Jump to content


Photo

Why Did Patterson And Gimlin Abruptly Pull Out Of Bluff Creek On Oct. 21?


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#21 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 01:53 PM

50 miles south west of bluff creek, they received almost a 1/2 inch of rain.

Weather data for Eureka,CA Oct 21,1967

zig, that is a great site.

Weather predictions on the Pacific Coast are generally quite accurate (and quite important) as far as incoming storms are concerned. I mention this because if Patterson and Gimlin had been out and about for several hours, driving back and forth to Eureka and/or some airport, it would seem likely that they would have heard on the radio, weather reports (rural stations don't have a lot else to talk about) and in particular, any reports of a large storm (ie "bad weather") coming in. Coastal towns like Eureka make a big deal of significant storms because people get killed if they go out in the ocean unprepared. but it seems there wasn't any big storm. The precipitation reported on Sunday, Oct. 22, the next day, was a dew-like 0.06 inches. So there wasn't any rain on the 20th at Bluff Creek, there was .5 inch at Eureka on the 21st, and 0.06 inch on the 22nd. This would have next to no effect on river flows, or on people who were equipped for a week or more of camping, people who weren't hiking around, and who had a real, moneymaking, important, business reason for being out there. Patterson and Gimlin weren't there to commune with nature.

So I would submit that Patterson likely had neither the prediction of "bad weather," nor had was he actually experiencing anything other than a mild rain, that was in no way extraordinary for that season/area.

But yet when giving a reason for his departure, over the phone to Dahinden on the morning of Oct. 21, it seems that Patterson blamed the weather. Not Gimlin's job (he really didn't have a steady one, aside from boarding/training horses, as far as I have been able to learn.); rather, Patterson blamed the "bad" weather. What was so "bad" about the weather, that it made him abandon a significant plan, a plan that would contribute significantly to the success of the project he had been obsessing over and working on and writing about for literally years?? ... and, instead, change to a plan that had a sigificant "crack" in it, a flaw that he never adequately was able to answer, that constitutes one of the principal pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film?

p.

Edited by parnassus, 29 January 2012 - 01:57 PM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#22 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,723 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 02:18 PM

"a flaw that he never adequately was able to answer, that constitutes one of the principal pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film?"

If this is "one of the principle pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film", it sure makes my job easier.

Thanks.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#23 MikeG

MikeG

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,554 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 02:20 PM

So, it's sounding like you had your answer ready before you asked the question, Parn, and irrespective of what people told you of the events, all you've done is tell us what you'd already decided. Maybe you should have entitled the thread "This is what I think is the reason Patterson and Gimlin pulled out of Bluff Creek", rather than asking a question.

Mike
  • 0

#24 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 02:55 PM

In terms of the hypothetical of Roger calling people on Saturday, the essential question would be, how far away from his camp is a pay phone? I don't know the area that well so I can't answer it, but in 1967, the era well before cel phones, pay phones were abundant in the smallest towns or villages, and often by the road at rest stops, forest service camps, etc.

That is what I'd explore if I were to delve further into this discussion.

Bill


Bill, They had to come out of the woods to get to a phone. They had made their decision back at camp, in the woods, they broke camp, they left the woods before they got to a phone. Twenty miles of bad roads.

they evidently went by way of Orleans, and Orleans is the first town on the highway. But that is irrelevant. The fact is that Patterson decided to change the plan, back in the woods.
p.

Thought they were already pushing it by staying there so long. Gimlin was to go back to work and would have left a few days earlier had not Roger talked him into staying.
Why would they have stayed?

Wheel,
I know that Gimlin in recent years has said that he wanted to head home. But let's look at the evidence other than that statement. Firstly, Gimlin had no regular employment. As I understand it, he was tarring roofs, not the kind of work you do at the end of October. But let's look beyond that recently-expressed idea. Patterson gave an interviewto an unnamed reporter on the evening of the 20th. Here is the relevant part, emphasis added:

LATE LAST NIGHT Patterson was anxious to return to the campsite where they had left their horses. He had been to Eureka in the afternoon to airmail his film to partner Al De Atley in Yakima. De Atley has helped finance Patterson's expeditions.

He and Gimlin were equally anxious to return to the primitive area. "It's right in the middle of the primitive area" for the chance to get another view and more film of the creature.

