Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest BuzzardEater

I agree the body of reports does not feature any other Patties. This is just one of the anamolies. How many reports start out "We decided to film a Bigfoot, so we rented horses and a camera and got one right away!"?

How many times are the subjects that far away from cover for no apparent reason?

It reminds me of another report where a hunter shot two creatures at the end of a road. The subject in that report waved thier arms over thier head.

Recently, supposition has it that Ketchum's report will reveal these creatures to be human. Humans screw up all the time. We are sort of known for it. Why hold these creatures to a higher standard? Patty was miffed at being caught out. She stomped down on the ground, as she glares back. This gesture from someone angry, is very threatening. Add the creature's bulk and familial associations and I think you have a credible threat.

If, as I assume, the forest folk live in a rigid society, like those we have seen in recent news reports, there is a simple reason why Patty was never seen again. They killed her. Perhaps more shocking is that they would know right away what had transpired! I expect Patty's companions reported the incident and thier regular information gathering confirmed the leak. A massive, unfixable breach like this would change thier society profoundly. This would have been thier Pearl Harbour or Watergate.

It is entirely reasonable to think that some measures were immediately implemented by thier leaders. That these measures removed the female population from our sight seems likely to me. Thanks, Kit, for pointing this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Dr. Krantz suggested most sightings are of rogue males ( young males without a group), and the females and young stay in really remote areas where the chances of them being seen would be very slim. Roe's sighting was an exception.

Bluff Creek was on the fringe of a 17500 sq. mi. area that had only been mapped from the air. Prints started showing up when logging roads were being put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just agreeing with greyjay, above:

It's strictly a personal opinion....and by the body-language....the posture and gait is very simular in apperance to older folks suffering from spinal stenosis or authritis. It's also not been discussed to death. so just threw it out there. Mobility limitations might explain them being able to just walk up on Patty."

There are some curious things about the body that suggest to me she was not in prime health, the often limp arm, the drooping shoulder, and the very different changes in stride posture early in the film as compared to the famous lookback power stride.

the idea needs work, but it has merit to consider.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

Archie Matkoluk

Swan River, Manitoba

1960

Description: 6'1" 300-320 pounds, dark brown fur from head to toe, brown skin face, very thick body, breasts covered with hair, gray palms and soles of feet, not particularly graceful in movement, (he says the Ivan Marx photo was given him by a grandchild...he says it is similar in some ways and dissimilar in others).

post-1736-094761500 1327712358_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Roger said she was old. Maybe that explains why she didn't sprint immediately out of view. Age aches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

I've shown the PGF to countless people who have noticed the breasts immediately and found them comical without me pointing them out. Gimlin has claimed to have noticed the breasts and also to not have. Pick your version.

Where are the reports that matches Patty's details mentioned in the OP. Gigantofootecus told Tontar he was ignoring them. I'm very interested in not ignoring them.

It's said we're known by the company we keep. I suspect you're cavorting with people as snide and audacious as yourself. Most likely the audience you've assembled in your showings are rather young adults. Seasoned adults aren't so fast to find the appearance of anything comical. Now if you can provide us with a cross section of the demographics of your responders to the film then perhaps more weight can be applied to what is sighted as comical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Just do an advanced search on John Green's database. Search for breasts in the "Account of Incident" field.

http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com/

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The below post is my opinion, is not being made as member of staff, and does not reflect or represent the BFF in any way.....

(moderator badge off)

I've shown the PGF to countless people who have noticed the breasts immediately and found them comical without me pointing them out. Gimlin has claimed to have noticed the breasts and also to not have. Pick your version.

Where are the reports that matches Patty's details mentioned in the OP. Gigantofootecus told Tontar he was ignoring them.

I'm very interested in not ignoring them.

"Countless"? Hmm, isnt that a term indicating that its such a high number, that it's nearly incapable of being documented?

How exactly did you achieve that? Rent out cinema's did you ?

If "countless" people noticed the breasts, then it must be that you've shown the film to what- tens of thousands of people?

I mean it has to be, since I'm sure that the percentage of people who saw the breasts "immediately" cant be more than 50% or 60%... right ?

If there are "countless" people that have seen the breasts immediately, when you add in the other's who didnt notice them, we've got to be talking about a truly astronomical number of people !

So what exactly did they find comical about them ?

They were all so immature that they couldnt help but giggle at some "hairy boobs"..?

Or was it that incredibly, like yourself, they all immediately saw them as a glued on accessories- on a suit ?

Surely you must be mistaken in your estimate ?

Onto your second bolded comment...

If your so "interested", why dont you do a search yourself, and pore through the reports to find what you need..?

Hmm, maybe your not really as interested as you say you are..

Maybe your taking a list of physical features, only one of which is an oddity in most reports(breasts), and trying to make an argument that there are few or no reports that match the subject of the Pgf. (??)

That just seems kind of silly to me.

Everything else you mentioned- are common enough features that can easily be seen from a distance.

Large, fur-covered, coned head, long arms, kind of short legs, bipedal, black, brown, beefy, slender, etc etc.

Breasts, considering that they may be comparitively small in size(like the ones in the Pgf), and covered in thick hair, might just be a feature easily missed from anything but the closest encounter.

But you know that already...

Instead:

It appears to me like we're off and running (once again) on another "shred Roger Patterson" theme- like in post 21 above.

Shelly posted an image from William Roe- not Patterson.

