Jump to content


Photo

Patterson-Gimlin Film: A New Tall Tale


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#61 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 10:19 AM

The ground does not match. Did you bother to look at Bill's videos, "can"? Don't you think you should be discussing this with him? He posted the link to the new video on this thread.

This thread is not about Roger's casting.

Edited by LAL, 10 February 2012 - 10:25 AM.

  • 0

#62 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,513 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:59 PM

Pat are you implying Krantz made it all up? Or gimlin? Because if I have to choose its not going to be the one with motive to lie. Krantz simply documented Patterson. Also I think you may be fooled by the camera perspective. I think the one he's casting is still wet and not full or done yet. Looking at the photos they posted you can see it is the same piece of dirt dam around the cast.

can,

No an no. You left out Roger however. All I can say is Bob told me he did not film Roger makin' a practice or fake cast, he did however film Roger makin' a cast shortly after they filmed the sasquatch. If Roger told Grover somethin' different, I cannot say, nor can I check.
As I said, sorry, but my opinion, I don't think they are the same nor is the substrate around them the same, just what I see is all.

Pat...
  • 0

#63 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:44 PM

It would be nice if River would take down his blog. Should I hold my breath?


Lally:
I have a funny answer to your question but you might not think it was funny. So I'll just say do as you please. :gaming:
Why do you think he would or should take down his blog? Is this a discussion, or is it an exorcise in censorship? What motivates all these posts which in essence express the idea that this person or that person shouldn't be expressing his or her thoughts? Doesn't River get a chance to respond? Has Bill ever been wrong? in even a small but important detail? I'd bet Bill would like to see his response. I could be wrong. I also would bet that had it not been for River's blog, we wouldn't be having an interesting and actually quite important (in ways that you don't know) discussion. You might be surprised if it turns out that Bill's interpretation does more to strengthen the "skeptics" case than does River's....be careful who you root for. Best to seek the truth through discussion.

Of course, you always have the option of blocking River's site, so that neither you nor others who use your computer are exposed to such dangerous ideas as are found on River's blog. :cool:
p.

I would have thought that your peers alienated you when you started talking nonsense on such things like 'If I found that the creature in the P/G film was too tall to be Bob H, then I would just figure that Bob H was confusing the Patterson film site with another that he must have walked over for Roger.' That one still brings out a good laugh around the old camp fires.

I like the way you provide an excellent example of kitakaze's point, by posting a non-sequitor, which contributes nothing to the thread, and that seemingly has as its only purpose an attempt to ridicule kitakaze (which failed, by the way--others, including Bill, have expressed similar ideas).
That's my observation.

Edited by parnassus, 10 February 2012 - 01:30 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.

#64 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

There are two other threads where River's work can be discussed or a new one can be started in light of Bill's new video refuting River/127/?'s ideas - I'd be happy to continue there. It's unfortunate River/127 can't join us openly.

In a feeble attempt to get this thread back on topic I'd like to post this from the blog in the OP:

"The film starts off very shaky. After a few seconds the subjects come into focus. It starts off with a few of these creatures digging for something. Not just one. I remember him saying distinctly 'three'. They are also very far away from the camera. They start to walk down a trail or a path and then they stop by a pond or a puddle of water. They separate, but then soon regroup. It seemed like these creatures were just doing a surveillance of the area.

'Surreal' is the word he used because he was not sure what to make of this. The whole time the camera is on them and they don't know it. Then all of a sudden, a hail of gunfire comes from the tree line and blast these things cold. One of the creatures drops and another one bolts into the woods. The remaining one strangely just walks/staggers off. As one of the creatures walked off, someone kept taking pot shots at it from a distance. That's the creature you see in the popular film.
The whole time while he's explaining this to me, I was trying to envision a film that I hadn't seen in years. I vaguely remember it, but I certainly don't recall any violence.
He also said that there was another film, which was shocking as well as disgusting. It shows a bunch of men dragging one of the lifeless bodies and placing it on a tarp or a pool cover and then cutting it up. Obviously, there was no sound on these videos. I told him that if this was lost footage or something, then it would probably be worth something to somebody. (From here on I will refer to the owner of the film as John, which is not his real name.)

When I finally made it out to California, I had the pleasure of meeting John, the film's owner. By this time, I had done my homework and knew that if what he had is the real thing, this guy would be sitting on a goldmine.