He said there's strong belief that a family of these creatures may be in the area since footprints of 17, 15 and 9 inches have been reported found.

The writer jested that these sizes put him in mind of The Three Bears.

"This was no bear," Patterson said. "We have seen a lot of bears in our travels. We have seen some bears on this trip. This definitely was no bear."

Patterson is also anxious today to telephone his experience to a museum administrator who is also extremely interested in the project. "He may want to bring down some dogs. We don't have dogs here."

He's not sure how much longer they will remain in the area. "It all depends."
- ---


Furthermore, Hodgson said that Friday evening, while Patterson was excitedly describing the film, Gimlin was shopping for supplies. For what? Obviously for the next few days of camping, I would submit. Neither Gimlin nor Patterson was talking about going home. They were planning on being at Bluff Creek for several more days. Until the rain, a moderate, routine, rain, came in the night. Then Patterson changed his mind. ......hmmmmmmmm......

Edited by parnassus, 29 January 2012 - 02:57 PM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#25 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:00 PM

Hadn't Bob been roofing and was able to get some time off?
  • 0

#26 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:28 PM

"a flaw that he never adequately was able to answer, that constitutes one of the principal pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film?"

If this is "one of the principle pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film", it sure makes my job easier.

Thanks.

Bill


Bill,
it is. If you have some evidence that it makes your job easier, you can present it in your thread. Please don't try to derail this thread.
p.

At first glance, it would seem that the rain storm was fortuitous. If you were creating a hoax, the last thing you would want are people snooping around the site of the hoax.

By notifying all about the adventure after (presumably) checking the weather forecasts, Patterson would be able to generate immediate interest and present the image of a fellow wanting to go back in and track the elusive beast. But then the rain began falling, and it was dangerous to stay put. Had to leave. (Hopefully, any trace evidence of a hoaxing would be swept away by the rain).

Perfect timing for a rain, as relating to investigating a trackway crossing a creek-bed. (As we know, though, several prints survived the rain).


jerry,
I think Patterson's actions at 615 pm on the 20th and the newpaper interview clearly show that he was planning to show off the imprints/film site to whoever cared to come and look, dogs included, and he was preparing for that show. Gimlin was spending money in preparation. If you are suggesting that Patterson delayed his announcement until rain was forecast, I would say that scenario would clearly indicate a hoax, but it would require a level of deception (right down to buying more supplies) that I don't think is reasonable.
p.

Laverrty's job placed him in the area. I also believe that Laverty smoked a pipe, thus the pipe is most likely his considering that Dahinden had not yet been anywhere near the film site by that time.



Huh??? There had been problems with flooding in that area before ... so much so that I seem to recall that they were cutting through there to keep it clear as possible.

I might add that the evidence as we have it without speculating is that they did not know by morning that the film had even exposed properly, thus there was no plan to promote anything at that time.

I also recall hearing from those who attended that DeAtley showing on Sunday that both rolls of film were there .... maybe Steenburg may have a better memory about that than myself.


there had been a massive flood several years before. But that doesn't mean that it was caused by a half inch of rain....a half inch is not much rain. The roads were being built to harvest timber. There was was some timber salvage going on in the bottom.

I don't know the origin of your statement that they didn't know by morning the film had even been exposed properly. Neither you nor I know when that film was shot nor when Patterson first knew what he had captured on it. This thread is not about that. There certainly was a plan to promote it, as evidenced by the efforts made on Friday evening to get people to come to the site and validate the trackway.

I apologize for trying to keep things on track, but this thread is not about how many rolls of film were at DeAtley's.
p.

Edited by parnassus, 29 January 2012 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#27 zigoapex

zigoapex

    Chiye-tanka

  • Inactive
  • 809 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:32 PM

l also found this, This would lend credence to the fact that the roads could have been easily damaged, It was only 3 years since this destruction happened. many areas that were damaged were probably not fully repaired, especially in the 60's, they did not have the means to repair roads as quickly and properly as they do today. Were I live, our valleys were flooded and there is many areas still
damaged.

