others too.
 
Last edited:
Roger Knights said:
Well, that’s a different (and more limited) claim from the two you originally made . . .
Click to expand...
Roger, this isn't a claim, but a matter of fact. There is no substantiating evidence for the cryptid known as bigfoot.

The “presence of someone in the pattysuit” is off-topic . . .
Click to expand...
In accordance with the above, since there is no good reason to believe there is a corresponding creature to that which is represented in the pgf, there necessarily must be the presence of a person in the pattysuit and the speculation of exactly whom is entirely on topic within this thread.
 
You guys, it is accurate because we were there, standing in each carefully marked ten foot box, and we documented what was found there. We did not document any younger trees or other growth. We are amateurs, but we were exact as we could be without professional surveying equipment. We found old growth trees and old stumps from the post-flood salvage logging of 1965-1966. We recorded all such items, excluding the many new trees. What was left were items that were there in 1967. We did tree bores on the trees that were close to that age. When we were done we found an exact match with what can be seen in the Dahinden "aerial" photo, and the other ones too.

If you want to talk about the film site I'm happy to do so. Since I've been there dozens of times I know it very well. If you just want to make derogatory comments about Robert's spelling I'd suggest that is a non sequitur. If you have a mental image of the site without having been there on the ground, I'd suggest that it may be wrong due to perspective illusions in the film and possible erroneous presuppositions on your part. The drawings by others before us don't tell the whole story, and some like the Titmus drawing were only sketches. What we did was show what was really there on the site, and we did so successfully. You could learn from that resource and our experience there, if you'd drop the arrogant attitude of scoffing dismissal.

BFBM
 
Last edited:
bigfootbookman said:
You could learn from that resource and our experience there, if you'd drop the arrogant attitude of scoffing dismissal.

BFBM
Click to expand...

Do you have a bigfoot, bigfootbookman? Do you know where one could find a bigfoot? Could you estimate how much longer it might take to establish footie as a species?

Do you have a bigfoot story you'd like to share?
 
Resume said:
Roger, this isn't a claim, but a matter of fact. There is no substantiating evidence for the cryptid known as bigfoot.
.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I simply cannot understand how this simple fact is not the final punctuation point in any bigfoot discussion. There is such a paucity of evidence for the existence of bigfoot that the only conclusion one could make, after careful examination, is that bigfoot does not exist. How this does not render moot any discussion of the pgf, be it who wore the suit or when the footage was filmed, or even even decades old weather reports, is well beyond me.

Proponents like to pretend there is a persisting mystery. There simply is not. History has answered the question. I understand that reality checks are anathema to bigfoot discussions. Not a single biological survey, such as the Cascades Carnivore project, has ever even hinted at the existence of such a creature. Studies performed in the very heart of purported bigfoot habitats have successfully reported on virtually every mammal--large, small or exceedingly rare--that dwells in the study range. Yet, not a shred of supporting evidence for bigfoot is ever brought forward by anyone other than bigfoot enthusiasts. If that does not scream bias, I don't know what does.

Bigfoot persists in the minds of those that want the creature to be real. As such, sadly, bigfoot becomes immortal. Myth cannot be plaster casted into being.
 
Last edited:
Roger Knights said:
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..
Click to expand...

Skeptical Greg said:
Oh really? That proves what, exactly?
Click to expand...

It proves that the film wasn't shipped by air from Arcata, but was mailed instead. (And, as I mentioned a few days ago, no air shipment from Arcata then occurred either, because Peter Byrne checked all the flight records and interviewed pilots from there.)

This supports my argument that an October 20th film-shipment didn't occur, since it couldn't have been mailed on that day, the Eureka post office being closed by the time P&G arrived. It suggests that it was mailed earlier--maybe a week earlier, as I believe, based on Gimlin's statements (see above) that the filming occurred two weeks after he'd arrived, and that he'd arrived on Sept. 30 or Oct. 1

EDIT: PS: BTW, one of the persons who might have known if the film had been shot before the 20th was René Dahinden. Here’s Greg Long questioning him (TMoB, p. 292):
Long: Can you say that the film was shot on October 20, 1967, with 100 percent certainty?
Dahinden: No, I don’t.
Long: So it may not have been?
Dahinden: “So it vas shot a week earlier,” he said off-handedly.
Click to expand...
My October 14 hypothesis hangs together nicely, I think.

PS to Parcher: My inclusion of my quote at the top of this reply made things convenient for readers, by providing context. This is the reason I do it. If others don't do so, tant pis.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Do you have a bigfoot, bigfootbookman? Do you know where one could find a bigfoot? Could you estimate how much longer it might take to establish footie as a species?

Do you have a bigfoot story you'd like to share?
Click to expand...


DUDE, I AM A SKEPTIC.
 
dmaker said:
LOL
Click to expand...


LOL what, buddy? Do you really think that I am a gullible true believer? You really don't even know what you're LOLing about, I guess.

