Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. SweatyYeti

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    Regarding the reliability of the measurements made by Green, and Dahinden….one measurement which I think can be considered to be very reliable, and accurate...is the distance Rene Dahinden measured between trees TC-1 and TC-2...(i.e...12 feet.) In Rene's 'filmsite measurement' diagram....he drew 'center lines' for the trees....(indicating he was measuring center-to-center)... Also, in his "Master Diagram"...he has the lines placed at the centers of trees TC1 and TC2... It's hard to imagine how he could have mis-measured that distance....running a tape from the center of one tree...to the center of another tree, only 12 feet away.
  3. wiiawiwb

    Missing 411

    Paulides was the first person to see patterns in what those before him merely saw as disparate, unrelated events. Key factors which occur time and time again in these Missing 411 cases such as the point of separation, water, meteorologic event, tracking dogs never picking up a scent, and more. By understanding patterns he stitched together places where a number of people went missing under similar circumstances, hot spots, like Yosemite, as they're called. A number of disappearances were occurring with similar story lines. People being murdered were nothing more than random, unrelated events until someone scratched beneath the surface, did some extraordinary gumshoeing, and tied together a pattern. That's exactly what happened with Ted Bundy, Ted, Kaczynski, and other serial killers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nor implying that's what's going on here because I don't think that is the case. But these would never have been solved until someone saw a pattern no one else could see.
  4. norseman

    Field trips 2.0

    Ouch!
  5. MagniAesir

    Field trips 2.0

    My cousin fell out of her ex's when she went to go to the washroom in the middle of the night. Luckily she really only bruised her pride
  6. MagniAesir

    Missing 411

    I listened to him telling the story of a missing camper by Harrison lake. At best he wasn't really familiar with the area, at worse he was deliberately misrepresenting it
  7. norseman

    Missing 411

    Of course it’s bizarre horrible behavior on her part. Agreed. I don’t want to sound like I’m down playing that. But it’s a story of a bad mother leaving her kid in the woods to die. No evidence of something IN the woods doing foul play. I see those strange twists like how scientists detect black holes. Or planets orbiting stars. The evidence isn’t proof of anything, but it’s evidence of SOMETHING unseen out there.
  8. Huntster

    Missing 411

    .........or both. I thought it was bizarre. Negligent? At the very least. Agreed. Those strange twists are what make his books pertinent.
  9. norseman

    Missing 411

    I agree that the 411 books do not establish anything. But not strange? I disagree with that. Your example in that tragic story definitely shows negligence on the part of the mother.... but nothing strange. Strange would be after three days the body of the five year old is found 100 feet up the trail where searchers walked 1000 times. Or stranger yet after three days the child is found unharmed and when asked where they had been, the child replies they have been living in a hollow log with a bear to keep them warm. The common denominator of most of the 411 stories is some unseen force that is unexplained by conventional wisdom. Bears do not sleep with children in hollow logs. And yet after three days of exposure here is a healthy child. There are just too many cases like that too ignore.
  10. OTC

    Missing 411

    I would offer that it's not simply a matter of 'strange' cases, but rather recurring patterns in those cases.
  11. thank you, hiflier! very kind of you.
  12. Yesterday
  13. SWWASAS

    COVID-19 and BF

    The Portland morning news had a picture of a big cougar prowling a womans back yard someplace in the Portland area. She had seen it more than once. DNR showed up with a dog but could not locate the cat. The woods are pretty quiet now based on what I saw the other day. BF has to wonder where we all went.
  14. SweatyYeti

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    Sounds like a good 'plan of attack', Redbone. Glad you're not on the verge of giving-up!
  15. hiflier

    COVID-19 and BF

    Now that most of the US population is staying home unless necessary to go out, has anyone been noticing wild animals in places not normally seen? Maybe more coyotes, deer, moose or bear showing up in urban areas. I remember saying that our own general absence from wild habitats may result in Sasquatches noticing we're not around. I proposed that the creatures would venture farther out from their remote hideaways and that the uptick may be more personal encounters closer to Human-inhabited locations and perhaps along roads. I'm sure such an intelligent creature would notice the change is fairly short order. I would perhaps make sense to eve surmise that without Human pressures at past higher levels that there may even be a tendency for Sasquatches to produce more offspring? I would say that this may be a good time to put your trail cameras up around any rural properties and even begin to use those thermal imagers more locally. It doesn't take for long for animals to fill spaces left empty by Humans.
  16. Redbone

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    I was already planning another way into this. I wanted to try to 'assume' Patty was about 64-67" tall and work backwards, to see how it lays out. I'm not giving up until I'm confident in the answers.
  17. SweatyYeti

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    So, I calculated the diameter of tree TC-1...based on the 'apparent distance' between the two trees being 67".....and, got a diameter of 10.8"... Given the propensity for a 'sighting error', in measuring the diameter of a tree....10.5" is well within reason, for the true diameter of the tree. Calculating TC-1's diameter using 90" as the 'apparent distance'....I got a diameter of about 14". And, that ain't right.
  18. SweatyYeti

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    Looking at your 'Solving Patty' Report, Redbone....I see that the 'TC1-TC2 Distance' is the "Apparent Distance" between the two trees....(from tree center to tree center). To me, the 67" figure makes more sense, than the 90" figure...since, as I've pointed-out before....that 'Apparent Distance' is just about equal to Patty's 'WH'... If Patty was a few feet further from the camera than TC-1 was...(at F352)….then her WH would be a little greater than whatever that 'apparent distance' is. That could put Patty's WH at just about 6 feet. It is a bit of a mess, that's for sure. I just hope you don't give-up, on it...anytime soon.
  19. Carnivore

    Trail Cam Bigfoot Pics

    That is definitely an edited close up from the well known skunk ape photo. Here is another photo of the same subject but in a different position.
  20. Hi, gigantor, yes, I know "for the slider" but I don't know how to make it happen Oh....wait a minute......BINGO! Thanks
  21. SWWASAS

    Field trips 2.0

    Take a look at the Alpine Expedition Trailer. That is a hard sided fold down A frame. I have one and it is especially designed for off road camping. Sits very high with a lot of ground clearance. . Mine weighs about 2050 lbs and can be pulled by small trucks or even my Subaru Outback could pull it. It has a stove, forced air heater, flush casette toilet, shower, refrigerator and air conditioner. Very easy to pull. You need AC power for the air conditioner but without that a 100 watt solar panel can keep the thing powered indefinitely using propane fuel. I have two 20 lb propane bottles on it.
  22. Redbone

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    I was just looking at the two images you animated (before you just posted) and I find something disturbing... The background trees in the John Green/Jim McClarin Frame CANNOT be where they are with a 20ish mm lens and 105 feet from TC1. John Green also had to have a 25-26mm lens, which can only mean he was farther back than reported. If you set the background trees correctly, then the TC1-TC2 distance is wildly incorrect (67" vs 90") with JG where we think he was. This is a nightmare... On the other hand... I did not need the actual McClarin images to calculate everything I just shared, so this information does not change that. The calculations and CAD measurements only required that he was where we 'think' he was.
  23. Backdoc

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    My wild guess is people tend to overestimate things all the time 1) when they are excited and 2) when the situation is unusual or unexpected. ( <------- add the briefness of the PGF encounter and that would further add weight to a tendency to overestimate.) It would be extremely unlikely to Underplay or Underestimate a quality like Size. Do I have any proof of this? Nope. Look at early statements right after the time of the encounter: Roger claimed Patty had really long arms. She does have longer arms but not extremely long arms. Immediately in real time Gimlin disagreed with the extent of Patty's long arm size. He felt Roger was "getting a little excited" in that description. To me, Gimlin is basically saying that he thinks Roger's estimate or statement was too much because Roger was too excited. In the TV/ YouTube interviews with Gimlin I have never heard him expressing Patty being a really tall creature. He was focused on Patty being "massive and muscular". Perhaps this comes from his Boxing days. It was the bulk of Patty that Gimlin focused on. The bulk was he primary outstanding feature not her height. Had Patty been Andre the Giant the height of Patty would be another factor I believe Gimlin would have noted. So why the two slightly diff descriptions? Why might Roger feel she was taller and Gimlin feel she was more like 6' or 6 1/2 foot? I don't think this is because Roger was closer to Patty than Gimlin. If he was closer it was just by a few feet during the initial encounter. Gimlin watched her the whole time with his own eyes. Roger did through a movie camera part of the time. Those are not the sole reason though. The diff I think is from their perception of the Bigfoot issue prior to the encounter. To ask Roger prior to Oct 1967 he was convinced they exist. He had a mindset they exist and should be like 8 foot tall and so on. Roger drew pictures of bigfoot even listen to audio recordings. He was more obsessed and that means pre-convinced. When he saw Bigfoot naturally she was going to be bigger in his mind due to the excitement factor. Bob Gimlin stated many times he said, "These things really do exist!" upon the PGF encounter. His expectation was they might and they might not. Suddenly when they had the PGF encounter, he observed what he did "and everything was happening so fast". What he saw was a "massive" creature who he followed with his own eyes. He was not running in an excited way. You might even say he was more calm and bewildered. Put that all together and I say Gimlin had more of an objective view of what happened that day. Patterson had more of an emotional view. There is just no way to my thinking you can convince me Bob Gimlin would UNDER ESTIMATE the size of Patty. I want to note again how a football player in 2020 can look massive at 300+ lbs and still be only 6'1'' tall.
  24. SweatyYeti

    P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

    Thanks for the explanation, Redbone. I was thinking that Roger and John had the same size lens on their cameras. One other difference between the foregrounds in the two films, that has me still questioning Roger being 'further back'....is that in the PGF...the foreground objects appear more spread-apart, than they do in Green's film... I don't know, though, if being further back...with a Lens that "zooms in" a bit more, relative to Green's Lens...(a 25MM vs. a 20MM)....would produce that effect??
  25. BlackRockBigfoot

    Trail Cam Bigfoot Pics

    That looks like the Florida skunk ape pics with a filter on it...
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...