The Thousand Year Flood... An Agent of Change and Re-Consideration
Called "The Thousand Year Flood," the catastrophic deluge that occurred on the Six Rivers and surrounding areas in December 1964 caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage. The Six Rivers, by this time, had been established for 17 years and had powered an intensive land use program, relative to what the land base had sustained while it was on the fringes of the Klamath, Trinity, and Siskiyou national forests.

REST OF THE ARTICLE


  • 0

#28 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:43 PM

Is there any way you can back and see what weather was forcasted? Its one thing to say what weather occurred, but its another to know what he might have heard on the radio in regards to what was projected. I have often changed plans based on projected weather, that turned out to be completely wrong.

Edited by JohnC, 29 January 2012 - 03:44 PM.

  • 0

#29 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,723 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:50 PM

"Please don't try to derail this thread."

Your definition of "derail" is fascinating.

But I'm done with this topic. I do not intend to comment further.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#30 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:00 PM

I think perhaps the idea that Patterson wanted everyone under the sun to come down to the area that weekend is a bit overstated. If a hoax why would he invite the scrutiny anyway. Patterson probably had the attention span of a gnat and may have gone from idea to the next in a millisecond ..so the idea of him intending to stick around, then deciding to leave once he thought things through is completely understandable. That along with inclement weather probably influenced his decision.
  • 0

#31 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 578 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:09 PM

there had been a massive flood several years before. But that doesn't mean that it was caused by a half inch of rain....a half inch is not much rain. The roads were being built to harvest timber. There was was some timber salvage going on in the bottom.


p.

Parn,

Tell me your argument is primarily based on the presumptions 1) logging roads in 1967 Bluff Creek were built for weather and 2) that a half inch of rain in Arcata will probably equate to a half inch of rain at Louse Camp. Is that what you are saying?
  • 0
HOLDMYBEER

...If it wasn't documented and the document available for review....it did't happen.

#32 Dr. Boogie

Dr. Boogie

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:16 PM

If they really believed that they had captured film of a Sasquatch they might have optimistically felt that their task was completed and the film would be accepted as proof. How appealing would hanging around in the pouring rain and mud have been when they must have been dying to see the processed film and take part in the media blitz they must have expected? I'm not saying that I'm convinced of the film's authenticity but accepting their story for arguments sake their change of plan doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
  • 2
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." - John Lennon

#33 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:40 PM

Plussed Dr B!

I don't think they were there for the joy of camping; they were there to authenticate and publicize the film. That was the plan. They had gotten supplies the night before at Hodgson's store. Now, I agree wholeheartedly that they presented an attractive alternative to the folks who were gathering in Willow Creek: follow Patterson and Gimlin away from the film site, at least temporarily, and they will give you an exclusive viewing of the creature!!

The problem was, that sooner or later, this change in plan was going to result in someone asking pointed questions about the timeline of shipping and development. So why would Patterson suddenly decide to expose his project to that risk? Why did he abandon his plan for this risky alternative?

I fail to see how any of this can refute the authenticity of the film. It can't. You are speculating on what P&G should have done if the PGF was real, which they didn't do. Waste of time. Why did Roger stay so long at Bluff Creek after filming the PGF in early Oct? Why did he spend more than 1 day there? Why did he film the PGF then go back weeks later and cast the tracks? Why does that make sense to you?

Otherwise, if the PGF was authentic, then Roger got his footage and casts for his book/documentary, which was exactly what he set out to do. Why stick around?

Edited by Gigantofootecus, 29 January 2012 - 04:41 PM.

  • 1
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#34 Wheellug

Wheellug

    Chiye-tanka

  • Sésquac
  • 788 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:41 PM

Parn from reading your replies, it sounds like you already have a preconcieved story line. Why not just put that forth instead of asking?
  • 0

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

 


#35 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 05:43 PM

Parn,

Tell me your argument is primarily based on the presumptions 1) logging roads in 1967 Bluff Creek were built for weather and 2) that a half inch of rain in Arcata will probably equate to a half inch of rain at Louse Camp. Is that what you are saying?

HMB:
I'm saying what I'm said. I tried to summarize the evidence that we have on the weather that day. The weather history site, the photographs of the trackway which show little rain damage, the fact that casts were later made successfully, what little we know of the degree to which others like the timber cruiser were or weren't stranded, and the usual impact of 1/2 inch of rain in a heavily forested watershed. If you have more evidence, that would be great if you would post it. what are you saying? That we shouldn't use best evidence or our common sense?