Seriously, I don't know why I even bother with you guys. I'm easily the best current source you could have on the area of the PGF site and Bluff Creek, and you'd rather smirk and giggle like little girls about how some silly people believe in Bigfoot. Let me guess... now you're going to start making Gimlin Guard quips, right? Jeez, ask Kitikaze why don't you? I've had many good, productive conversations with him.

Oh well, I guess. Your loss. Or ask me something, with actual sincerity. Perhaps you'll learn something. I recall last time I was in here (JREF) many of you guys wouldn't even believe me that the PGF site is covered in sand.
 
Last edited:
Bigfootbookman, perhaps you did not read my previous post. I find it difficult to comprehend, given the lack of evidence, how anyone can seriously profess a belief in bigfoot. For me, it's a slam dunk that there is no bigfoot. I honestly do not understand how any thinking person can have any other opinion. When you say that you are a skeptic, that is understood by me to mean you weigh more heavily on the side of existence, but concede that the evidence does not support that conclusion. If that misrepresents your position, now is the time to correct me. But I'm pretty sure that I got that pegged.

What I LOL at is your very position. There is no keeping a foot in the door for the existence of bigfoot and still maintaining any kind of "skeptical" stance. At least insofar as how proponent and skeptic have come to be defined within bigfootery. Surely, if you want to pretend to adhere to some dogmatic definition of skeptic, of this or any other topic, then the simple fact that any "true skeptic" would never declare belief or disbelief may allow you to call yourself a skeptic. In the case of bigfoot, I think it is safe to declare disbelief while still adhering to any definition of skeptic.

In other words, I think you're full of it. As I think Roger is just as full of it with his 2/3 this and one third Tulpa, but never actually saying bigfoot exists. Yet who is the first to pick up the flag and rush to the defence of the PGF? Anyone who labors to defend the PGF while attempting to maintain an air of skepticism, is going to get a LOL from me. The two are just not congruent. Sorry.

You can have all the productive conversations with Kit that you want. Maybe you two can discuss what flavor of cheese the moon is made of. I don't care. Any discussion of the pgf is a moot point, in my opinion. There is no bigfoot, ergo the pgf is a hoax. Why discuss topology, weather, etc? It makes no sense. When you come to the defence of the pgf, you forfeit all pretense to skepticism in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
bigfootbookman said:
We did tree bores on the trees that were close to that age.
Click to expand...
Is that legal?

This is now the second question I have asked about the legality of your activities.

Six Rivers National Forest.
 
Roger Knights said:
It proves that the film wasn't shipped by air from Arcata, but was mailed instead. (And, as I mentioned a few days ago, no air shipment from Arcata then occurred either, because Peter Byrne checked all the flight records and interviewed pilots from there.)

...
Click to expand...


Let me make sure this is your idea of proof of something being mailed:

" Someone threw a piece of paper in the trash, and when asked what it was, said it was a receipt. "


I have to respect your brass, Roger, if nothing else..
 
Steven and his crew have indeed done excellent work there, and spent considerable amounts of time, money and energy. The diagram is a huge advance. And their camera network is unsurpassed as far as I know, putting other, more publicized projects in the shade. That said, any result raises more questions, and results in more "demands" for higher accuracy, implications, calculations, and conclusions. This is normal in any field. No one who hasn't been there will fully understand what they are seeing in the diagram, and will make pleas, demands, requests, etc for clarification. Further, there will always be mistakes, overlooked items, poor technique, miscalculations, mismeasurements, etc.
Members here should not be over-critical of the diagram, and Steven should not be defensive, and no one should be name-calling. There are mistakes in the diagram. I don't think that Steven wants to imply that Bill Munns signed off on everything in the diagram...devotees of bigfootery may recall , for example, that hilarious time after his visit to the film site, when Bill was busy designing a hanging porch swing with patio chairs to be slung below a helicopter to obtain better measurements.
I personally do not understand why the multiple spelling mistakes have been allowed to persist. These are not Robert's fault, yet he takes the heat. He did his part, which is strong on measuring and not so strong on spelling. When a team undertakes a project, and signs it, and takes credit for it, then the team members with various skills should pitch in and use those skills for the good of the team. Those mistakes should have been corrected at the draft stage instead of allowing Robert to take the heat, and cause everyone who has looked at the diagram for these several years to be distracted and possibly put off by them.

I would also add that their team is scrupulously careful about what they do at the site, in terms of being on the same page with the responsible agency. In case it wasn't clear, Steven was talking about removing things from the diagram, not from the site.
 
Last edited:
Roger Knights said:
Funny. But I’m not a believer-by-preference in a supernatural explanation. It’s my last-ditch attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"Funny. But I’m not a believer-by-preference in a supernatural explanation. It’s my last-ditch attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance. cling onto this silly belief in any way I possibly can."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom