Big Foot is real ?

[Backdoc]

On 7/12/2024 at 1:05 PM, idlehour30 said:

 

For instance, while it might damage Roger's reputation with some, I actually think that the overdue camera is a vote for the authenticity of the film and a definite strike against the idea of a hoax.

 

I agree.  It doesn't hurt him.  It shows he was hell-bent and passionate on what he was doing.  My guess at minimum he said, "Well, we are all the way out here several states away in the middle of nowhere and I'm trying to shoot base footage for a documentary.   No time to turn around now just because I just realized I need to return this camera.  I'll pay the extra when I get back"   

 

It doesn't prove anything, but it doesn't hurt Roger's case.  For reasons you point out, it does seem logical what happened is natural and natural favors a real event. 

 

I have a further Q about all this camera issue:   What was Roger supposed to do?

 

Roger was obviously far from home and very busy.   He and Gimlin were not going to cut the trip short just to return a camera on time.   Are we to think back in 1967 Roger was going to do anything different than what he did regarding the camera?  He wasn't going to pay for a long-distance call to tell them he was keeping it longer.  Sure, when he got back, he should have squared the deal with the rental place.  Until then he really couldn't even if he had wanted to.   

 

 

 

[OldMort]

Yes, long distance calling was sketchy back then, yet Roger was apparently able to connect with DeAtley after hours on a Friday night, and then with the local newspaper as well.

 

DeAtley was also able to connect with some source in order to ship the film and then find a film processor after business hours, where 

by all common sense nobody was available to answer his call

 

 Even stranger is the fact that Al Hodgson was able to notify Rene Dahinden, who was staying in a random hotel in San Francico, that he needs to get his ass up to Willow Creek.

 

How did Al possibly know the number of the place where Rene was staying?? 

 

To carry that further, I really want to know how Dahinden arrived from SF at Willow Creek by noon.

 

From my experience of riding buses in CA in the 70's, I would say it is impossible.

 

 

[Backdoc]

8 hours ago, OldMort said:

Yes, long distance calling was sketchy back then, yet Roger was apparently able to connect with DeAtley after hours on a Friday night, and then with the local newspaper as well.

 

DeAtley was also able to connect with some source in order to ship the film and then find a film processor after business hours, where 

by all common sense nobody was available to answer his call

 

 Even stranger is the fact that Al Hodgson was able to notify Rene Dahinden, who was staying in a random hotel in San Francico, that he needs to get his ass up to Willow Creek.

 

How did Al possibly know the number of the place where Rene was staying?? 

 

To carry that further, I really want to know how Dahinden arrived from SF at Willow Creek by noon.

 

From my experience of riding buses in CA in the 70's, I would say it is impossible.

 

 

 

 

I like the points you are making here.   I also would be the wrong person to know the background of the 'after events'.  I might not be the best person to answer your Qs on the after events.  You will find me in the camp of 1) The development timeline is actually a big deal.    2)   Ancillary points of the PGF - both for and against- don't just simply go away because we only want to talk about what is on the film. 

 

First off, I take it you agree with my earlier point it was unreasonable to Roger to cut his trip short just to return an overdue camera.    Even to call and give them an update required they go somewhere to find a phone and there would be some minimum costs to even making that call assuming they had the number.   

 

Here are a few thoughts for what they are worth:

 

Yes, long distance calling was sketchy back then, yet Roger was apparently able to connect with DeAtley after hours on a Friday night, and then with the local newspaper as well.

 

This is not some great task.  He wasn't just calling home to check in he was calling to report he filmed Bigfoot to Al and to arrange-according to Roger's claim- a film development plan.  That's worth a phone call.   As far as the newspaper guy, It's not a big deal.   Maybe an excited Roger felt he wanted to call the papers, and someone was there working and talked to him or hooked him up who was the beat reporter or whatever.   The call to Al makes more sense to me than the call to the papers.  Yet, the call was made, and we know it was made.  The only issue with the newspaper call was the interview claim the film "was in process of being developed".    Roger could have been feeling high on his success and wanted to tell the world.  Maybe he knew the paper or the reporter.   Whatever the reason the call was in fact made.  

 

 

DeAtley was also able to connect with some source in order to ship the film and then find a film processor after business hours, where 

by all common sense nobody was available to answer his call

 

This isn't so much of a long-distance call thing as it is an infrastructure thing.   Did Al have a pilot he used or was familiar with?  If so, it's reasonable he had his number in a rolodex.   As far as a film processor after hours, that is not the entire story.  The issue would be not contacting some lab after hours on Friday night.  Isn't the issue just contacting them at all and arranging some development even Sunday morning so the film could be developed and picked up and driven for the Sunday afternoon show and tell?     The phone call aspect is the least worrisome of the details here.  I'm with you though on the other details of the PGF development timeline as we have all seen on the thread devoted to it.     Essentially if Al thought Roger ever 'got the sucker' on film he would be more than open to say "YES" to a phone operator asking, "You have a collect call from Roger do you accept the Charges?"

 

 Even stranger is the fact that Al Hodgson was able to notify Rene Dahinden, who was staying in a random hotel in San Francico, that he needs to get his ass up to Willow Creek.

 

If we know that is accurate then it makes it more difficult than if Rene was at home where his home number would be expected to be in the Rolodex.  But, maybe Al called his home, and someone said, "He is not home but I can give the number where he is staying"  I don't claim to know but this is not a big issue.   

 

I am not sure what you are implying here if anything.  That is, are you trying to say that Al and/ or Rene knew they had to be at the Show and Tell on Sunday at DeAtley's place to see the film because the film as already developed, and they already knew it was developed?    If they got ahold of Rene and he was there on Sunday to see the film, he was either verifiably there or he wasn't    If he was then he heard about it in time to get there.   Certainly, you agree everyone who heard about the film will claim they were not told prior to Friday afternoon/night correct?   Are you saying this means Rene knew ahead of time to come on Sunday because the hoax was already complete.  Was Rene in on it or lying about being at some hotel and so on?    I'm not following on this point.  

 

Isn't it more plausible as independent people who had an interest in the film, they were no part of any hoax but instead were made aware of the time and place to see the film be it a hoax or not?

 

 

How did Al possibly know the number of the place where Rene was staying?? 

 

We should agree once he did it was easy to find him.    (see above).

 

To carry that further, I really want to know how Dahinden arrived from SF at Willow Creek by noon.

 

I am not familiar enough with the details involved to know if this would be a tall task.  I only know if people are motivated, they push themselves- not to exceed the impossible- but at least do what is difficult if it something they are motivated to do.  I wanted to get home from a 14-hour trip.   Going out, we stopped 8 hours in and spent the night.   Driving back, I pushed it to get home making the trip in one long day.   Same distance, but on the way back I was motived.   (Yes, a 14-hour drive is nothing for most of you, but I doubt you were driving with my family in the car)    

 

If these people were passionate bigfoot people and they thought Bigfoot was caught on film they might be more motived to get to the Sunday showing, more than I might.  I like Gimlin's take.   He knew he could see it later at some point.  

 

 

Appreciate your thought on these extra details.  

 

I say Roger was not going to cut his trip short just to return an overdue camera.   He wasn't going to make any long-distance phone call to clear up the matter esp. knowing even if they wanted it back right now, he was 2-3 states away.  

 

 

 

[OldMort]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

First off, I take it you agree with my earlier point it was unreasonable to Roger to cut his trip short just to return an overdue camera.    Even to call and give them an update required they go somewhere to find a phone and there would be some minimum costs to even making that call assuming they had the number.   

 

 

Wasn't the camera already overdue before he even left for Bluff Creek? I can't really recall.

 

If that was the case then certainly there was no reason to call and let them know.

 

Sounds like Patterson just didn't give a crap.

 

If it were me and I was on a trip and realized that my rental camera was overdue, I would make every effort to contact the owner in order to avoid possible criminal prosecution.   

 

As far as the rest of the calls that were made by the various characters in this drama, I am not in any way implying that they are indicative of some kind of conspiracy, hoax or deception. I Just find it remarkable that during this pre-answering machine and pre-cell phone era, that every call and every connection could be made almost instantly and without a hitch during weekend hours. Even today, with abundant technology, it seems unlikely.

 

In reference to Dahinden's journey from SF to Willow Creek, he took a Greyhound bus, so it didn't really matter how motivated or not he was.

He was at the mercy of the circuitous routes that these busses took no matter how eager he may have been to reach his destination quickly.

 

Even today, that bus trip takes around 8 or 9 hours minimum. Yet he was at Willow Creek at some time late in the morning. A regular Midnite Express seems unlikely because, who would need that and for what reason?  Again, not suggesting anything nefarious about it. Just wondering out loud... 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17 by OldMort

[Backdoc]

^^

 

If any meeting took place all those who attended can attest who was there.    It may seem remarkable but in 1967 with little notice several people made the Sunday viewing.   Some had only small obstacles to overcome while others may have had large ones.   Those in attendance did make it.   We don’t know if others were invited and didn't make it.    
 

 

[idlehour30]

Quote

You will find me in the camp of 1) The development timeline is actually a big deal.    2)   Ancillary points of the PGF - both for and against- don't just simply go away because we only want to talk about what is on the film. 

 

I probably need to immerse myself in the full timeline thread to get my head around the criticality of the issues to the robustness of the story - and this may be an unpopular opinion - but I currently find myself in the following camp (although this can and probably will change over time): 

 

The film comes first - in that if you attain the point where you realize to all intents and purposes it's practically impossible for the film to be hoaxed, the intricacies of the story points around it are somewhat secondary. 

 

It's clear that we would all have liked the right questions to have been asked at the time, and we may never get the whole story straight - but if it's virtually impossible that these question and gaps are anything to do with a hoax, they probably don't materially change the fact that Patty was real. 

[Backdoc]

^^^
 

The problem is love is blind.   We need checks to make sure what we think we know is in fact what we actually know.   Too often overconfidence can lead to self deception. I think the PGF is extremely impressive and holds up well for half a century.    It comes down to:  replicate the PGF in a same or similar way limited to 1967 era materials.  If the result looks like the PGF it suggest it could be a hoax.  If it can’t be done it suggest Patty is a real ‘something’ and not a man in a suit.   The fact this hasn’t been done yet still only means it hasn’t been replicated yet.  
 

 

You say what’s on the film is paramount.   I agree it’s very important and extremely convincing.   Yet, if Gimlin today admitted the film was a hoax and showed how it was hoaxed wouldn’t that destroy the film-is-paramount premise?    If a suit maker replicated the film in a home- run way doesn’t that suggest what’s on the film could very well be a hoax?   

Back to the development timeline …

 

This is why the PGF timeline is important.  It’s an objective set of tasks which forces us to make sure what Roger claims was done could be done.  That is, we say if the suit can’t be replicated it should mean it’s a real creature .   But equally, if the PGF development timeline cannot be achieved it should equally suggest a hoax ( or at least they are being deceptive on the development timeline and pathway.)

 

Gimlin said that night there was a full moon.   Sure enough records show there was a 99% full moon that night before it rained.   
 

The timeline and other issues cannot be ignored just because they don’t involve what’s on the film.  They are ancillary support to the film and supportive issues allowing us to double check what we think we are sure about.   No diff than Gimlin saying there was a full moon or it rained later. 

 

I can think a guy murdered his wife.  Later when I find out he was verified to be overseas in Afghanistan at the time it makes it virtually impossible he was the killer.   
 

———————  >      I have no problem with this formula:

 

1 What’s on the film

2 Ancillary facts related to the film

3 Eyewitness testimony and claims

 

I don’t want to see:

 

1 what’s on the film

2 eyewitness testimony and claims.

3 Ancillary facts that Might Not support the film so completely disregard them

 

 

 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

You say what’s on the film is paramount.   I agree it’s very important and extremely convincing.   Yet, if Gimlin today admitted the film was a hoax and showed how it was hoaxed wouldn’t that destroy the film-is-paramount premise?    If a suit maker replicated the film in a home- run way doesn’t that suggest what’s on the film could very well be a hoax?  

 

Yes and no.

 

As presented this is a strawman argument.    The totality of the film would have to be debunked, it doesn't stop at "the suit."   Even if you accept that a suit was made and worn, you have to find a person with the anatomical characteristics necessary .. remember what Hiflier figured out about the shoulder JOINT width .. no such person exists, nor has been recorded.  Period.   Plus having the arm and leg proportions required to match where the figures arms and legs bend.   Suit can't change that.   Then that person has to pack 600-700 additional pounds to create tracks of sufficient depth, across a rough creek bed, and do it while doing the patty walk looking back over their shoulder instead of watching their feet.  

 

If someone can replicate THE TOTALITY of the film, then they'll have my attention.   Until then it is just the same old blah blah blah.    I'm BORED with the blah blah blah.  

 

MIB

[Backdoc]

49 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

If someone can replicate THE TOTALITY of the film, then they'll have my attention.   

 I can’t disagree.   I’ll just say you are wanting a more pure result than me.  Sure, I’ll take it if I can get it.   If it’s a good effort, say a ‘triple’ effort vs a ‘ home run’ effort, I’m ok with that.  It might move the needle with me.     
 

Reasonably the bar is set high since- if it’s a hoax- they should be able to do what Roger is said to have done near the same.   Anything short of that is a fail.

[xspider1]

^ Interesting discussion, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of the OP wasn't to dissolve into a PGf debate.  (which is my favorite sub-topic of the over-all Sasquatch discussion, second only perhaps to details of reputable encounters).

 

If someone I trusted, family or not, told me that they definitely saw a Sasquatch, I would believe them.  The details of their encounter would be very important to me and I would weigh that into my level of belief considering that hoaxes do occur, as do misidentifications.       

[Huntster]

16 hours ago, Backdoc said:

.........The problem is love is blind.........

The converse problem is that hatred is blind, too. Belief and Denial are opposite sides of the same hand. This is the mystery of religious faith, and it cannot/will not be addressed by science because science is held within its grasp as well.

[Huntster]

16 hours ago, Backdoc said:

........Yet, if Gimlin today admitted the film was a hoax and showed how it was hoaxed wouldn’t that destroy the film-is-paramount premise?........

Conversely, if a sasquatch was to fall out of the sky into the hands of a super promoter who successfully proved its existence it to the world, would that prove that the PG film subject was a sasquatch?

 

Did Zana prove the existence of almasties?

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ Interesting discussion, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of the OP wasn't to dissolve into a PGf debate.........

True, I suppose. "Is Bigfoot real"? To answer that, one must define "Bigfoot".

 

To some, it must be a new species. Period. Otherwise, even if you drag a huge, hairy creature out of the woods and its DNA is determined to be homo sapien, it is not "Bigfoot". As absolute proof of that, I point out the Zana affair. All the people who knew her referred to her as an almas. Today, after DNA analysis, there are people willing to argue until the end of time that Zana was not an almas, even though there is absolutely no reason why a homo sapien cannot also be an almas, or vice versa.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(folklore)#:~:text=In North Caucasian folklore%2C an,Altai Mountains of western Mongolia.
 

Quote

...........We were told that it had a flat face like that of a human being, and that it often walked on two legs, that its body was covered with a thick black fur, and its feet armed with enormous claws; that its strength was terrible, and that not only were hunters afraid of attacking it, but that the inhabitants removed their habitations from those parts of the country which it visited..........

 

[MIB]

13 hours ago, xspider1 said:

If someone I trusted, family or not, told me that they definitely saw a Sasquatch, I would believe them. 

 

Say WHAT?  An on-topic response?  Say it ain't so!! 

 

I would be skeptical .. ask questions.   It's not about believing BF exists or not, I know the answer to that.  It is about figuring out whether the described observation is authentic and accurate.   Very different things.     Was enough seen, for long enough, under conditions where there is 100% observation and 0% interpretation in the report?   

 

I ask the same questions of myself and I try to present my own experiences with evaluation along those lines in mind.

[Ginger Ale]

If someone doesn't think Bigfoot is for reals, they probably shouldn't be on this forum.