Furthermore, the condition of the roads would not be known until after they had broken camp and gotten out on the roads, ie after Patterson had made the decision to forgo the planned publicity/verification visitation/inspection by the academics, Dahinden, dogs, etc etc. Furthermore, roads dry out, if they did get a little slippery with a little rain. And Patterson and Gimlin had resupplied the night before, and stated their intention to go back to camp and hang around.

If you are saying that it doesn't make sense that Patterson would decide to leave, simply based on the usual consequences of a half inch of rain on an established camp which had business in the woods, then I am on board with that and we are in agreement. If you think there must be something more that caused Patterson to change his plan, to leave and take the visitors along with him for a film showing a day later, and thereby create suspicion about the film development timeline, rather than showing them the film site, then we are in agreement.

p.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#36 slabdog

slabdog

    Yowie

  • Sésquac
  • 1,735 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 05:43 PM

According to an interview on MNBRT radio in Feb of 2010-

Gimlin Interview - MNBRT radio

Gimlim explained that Patterson wanted him to take him to Northern California because tracks had been found.

Gimilin initially told him no because of his work. However, Gimlin's boss gave him a couple weeks off because roofing work was slow, however Gimlin had to arrange for someone to feed his livestock.

They were in Northern Cal for many days riding.

Eventually, Gimlin told Patterson that he needed to get back to work.

Patterson told him to leave him and come back and get him in a month - Gimlin refused.

Patterson told Gimlin that if he was going to leave in a couple of days, why didn't they pack up the pack horses and camp out all night in areas that looked really good.

(In other words...they were at the end of the trip anyways - according to Gimlin)
  • 0
"We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is." - Saskeptic, September 29th 2011
"There WILL be a "crow pickin", all you can eat. Bring your own bib, it's gonna be sloppy! No knives and forks allowed!! The serving platter is being loaded as I speak! LOL You'll see." -Knuck, February 23rd, 2012
"I argue for critical thinking too. I don't think BF's exist. But I also don't think they can't exist." -WTB1, April 25th, 2012

#37 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 06:11 PM

According to an interview on MNBRT radio in Feb of 2010-

Gimlin Interview - MNBRT radio

Gimlim explained that Patterson wanted him to take him to Northern California because tracks had been found.

Gimilin initially told him no because of his work. However, Gimlin's boss gave him a couple weeks off because roofing work was slow, however Gimlin had to arrange for someone to feed his livestock.

They were in Northern Cal for many days riding.

Eventually, Gimlin told Patterson that he needed to get back to work.

Patterson told him to leave him and come back and get him in a month - Gimlin refused.

Patterson told Gimlin that if he was going to leave in a couple of days, why didn't they pack up the pack horses and camp out all night in areas that looked really good.

(In other words...they were at the end of the trip anyways - according to Gimlin)


Thanks, slab.
These are things that Gimlin said in 2010. Without characterizing those statements, let me say that in the general case in historical research, contemporaneous accounts and data (in this case, what was done and said on Friday the 20th of October and Saturday the 21st), tend to trump unverifiable things that are said many many years later (43 years later in this case), particularly when the statement may be a critical element in determining credit or blame.

In this case, Patterson and Gimlin told the reporter they were staying, they invited people to come, they bought more supplies, they went back to camp rather than just breaking camp on Friday, and on Saturday Patterson blamed the weather, not Gimlin's possible parttime job for the fact they were leaving.

Between 1967 and the 2010 statement, did Gimlin or Patterson ever blame Gimlin's possible part time job for the fact that they left on the 21st? Anyone?

p.

Parn from reading your replies, it sounds like you already have a preconcieved story line. Why not just put that forth instead of asking?

Wheel,
I'd like to try and get the data out on the table, and folks here can do that from a different perspective and sources than mine. Weather, accounts, etc.
Let's see what happens. I've thought about it a lot, but maybe I haven't considered all the data. Once we get it all out there, maybe I'll venture a guess, if I can come up with a solution that makes sense.
p.

Edited by parnassus, 29 January 2012 - 06:05 PM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#38 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,872 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 06:27 PM

Parn, check your JREF PM box. You have face-melting mail.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#39 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 06:42 PM

This is an interesting topic. It's one that has had me wondering all along what the deal was.

