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

#41 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,397 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:48 PM

Tontar wrote:

The most important scientific find in history,



I agree, Tontar. That importance is what makes the possible 'mouth movement' on Patty worth giving a good, long, look... :) .......before dumping on it.

Wouldn't you agree?
  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#42 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,034 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:49 PM

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.

If this was a preplanned event, then why would he deliberately change the plans and create suspicion?

Your suspicion doesn't make any sense, especially considering he freely gave people directions to the filmsite so they could check it for themselves.

Edited by roguefooter, 29 January 2012 - 07:57 PM.

  • 0

#43 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 587 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:00 PM

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.

Bolding mine. I do say use common sense because your best evidence doesn't carry the day. What you are calling 1/2 inch of rain at the coast means almost nothing to what might have happened in the mountains. You don't need to spend a lot of time in the woods to know that you don't judge the gear you will need in the mountains based on what is happening down at the coast. I couldn't be surprised if they had a hard rain at Louse camp and no rainfall at the coast.

The condition of the roads under rainfall could be suspected by Patterson, particularly if he had traveled the roads extensively previous to the night in question. I am told by Gimlin that Patterson knew those roads very well. The advent of rain (how was he to know it would only be a half inch in Arcata, God knows how much at Louse Camp?) would cause the commonsensical person in those forests to be thinking about the potential of trouble getting out. Particularly with a horse trailer.

I am saying it does make sense that Patterson decided to leave based simply on the unknown consequences of an unknown amount of rain on a dust bowl of a 1960's logging road. (A digression: I don't think I have ever seen photos of gravel spread on that road in 1967 though I have seen photographs of culverts in place). I am saying your avenue of argument doesn't leave respect for the unpredictable nature of weather in the mountains, nor for people with the common sense to anticipate the worst when they don't know how bad the weather will end up being, particularly if they were familiar with the road conditions prior to any rain. I don't think "best evidence" of weather at the coast means much.
  • 1
HOLDMYBEER

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

#44 damndirtyape

damndirtyape

    Chiye-tanka

  • Members
  • 881 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:06 PM

1. The weather changed drastically, dangerously so. They had a big truck, trailer and horses to contend with.
2. After filming the creature and casting the tracks she left, they both felt that they accomplished what they set out for, they would now get recognition and scientific acceptance, if not the backing they so dearly wanted and needed.
3. After encountering the animal, they both started to have the nightmares.
  • 2

#45 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 587 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:08 PM

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?


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.



According to Gimlin, he walked down to the site in the rain to cover the tracks with pieces of bark such that they would be preserved.
  • 0
HOLDMYBEER

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

#46 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,266 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:20 PM

It seems to me that it wouldn't be the rain in the immediate area that was the factor on the creek water level as much as it would be the rain emptying into Bluff Creek much further upstream.
  • 0

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#47 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,226 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:54 PM

No one would be nearly as interested in seeing the film site if nothing convincing was on the film. In those days they would not have had cell phones with weather radar to determine how much rain they were in for. With no intention of killing a Bigfoot, the film was the most important thing. What possible reason for them deciding to leave would have been nefarious? That's what doesn't make sense to me. It's grasping a straws in an attempt to find something/anything suspicious in their behavior and that doesn't ever seem to work.

Without overly thinking it; the following is one possibility of what may have happened on that super mysterious, highly enigmatic night:

Roger: Since it's raining and we have the film to look at, wadda ya say we get heck outta here?
BG: Ok.

They leave.
  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#48 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:18 AM

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.

Dr. B,
I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or not. You are saying that they changed their mind, and that the rain had a part to play in that decision, but you think that the other main factor was just wanting to see the film right away (this assumes that they could and did get the film to DeAtley by that morning and he somehow got it processed in a day, so you are in effect saying that the film is NOT a hoax; just so we are clear on that). Fair enough.

I don't know if have read my other posts in this thread but I think it strange that they sudddenly changed their mind in the morning; there is no indication that they weren't committed to staying...there is substantial evidence that as of Friday night they were planning on staying around, maybe looking for more bigfoots, and having interested people come and check out the site. They had not cleared out their camp, in fact they bought more supplies, told a reporter they were sticking around, didn't say they were dying to see the processed film (in fact they said they had mailed the film, not taken it to the airport, in the afternoon, the same thing they told Hodgson earlier in the evening), and gave no hint they were leaving.