I asked John how it all came to be. His response was, 'Actually, it's not mine. It was my uncle's.' His uncle, now deceased, wasn't even suppose to have it. It turned out that his uncle lived in Yakima at the time and he was buddies with one of the trackers who was going out looking for these things. He went along with the group. There were about eight men altogether. All heavily armed."

So there were eight men on Roger's expedition? Sweaty, you're going to have to do some casting. Let me know when you get your film finished. I'm turning blue. *thud*
  • 0

#65 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:42 PM

I finally found the thread where the casting footage, possible demo was discussed. I do not get along with our search engine. Give me Google or give me death! :wild:

Anyway, here's the thread.

Incidentally, my name is Lu.

Edited by LAL, 10 February 2012 - 02:44 PM.

  • 0

#66 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,513 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:52 PM

LAL,

Ha ! Ha ! Choose Google ! Or...hold your breath...again...thud !

Lu :drinks: Pat...

"Cheers!"
  • 0

#67 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:03 AM

Rogue the images do not carry an "opinion" like many here do. I will stick to the images. If you can look at those matchiing features and declare its not that's perfectly ok. I'm only calling it like I see it. They match and I've looked very closely at the images. I'm quiite amazed really at how this subject is adressed by the believers. To me that is the only mystery concerning those images.


I would be intellectually defunct if I did not address this...

Man, don't hate me for this. I can only do this. I respect your intentions, but not this action. You came to the game, this weird game. You got tapped out. You came again with another jersey. You got tapped out again. Jersey #3 is not the way. These cats are not hearing your game. You know I don't think those casted tracks are the same. Whatever. Socks stink, man. It's not the way. If this platform is not having it, no worries, find another. If the message is real, the messenger doesn't matter.

Responsible skepticism doesn't work like this. Ninja moves should be used on hoaxers, not Internet forums.

Sorry, man, but if I didn't say it when I knew better, I wouldn't be real.
  • 1
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

#68 Guest_can_*

Guest_can_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:44 PM

I finally found the thread where the casting footage, possible demo was discussed. I do not get along with our search engine. Give me Google or give me death! :wild:

Anyway, here's the thread.

Incidentally, my name is Lu.


Lu I have seen Mr Munns video on youtube and I feel he's in error. The details match up too well in my opinion. Who came up with the idea this footage may have been filmed as a demo? I could not find where it originated. Is that even possible? This film was shown at a university with many witnesses and has never been desribed as anything but that as far as I know.

Kitakaze you assuming that I am river 127? Send me a pm with your email. I will confirm my identity.
  • 0

#69 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:34 PM

Lally:
I have a funny answer to your question but you might not think it was funny. So I'll just say do as you please. :gaming:
Why do you think he would or should take down his blog? Is this a discussion, or is it an exorcise in censorship? What motivates all these posts which in essence express the idea that this person or that person shouldn't be expressing his or her thoughts? Doesn't River get a chance to respond? Has Bill ever been wrong? in even a small but important detail? I'd bet Bill would like to see his response. I could be wrong. I also would bet that had it not been for River's blog, we wouldn't be having an interesting and actually quite important (in ways that you don't know) discussion. You might be surprised if it turns out that Bill's interpretation does more to strengthen the "skeptics" case than does River's....be careful who you root for. Best to seek the truth through discussion.

Parno, why on earth did you include Bill in this discussion? You're playing games as usual. That's what this is all about for you isn't it?

Of course, you always have the option of blocking River's site, so that neither you nor others who use your computer are exposed to such dangerous ideas as are found on River's blog. :cool:

So, are you advocating River's theory? You would be one of the few. And if member "can" is not River then I'll eat a bug.

I like the way you provide an excellent example of kitakaze's point, by posting a non-sequitor, which contributes nothing to the thread, and that seemingly has as its only purpose an attempt to ridicule kitakaze (which failed, by the way--others, including Bill, have expressed similar ideas).
That's my observation.

Always about the poster, never the post with you. If only these fine folk at the BFF knew what you said about them on "other" forums.
  • 0
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#70 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:03 PM

Kitakaze you assuming that I am river 127? Send me a pm with your email. I will confirm my identity.


Absolutely. And if I've wrongly called you out, I will give you a very sincere public apology. Ben is a friend of mine and I wouldn't want to mix you guys up.
  • 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

#71 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

Absolutely. And if I've wrongly called you out, I will give you a very sincere public apology. Ben is a friend of mine and I wouldn't want to mix you guys up.

Ya, but will you eat a bug? :D
  • 0
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#72 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

I'm holding my breath and waiting for my face to melt. Do I have to eat a bug too?
  • 0

#73 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,747 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:13 PM

I miss the good ol' days, when a stunning or shocking revelation "knocked your socks off".