First of all, the rain. It sounds like there was not a lot of rain. The tracks were fine for weeks afterwards, right? Not enough rain falling directly on them (they were in the open, not underneath the protective cover of trees), in loamy soil, in a creek bed, very near the actual flowing creek, and yet, whatever the actual amount of rainfall was, it did not significantly impact the quality of the tracks in the soil. How much rain was there, half an inch in Eureka, and possibly less at Bluff Creek? Is that was seems to be a reliable estimate? Heck, we have had 1.28 inches here in the last 24 hours, and we can still function quite well, even on logging roads. We travel logging roads all the time, so we're not exactly of road virgins having to imagine what weather does to dirt logging roads in the steep mountains.

Secondly, what about the casts? When did they collect the casts? I thought that Gimlin said in one of the interviews that they poured the casts, went away, and then it started raining that night and he left camp to go to the filmsite to cover the casts with branches. If they left the casts to cure overnight, with Gimlin covering them with branches to protect them during the night rain, when did they retrieve them?

Thirdly, when was the footage or images of Patterson holding the casts supposedly taken, and where? Bluff Creek? Same day, or some later day? Couldn't be a later day at Bluff Creek if they up and left during a rain storm. Same day? If same day, why would Gimlin have gone up that night to cover the casts with branches? Or is that al wrong, did they make casts, remove them at that same time, and then Gimlin went back up ay night to cover the uncasted prints to preserve them? If that's the case, did they go back up to uncover the prints so the guys showing up a few days later would be ale to find them? Did those guys find casts left behind? Did they find prints covered up with branches by Gimlin?

Fourth, some are saying that since they had film of the creature in the bag, they would want to rush back home to see it. By their own statements, they had no idea if they had gotten it on film or not. Obviously they should have hoped they had, but they said they didn't know if they got it on film, so not knowing IF they had decent footage, why leave the area instead of trying to get a second opportunity on film. If they had come so close as they had on the 20th, with possible film of it, why not make sure they had solid film and try to stick around for another shot at it, track it, find it, film it so there would be no question what they saw.

Fifth, the idea that Gimiln had work to get back to, which may have been taking care of horses or tarring a roof. WTF??? Two guys see, and film, the most amazing thing possible, likely the biggest thing ever to happen to either one of them, hands down, what would certainly change everything about anthropology, history, biology, culture, religion, and they up and go home the next day, not sure of what they had on film, never to return again? That one has always boggled my mind. Can't tell you how many lesser events have caused myself or others to blow off a few days of work, much less the most important scientific find of the century. The most important scientific find in history, and up and go home the next day, not sure of what they had on film? When a couple more days could have resulted in much more certain evidence?

They left because of possible flooding that did not happen. The prints were left unblemished by the rains, so the rains (to me) are kind of questionable. The don't know what they have on film, if anything, yet they leave for home. And never go back again. It just doesn't make sense to me.
  • 1
Tontar

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
- Monty Python, Argument Clinic

#40 slabdog

slabdog

    Yowie

  • Sésquac
  • 1,735 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:03 PM

In this case, Patterson and Gimlin told the reporter they were staying, they invited people to come, they bought more supplies, they went back to camp rather than just breaking camp on Friday, and on Saturday Patterson blamed the weather, not Gimlin's possible parttime job for the fact they were leaving.

Between 1967 and the 2010 statement, did Gimlin or Patterson ever blame Gimlin's possible part time job for the fact that they left on the 21st? Anyone?


Parn:

Do you have access to the article or interview? If so could you post it? I - and I imagine others here - would be interested in reading it.

(Sorry in advance if it is already posted elsewhere on the forum...I normally don't follow the whole PGF thang ^_^ as far as I'm concerned...it's history and nothing else )
  • 0
"We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is." - Saskeptic, September 29th 2011
"There WILL be a "crow pickin", all you can eat. Bring your own bib, it's gonna be sloppy! No knives and forks allowed!! The serving platter is being loaded as I speak! LOL You'll see." -Knuck, February 23rd, 2012
"I argue for critical thinking too. I don't think BF's exist. But I also don't think they can't exist." -WTB1, April 25th, 2012