Now as far as the rain is concerned, they were not sitting around in the pouring rain, as far as we know. Do you have any such evidence? What we do know is that the rain came at night and probably it was in the half inch range. That's not much rain, so I doubt that it lasted more than a few hours...how could it? By morning it had probably stopped. So while the rain was the new information and so thus should be considered the prime suspect for the cause of their departure, I kind of doubt that small rain would directly persuade them to give up their purposeful plan. Patterson was not a man who would be easily discouraged in his plans. And they weren't there to sit around and sing kumbaya. They had an investment in making their efforts credible, by showing the site. They had driven 12 hours to get there, they were there for business, and they had a plan to optimize their result. And, giving up the plan would not only make them miss an opportunity to convince the researchers, it would also expose them to suspicions about the truthfulness of their timeline. So, in sum, while anything is possible, I don't think their behavior and statements and the stakes involved, would make us believe they would suddenly just give it up for the reasons you suggest.

Let me try to pin down the decision just a bit more. They didn't change their minds until after Gimlin returned from covering the tracks. He certainly told Patterson about the track protection trip, and what he had seen, perhaps when he got back, perhaps when they woke in the morning. I think Patterson would have gone to see the site himself, don't you?

p.

Edited by parnassus, 30 January 2012 - 12:23 AM.

  • 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.

#49 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:38 AM

I agree, Tontar. That importance is what makes the possible 'mouth movement' on Patty worth giving a good, long, look... :) .......before dumping on it.

Wouldn't you agree?


Not sure what you're getting at, other than pulling the one trick pony routine and trying to hijack yet another topic. The question was what would make Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek at the absolute pinnacle of Patterson's life search. They find what is supposed to be an unclassified animal, equal to the Loch Ness Monster, a mermaid, aliens from Roswell, better than any mummy in the desert, the absolute best possible event in either of their lives, and they up and leave without pursuing it further, without knowing if they even have it on film. Having hunted bigfoot for how many years again? And finding one, possibly filming one? and then just up and leaving?

That side of the story represents a very curious mystery, and extremely curious part of the mystery. Which, unfortunately for you this time, has nothing to do with perceived mouth movement. Or, are you trying to assert that they left Bluff Creek because they witnessed mouth movement, felt that was reason enough to head home in a hurry? No, don't answer that. Here's a suggestion, however, Sweaty; you have a thread all about mouth movement. How about you keep comments about that there, or if you want to attract more attention to that thread, just tell people to go check in on it (there), rather than trying to insert it everywhere else.
  • 0
Tontar

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

#50 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:40 AM

"Green: So you cast the tracks the same day? Gimlin: Yes we did. In fact right that afternoon. By the time we got the tracks cast and the different deals that we did to cast the tracks done, it was getting late. It was almost dark by the time we got back down to the truck and got the horses fed and tied up. By the time we got into town at Al Hodgson’s store, it was good and dark. I imagine it was about 8:30 or 9 o’clock. Then we went on over to...[reflecting]… oh whatever town that was to mail the film up to Al de Atley, Roger’s brother-in-law, so he could take it and get it developed to see if there was really anything on the film.

Okay, I’ll go back a little bit to the casting of the tracks. I rode the big horse. The horse that I was riding was around 1200-1300 pounds. I rode him along side the tracks with this new film in the camera, Roger took pictures of how deep the horse’s prints were in the soil compared to the creature’s tracks. Then I got up on a stump which was approximately 3 to 4 feet, you know? We didn’t measure it, probably should have. Anyway I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my foot print went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene. It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back, ..’course we were pretty excited about just seeing it and we sat there and talked about it until about 12:30 or one o’clock in the morning.