:)

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

#74 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:15 PM

Ya, but will you eat a bug? :D


I will artfully cut a piece of salami into the shape of a bug and eat that. I used to eat inago (grasshoppers stewed in sweetened soy) with beer, but it's been a while. Pretty good, actually. Crunchy...

Posted Image
  • 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

#75 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:34 PM

Parno, why on earth did you include Bill in this discussion? You're playing games as usual. That's what this is all about for you isn't it?


So, are you advocating River's theory? You would be one of the few. And if member "can" is not River then I'll eat a bug.


Always about the poster, never the post with you. If only these fine folk at the BFF knew what you said about them on "other" forums.


put your thinking cap on, G and review this sequence:
River posts
Bill posts, disputing River's ideas
Someone wants River to take down his site, implying that Bill's post is the last word.
I say, in essence "give River a chance to rebut Bill's ideas, hasn't Bill ever been wrong, even in a small detail?"
You see, G., I didn't "drag Bill into this". He joined a "discussion", and then another person wanted to take his post as the last word. I said "whoa."
got that sequence?

here's an image for you to use in your next post:Posted Image
Did I say I thought River was all right and Bill was all wrong? no, that's you, with your straw men. You must live on a farm LOL.
I'd like to hear his rebuttal. I think Bill would to, he likes to discuss things and get feedback. (I could be wrong on that).
and by the way, Bill's ideas on these images may end up being detrimental to the believers' position. You heard it here first.
p.

Edited by parnassus, 11 February 2012 - 06:38 PM.

  • 1
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.

#76 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:18 PM

John said:

None of that changes the fact that River presented his blog as irrefutable proof that PGF was a hoax. He based that on the two casts he presented as being the same, and they are very obviously not the same. I think this debunking hoax has been put to rest.


I said:

It would be nice if River would take down his blog. Should I hold my breath?


I was referring back to this with the second sentence:

I've been thinking of getting into posting videos on Youtube, Lu....so, I'll see if I can put together a video for you....showing Heironimus jumping into his Hole...and a few innocent Sasquatches getting blasted... Posted Image

It may take me several months, though.....so don't hold your breath, waiting. :wink:

I'll hold my breath if I darned well please, Sweaty. So, you're part of it too. I knew it all along. Posted Image

I keep wondering if the source's initials are B. S..


Did it sound like I seriously expect River/127 to take down his blog? He can't debate here (technically, anyway) because he's banned so just where should this debate take place? I've pointed to two threads where there's already been discussion on this issue and suggested starting a new thread. How is this "censorship"? The discussion is off topic for this thread. Maybe a mod can split it or add a subtitle. How about

Patterson-Gimlin Film: A New Tall Tale; casting footage, face-melting and knocked-off socks



<removed stray redundant sentence>

Edited by LAL, 11 February 2012 - 07:22 PM.

  • 0

#77 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:43 AM

We've come a long way since then and these are not the early days of the original PGF. Skepticism is an inevitability at this stage in the game and it is no longer a dogpile situation where people bringing it to the table are shouted down and hounded away. The plaster pour and cast display, the PGF provenance, the impossible timeline; these things are not going away and that's just to start. Skepticism is no longer a dirty word where the BFF and the PGF are concerned and I applaud the forum for that.


I'm not so sure that it's as safe and secure in here as this might suggest. Maybe people aren't shouted down and hounded away in the same way, but speaking from experience people can be warned, penalized, prevented from posting and banned, apparently quite easily. :-)
  • 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

#78 Savage30L

Savage30L

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 49 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:55 PM

Here's a story from the latest "your true tales" section at paranormal.about.com. I've no idea whether this is true or not, but if it is, it's quite interesting.

Patterson-Gimlin Film: A New Tall Tale

BY R. V.


It's been awhile since this happened, so I am telling it as best as I can remember.

In the summer of 2006, my cousin had phoned me from Los Angeles. He told me that his band had just signed a recording deal with a major label. We have always stayed in touch since he left New York and moved out to California. While I did the 9-5 thing in New York, he relentlessly chased a career in music and finally hooked up with a metal band out West.

I wasn't surprised when he informed me of the good news because I knew it was in his cards. Most of our phone call consisted of catching up on family and stuff. Toward the end of the conversation he added that the record label was throwing a promotional bash for the band and he wanted me to fly out West for the occasion.

So after talking for about 10 minutes I heard a voice (his roommate) on his end in the background say, "Did you tell him about the Bigfoot thing?" That's when my cousin said, "O, man! You have got to see this! Do you remember the Bigfoot video from the 1970s, the famous one?"
"Sure," I said. [The Patterson-Gimlin film.]

"The studio's sound engineer is this guy from Napa valley," he said, "and we've been working with him. He's sitting on a film that many people haven't seen."

"What of?" I asked.

"Remember the movie where Bigfoot walks past the screen and looks at the camera?," he said. "For years, when it was shown on TV, it was edited. There's a big piece missing. When they show it on television, it's shown out of context. This guy we hooked up with has a different film. An entirely different thing."

This is how my cousin explained the film to me:

The film starts off very shaky. After a few seconds the subjects come into focus. It starts off with a few of these creatures digging for something. Not just one. I remember him saying distinctly "three". They are also very far away from the camera. They start to walk down a trail or a path and then they stop by a pond or a puddle of water. They separate, but then soon regroup. It seemed like these creatures were just doing a surveillance of the area.

"Surreal" is the word he used because he was not sure what to make of this. The whole time the camera is on them and they don't know it. Then all of a sudden, a hail of gunfire comes from the tree line and blast these things cold. One of the creatures drops and another one bolts into the woods. The remaining one strangely just walks/staggers off. As one of the creatures walked off, someone kept taking pot shots at it from a distance. That's the creature you see in the popular film.
The whole time while he's explaining this to me, I was trying to envision a film that I hadn't seen in years. I vaguely remember it, but I certainly don't recall any violence.

He also said that there was another film, which was shocking as well as disgusting. It shows a bunch of men dragging one of the lifeless bodies and placing it on a tarp or a pool cover and then cutting it up. Obviously, there was no sound on these videos. I told him that if this was lost footage or something, then it would probably be worth something to somebody. (From here on I will refer to the owner of the film as John, which is not his real name.)

When I finally made it out to California, I had the pleasure of meeting John, the film's owner. By this time, I had done my homework and knew that if what he had is the real thing, this guy would be sitting on a goldmine.

I asked John how it all came to be. His response was, "Actually, it's not mine. It was my uncle's." His uncle, now deceased, wasn't even suppose to have it. It turned out that his uncle lived in Yakima at the time and he was buddies with one of the trackers who was going out looking for these things. He went along with the group. There were about eight men altogether. All heavily armed.

Somehow he ended up getting a copy of the film and then never mentioned a word to anyone. They had no idea what they would run into out there, so they brought enough manpower and firearms to start a small war.

There were roughly three cameras rolling at all times, so they had much more than the 50 seconds that they show on television. The problem was that all of those involved didn't know where they stood as far as the law went. They felt that authorities would have screamed "murder!" and then hung them out to dry.

John said that there was a person with money who wanted to have a look at the film and maybe do business at one point. He was a lawyer/businessman type. John also added that an eccentric named Eric Beckord, a researcher, was harassing him at one point. He threatened John by saying he would drag his ass into Supreme Court if he had to. He said that Mr. Beckjord came off with a sense of entitlement and claimed to be the rightful owner of all films related to Bob Patterson. Then he was never heard from again.

By now, John felt that too many people were getting wind of this and he became paranoid that someone was going to try and rip him off. The final straw was when he returned home after a short time away and found his apartment broken into. The investigating officers said that "it was clear and certain, whoever broke in only wanted one thing." Which, by the way, they didn't get.

That's when he rented a safe deposit box and that's where it sits to this day. As far as I know. I didn't get to see the films because they were safe and secure in Sonoma and we were in L.A. He did promise me that if my cousin and I ever trekked our way toward his area, he would let me view the films. He only asked that I give him a day or so notice.

To be honest, I really don't believe in Bigfoot, and the topic doesn't grab my interest all that much. I understand that there are people all around the world who take this subject seriously and that's fine. So for those who believe in such, I thought you might find this interesting.

Source: http://paranormal.ab...s_12_02_27t.htm
  • 0

#79 gershake

gershake

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:58 PM

I call hogwash.

Edited by grayjay, 20 February 2012 - 08:43 PM.
profanity

  • 0
"Me and my people break bread, sit and smoke, the conversation rich, but that depends on what you consider broke" - Talib Kweli

"a pack of dogs and cigarettes" - Jack White

#80 steenburg

steenburg

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:23 PM

Put up or shut up.

Thomas Steenburg
  • 0




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users