Around 5:30 a.m. or so it started raining and it was just a pouring down rain. I told Roger we better get up and do something about the tracks or they’d wash out, and he said no, it would stop raining after a while. I went ahead and got up, put the saddle on my horse and decided I would ride up there while it was raining really hard and Roger says "ah it’ll quit, don’t ride up there." I said "no, I’m going to go ahead and ride on up there." I had gotten a couple of cardboard boxes from Mr. Hodgson’s to cover these tracks the night before. So when I went outside to get a couple of these boxes that were folded up out there, they were just soggy old pieces of cardboard. I disregarded taking those back up there - so I rode back up to the scene, pulled some bark off some trees and covered up the tracks as best I could and went back to camp.

By then we decided it wasn’t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep! We were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road. I said "well I’m going to go ahead and cross the creek with the truck and get started out." And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.

In the meantime, why ah...they had called the track-dog people in Canada and they were supposed to come down. I think they had also phoned you, Mr. Green and René Dahinden. I’m not sure when all that happened but I do remember the people in Canada had been called with the track-dogs to come on down to see if we could track it up on through the mountains from where we last saw it."

http://www.bigfooten...rviews/john.htm

Green thought there would be a capture within months. Roger and Bob certainly weren't equipped to do something like that so, yeah, why stay?






  • 0

#51 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,034 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:51 AM

Now as far as the rain is concerned, they were not sitting around in the pouring rain, as far as we know. Do you have any such evidence? What we do know is that the rain came at night and probably it was in the half inch range. That's not much rain, so I doubt that it lasted more than a few hours...how could it? By morning it had probably stopped. So while the rain was the new information and so thus should be considered the prime suspect for the cause of their departure, I kind of doubt that small rain would directly persuade them to give up their purposeful plan.

Earlier this evening it started pouring down rain here in southern Oregon. If I were standing outside at the time I would have been soaked to the bone because it was raining that hard. It rained for a while and then tapered off to a drizzle for a few hours. Later in the evening I checked the weather report and it only registered .01 for the day which seems like virtually nothing, yet it was clearly pouring rain.

1/2" of rain may not sound like much, but falling in a short period of time is a LOT of rain. It's especially bad when you're in the woods where dirt logging roads become slick as ice when they get wet.

If you believe this is a hoax then you believe everything was preplanned. Inviting people to the area and then changing plans doesn't sound preplanned to me- something unplanned must have happened. Claiming that Patterson didn't want anybody to come to the area doesn't make any sense because he had no problem giving directions to anyone who asked.
  • 1

#52 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:59 AM

Okay, so they are staying at Bluff Creek until after Gimlin comes back from covering the tracks with bark he peeled from trees. Up until that point they are planning on staying. Gimlin wants to get the truck across the stream, and says it is 4 feet deep? Do they drive the truck with a horse trailer through a 4 foot deep creek? Would it not be wiser to wait for the rain to subside, for the creek to subside, before heading out? Presumably their camp should be safe from flooding from a half inch of rain.

I think Parnassus is on the right track when suggesting that the reason they left was associated with the rain, either directly or indirectly. Directly could mean that they truly feared for the soundness of their truck and trailer, perhaps their horses or their own lives. Indirectly could mean that the rain could affect the bigfoot party that was about to happen when other researchers showed up to view the site. Two showed up the day they left, right? And they drew them away from Bluff Creek rather than let them continue on out there to examine the site.

I know it might sound like it is bordering on some conspiracy thing, but considering what a monumental event had just happened, a real bigfoot had been seen, and likely filmed, casts taken, researchers contacted and on their way to to site to certify the event, and they call it quits and hit the road and draw the researchers away as soon as they arrive? It certainly sounds strange. I know that I would stick around trying to get more film, more tracks, escort the researchers around the site, jump up and down and say this is what we saw, this is what it did, it went that way, I ran over here, Bob was over there, it was totally, totally cool, let's go see if we can find it again! Leaving the site, pulling the researchers away from it as soon as they got there, that is something really odd.
  • 0
Tontar

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

#53 Dr. Boogie

Dr. Boogie

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:01 AM

Dr. B,
I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or not. You are saying that they changed their mind, and that the rain had a part to play in that decision, but you think that the other main factor was just wanting to see the film right away (this assumes that they could and did get the film to DeAtley by that morning and he somehow got it processed in a day, so you are in effect saying that the film is NOT a hoax; just so we are clear on that). Fair enough.

I don't know if have read my other posts in this thread but I think it strange that they sudddenly changed their mind in the morning; there is no indication that they weren't committed to staying...there is substantial evidence that as of Friday night they were planning on staying around, maybe looking for more bigfoots, and having interested people come and check out the site. They had not cleared out their camp, in fact they bought more supplies, told a reporter they were sticking around, didn't say they were dying to see the processed film (in fact they said they had mailed the film, not taken it to the airport, in the afternoon, the same thing they told Hodgson earlier in the evening), and gave no hint they were leaving.

Now as far as the rain is concerned, they were not sitting around in the pouring rain, as far as we know. Do you have any such evidence? What we do know is that the rain came at night and probably it was in the half inch range. That's not much rain, so I doubt that it lasted more than a few hours...how could it? By morning it had probably stopped. So while the rain was the new information and so thus should be considered the prime suspect for the cause of their departure, I kind of doubt that small rain would directly persuade them to give up their purposeful plan. Patterson was not a man who would be easily discouraged in his plans. And they weren't there to sit around and sing kumbaya. They had an investment in making their efforts credible, by showing the site. They had driven 12 hours to get there, they were there for business, and they had a plan to optimize their result. And, giving up the plan would not only make them miss an opportunity to convince the researchers, it would also expose them to suspicions about the truthfulness of their timeline. So, in sum, while anything is possible, I don't think their behavior and statements and the stakes involved, would make us believe they would suddenly just give it up for the reasons you suggest.

Let me try to pin down the decision just a bit more. They didn't change their minds until after Gimlin returned from covering the tracks. He certainly told Patterson about the track protection trip, and what he had seen, perhaps when he got back, perhaps when they woke in the morning. I think Patterson would have gone to see the site himself, don't you?

p.

What I'm saying is that their behaviour in changing their minds doesn't strike me as in-congruent with their story of just having filmed a Sasquatch. If, for the sake of this conversation, you assume that it really happened then they'd be in a emotional and excited state (not to mention tired).

People who are in emotional states don't always make the best or most logical decisions. It might have been more sensible for them to remain on-site, waiting for lightning to strike twice but if I were in the situation they claimed they were in my mind would then contemplate that the focus was going to switch to the film and I'd want to be there to witness it all and maybe even take credit. The rain would probably be the final straw for me.

I think I'm taking a more more human, less scientific/logical based viewpoint to your own conclusion that their behaviour was somehow in-congruent with what they claimed had happened.
  • 0
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." - John Lennon

#54 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:25 AM

Earlier this evening it started pouring down rain here in southern Oregon. If I were standing outside at the time I would have been soaked to the bone because it was raining that hard. It rained for a while and then tapered off to a drizzle for a few hours. Later in the evening I checked the weather report and it only registered .01 for the day which seems like virtually nothing, yet it was clearly pouring rain.

1/2" of rain may not sound like much, but falling in a short period of time is a LOT of rain. It's especially bad when you're in the woods where dirt logging roads become slick as ice when they get wet.


Our rain has now reached 2.14 inches for the past 24 hours. We have standing water everywhere, several inches deep. Not my favorite weather, but not that unusual either. I've been out in it off and on all day. Yeah, it feels wet. But it's not that big a deal. Last Friday I was driving logging roads again, following a huge snowstorm that was washed away by several days of heavy rain. The road worked as usual. Loggers tend to know how to carve roads that will survive pretty well, their livelihood depends on making roads that are drivable, by big stinking logging trucks. Logging roads rock. They wash out form time to time and need to be recarved, and they do it now the same way they did in the late 60's, with big Cats with big blades on them. The 60's were not the dark ages. Logging has been going on in the Sierras and Cascades for an awfully long time. Logging road technology has been working for as long.

Sorry to sound like a dreaded skeptic, but I would think that a couple of seasoned cowboys who had been around the block more than a few times would not necessarily be scared out of the forest by a bit of rain. Rain stops, roads dry, logging roads tend to work reasonably well in a wide variety of conditions. I think the suggestion is that there was some compelling reason for them to leave that was associated with the rain, but something other than the fear of flooding. If they were planning on sticking around a few days, a day of rain should not chase them away. The rain stops, life goes on, and the trail for Patty could be resumed. Sounds like they left for some other reason than fearing what the rain would do to them. They did not need to get out at any time soon, they had fresh supplies, they could just camp out for another week if they wanted. So why leave after a bit of rain, after BG got back from inspecting the tracks? Is it possible the rain actually did wash away the tracks?


If you believe this is a hoax then you believe everything was preplanned. Inviting people to the area and then changing plans doesn't sound preplanned to me- something unplanned must have happened. Claiming that Patterson didn't want anybody to come to the area doesn't make any sense because he had no problem giving directions to anyone who asked.


Exactly. The film was supposedly freshly shot. People were contacted and on their way, to be there the following day. They did show up the following day, but P&G had left and contacted them and said to not go into the site, but to come up to Yakima. If he wanted to steer people away from the site, it had to do with the site while it was wet from the rain. he invited people to come, was excited for people to come see the site, but then didn't stick around to show it to them when they got there. The one thing that changed was the site getting wet. Is there any other reason to keep people that had gone there to see the site from going to see it while they were there? They were there, why not let them go check it out before anything happened to the tracks. Maybe they would see a bigfoot as well. Why steer them away form there?

I think I'm taking a more more human, less scientific/logical based viewpoint to your own conclusion that their behaviour was somehow in-congruent with what they claimed had happened.


I guess your choice would be to leave, and that would be human enough. But my human reaction would be to be extremely excited. They said they stayed up all night talking about it, they too were excited they said. My human reaction would be to surf that high, and say screw the rain, let's saddle up and go see if we can track her further. The rain might make prints easier to find, muddy up the trails a bit and show prints better. We have guns, ropes, we are excellent shots, excellent ropers, we have more film, let's go see if we can find her again, and possibly whoever she's hanging out with. We might hit the mother lode of bigfoots, find a whole family. Why leave now, we are finally just getting started! They're here, they're real, let's go make sure we have enough proof for anyone else to believe it. It's showtime, baby, let's go make the best of it while we have the chance. With this sort of find, what else could be more important than following up on it as much as we can while the trail is hot!

What seems to me to be incongruent with hitting the mother lode is to immediately head home, never to return.
  • 0
Tontar

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

#55 Dr. Boogie

Dr. Boogie

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:38 AM

I guess your choice would be to leave, and that would be human enough. But my human reaction would be to be extremely excited. They said they stayed up all night talking about it, they too were excited they said. My human reaction would be to surf that high, and say screw the rain, let's saddle up and go see if we can track her further. The rain might make prints easier to find, muddy up the trails a bit and show prints better. We have guns, ropes, we are excellent shots, excellent ropers, we have more film, let's go see if we can find her again, and possibly whoever she's hanging out with. We might hit the mother lode of bigfoots, find a whole family. Why leave now, we are finally just getting started! They're here, they're real, let's go make sure we have enough proof for anyone else to believe it. It's showtime, baby, let's go make the best of it while we have the chance. With this sort of find, what else could be more important than following up on it as much as we can while the trail is hot!

What seems to me to be incongruent with hitting the mother lode is to immediately head home, never to return.

Well, that's my point really, we're all different and react in different ways when excited or emotional. I think we both agree that we would be excited if we'd just filmed a Sasquatch (obviously hypothetical). If their story was true then their reaction is at least understandable to me as one way in which they might react.
  • 0
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." - John Lennon

#56 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,034 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 02:47 AM

The one thing that changed was the site getting wet. Is there any other reason to keep people that had gone there to see the site from going to see it while they were there? They were there, why not let them go check it out before anything happened to the tracks. Maybe they would see a bigfoot as well. Why steer them away form there?

Well, 20+ miles of slick logging roads is a good reason to steer people away. If they had to use a tractor to recover their vehicle then why invite others onto the same bad roads? They gave people specific directions if they wanted to go see it any other time, so it doesn't add up to them hiding anything.

Sorry to sound like a dreaded skeptic, but I would think that a couple of seasoned cowboys who had been around the block more than a few times would not necessarily be scared out of the forest by a bit of rain. Rain stops, roads dry, logging roads tend to work reasonably well in a wide variety of conditions. I think the suggestion is that there was some compelling reason for them to leave that was associated with the rain, but something other than the fear of flooding. If they were planning on sticking around a few days, a day of rain should not chase them away. The rain stops, life goes on, and the trail for Patty could be resumed. Sounds like they left for some other reason than fearing what the rain would do to them.


From what I've seen these were not graveled logging roads, just graded dirt. So when they get wet they have no traction and it's easy for a vehicle to slide off the road. I used to build these kind of roads and I've seen how easily vehicles can slide off a wet road that's been recently graded. They had a truck with horses so there's no doubt it would have been a slippery ride.

Edited by roguefooter, 30 January 2012 - 02:59 AM.

  • 0

#57 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,397 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 05:30 AM

'Tontar' - timestamp='1327909114' post='138211'...wrote...

"Not sure what you're getting at, other than pulling the one trick pony routine and trying to hijack yet another topic.
The question was what would..... (snip!) ...."


...in response to this simple question, which I had asked of Tontar... :) ...


SweatyYeti, on 29 January 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

"I agree, Tontar. That importance is what makes the possible 'mouth movement' on Patty worth giving a good, loooooong, look... :) .......before dumping on it. Wouldn't you agree?"


No problem, Tontar...you do not need to answer my simple question. :) I withdraw it. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti, 30 January 2012 - 05:39 AM.

  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#58 Thepattywagon

Thepattywagon

    Yowie

  • Banned
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:04 AM

One possible reason they decided to leave abruptly could have been because Roger KNEW he got some good footage of the creature, and was more excited about viewing the film than hanging around any longer to look for further evidence of something they now both knew existed.
Since Roger was the one looking through the viewfinder, only he would have known in his gut whether he actually captured her on film. His excitement at Al Hodgson's store that evening supports his confidence in the film. Gimlin, even though he got a better look at her than Roger, had to go on Patterson's instinct that he got the money shot.
I think any actions the two men took after the filming are not so crazy sounding if they both believed that Patty was safely on that roll of film.
What I find much crazier than any of P&G's 'abrupt' behavior is Bob Heironimus's claim that he drove 14 hours to make the world's greatest hoax film, yet only did ONE TAKE! But that's a different topic. :)
  • 0

#59 Primate

Primate

    Oh Mah

  • Inactive
  • 566 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:04 AM

I'd like to know how many people here claiming to understand the impact of the weather(or not) on their decision have actually been to Bluff Creek..??
  • 0

#60 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:10 PM

'Tontar' - timestamp='1327909114' post='138211'...wrote...

"Not sure what you're getting at, other than pulling the one trick pony routine and trying to hijack yet another topic.
The question was what would..... (snip!) ...."


...in response to this simple question, which I had asked of Tontar... :) ...


SweatyYeti, on 29 January 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

"I agree, Tontar. That importance is what makes the possible 'mouth movement' on Patty worth giving a good, loooooong, look... :) .......before dumping on it. Wouldn't you agree?"


No problem, Tontar...you do not need to answer my simple question. :) I withdraw it. :)


Thanks for withdrawing the question. It was off topic, which is not necessarily a problem in an of itself, but it is an off topic direction that has been taken over and over again, pounding it into the ground too often. The topic was why did P&G leave Bluff Creek suddenly. If this was all true, a true encounter with an authentic bigfoot creature, why would they have left abruptly. And conversely, if it was a hoaxed event, then why again would they have left abruptly. Opinions and viewpoints on either side of that fence seem appropriate, surmising what possible reasons might be. Assuming in the affirmative, that it was a real encounter with a real bigfoot creature, I wonder why they would not have said damn the torpedoes, we're going to chase her down and get some more film of her, maybe rope her and capture her, SOMETHING other than packing up camp and beating feet out of the state. Heck, if it really was the rain, they could have pulled the trailer to a safe place, waited out the rain, and gone back in when it was felt safe. Seems to me other people did just that, right, went in to the film site area within a couple days? So that makes e wonder what the deal was, why they didn't go back in for a second helping of Patty.

Why you would ask me about the subject of mouth movement, which in no way plays a part in this topic, is beyond me.
  • 0
Tontar

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




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users