Roe's affadavit and story (and drawing) do appear in Sandersons book- but so what ?

What does it have to do with Patterson, and your allegation of plagiarism? Nothing....

You asked for examples of encounters/reports with breasts and she gave you one, a well known one.

It's from 1955/57- just like she said- predating the PGf and Pattersons book/film by nearly ten years.

So why even bring up Patterson?

Whether or not the PGf is hoaxed or not, or if Patterson got the idea for breasts from Roe, Kuntsler, and others- has nothing to do with your initial question.

You asked about the subject of the film, and asked for reports or encounters that had similar features. (Breasts)

But you dont ever miss an opportunity to keep laying it on.... even when its completely out of context, and has no bearing on the topic being discussed.

Gotta get that dig in, and make sure you advance you're never ending quest to completely discredit the guy.

I think that's what the thread is kind of about- another platform for you to build your case on.

And to be very honest, I for one am just getting kind tired of hearing the same accusations and allegations- over and over, and in so many different threads.

No one likes to listen to the same song/record over and over... especially when its not very good music.

That's just my opinion though, for whatever its worth.

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's said we're known by the company we keep. I suspect you're cavorting with people as snide and audacious as yourself. Most likely the audience you've assembled in your showings are rather young adults. Seasoned adults aren't so fast to find the appearance of anything comical. Now if you can provide us with a cross section of the demographics of your responders to the film then perhaps more weight can be applied to what is sighted as comical.

Well, I'm young, but not that young. As for snide and audacious, I'll accept the latter, whether you meant it as being bold, or as showing a lack of respect. I just don't have the awe and wonder for the film that the small group of believers do who think the film is real. People of all ages think the PGF is fake looking. I actually showed it to someone last night and asked them to tell me what they think without giving any indication of my knowledge of it. They thought it was clearly a suit which they referred to it as "sad" looking. I asked what they meant by "sad" and they said it didn't look like the filmmakers made much effort and that the guy was doing a bad job of walking like a non-human ape type creature.

Check out 38:36...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTL7sR2E8p4

How old would you guess this man to be?

4450_56_Dick%20Smith.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

The below post is my opinion, is not being made as member of staff, and does not reflect or represent the BFF in any way.....

(moderator badge off)

"Countless"? Hmm, isnt that a term indicating that its such a high number, that it's nearly incapable of being documented?

How exactly did you achieve that? Rent out cinema's did you ?

If "countless" people noticed the breasts, then it must be that you've shown the film to what- tens of thousands of people?

I mean it has to be, since I'm sure that the percentage of people who saw the breasts "immediately" cant be more than 50% or 60%... right ?

If there are "countless" people that have seen the breasts immediately, when you add in the other's who didnt notice them, we've got to be talking about a truly astronomical number of people !

So what exactly did they find comical about them ?

They were all so immature that they couldnt help but giggle at some "hairy boobs"..?

Or was it that incredibly, like yourself, they all immediately saw them as a glued on accessories- on a suit ?

Surely you must be mistaken in your estimate ?

Onto your second bolded comment...

If your so "interested", why dont you do a search yourself, and pore through the reports to find what you need..?

Hmm, maybe your not really as interested as you say you are..

Maybe your taking a list of physical features, only one of which is an oddity in most reports(breasts), and trying to make an argument that there are few or no reports that match the subject of the Pgf. (??)

That just seems kind of silly to me.

Everything else you mentioned- are common enough features that can easily be seen from a distance.

Large, fur-covered, coned head, long arms, kind of short legs, bipedal, black, brown, beefy, slender, etc etc.

Breasts, considering that they may be comparitively small in size(like the ones in the Pgf), and covered in thick hair, might just be a feature easily missed from anything but the closest encounter.

But you know that already...

Instead:

It appears to me like we're off and running (once again) on another "shred Roger Patterson" theme- like in post 21 above.

Shelly posted an image from William Roe- not Patterson.

Roe's affadavit and story (and drawing) do appear in Sandersons book- but so what ?

What does it have to do with Patterson, and your allegation of plagiarism? Nothing....

You asked for examples of encounters/reports with breasts and she gave you one, a well known one.

It's from 1955/57- just like she said- predating the PGf and Pattersons book/film by nearly ten years.

So why even bring up Patterson?

Whether or not the PGf is hoaxed or not, or if Patterson got the idea for breasts from Roe, Kuntsler, and others- has nothing to do with your initial question.

You asked about the subject of the film, and asked for reports or encounters that had similar features. (Breasts)

But you dont ever miss an opportunity to keep laying it on.... even when its completely out of context, and has no bearing on the topic being discussed.

Gotta get that dig in, and make sure you advance you're never ending quest to completely discredit the guy.

I think that's what the thread is actually about, and I for one am just getting tired of the same stuff being rehashed over and over again- in thread after thread.

Why dont you just start a thread called "Why I think Roger Patterson is Evil" and put all of it in one spot?

That way those of us who've seen it all laid out before, numerous times, can just move on.....

Art,

your post qualifies as an angry rant. Perhaps the thread touches a hot button. Anyone who is "tired" of the thread, there are other options. For example, there is a thread about What you would do if you found a baby bigfoot.

kitakaze's question is certainly one that any decent anthropologist would ask about the bigfoot phenomenon. The various images of bigfoot which have been published, and the timeline, are certainly relevant to the question.

He hasn't broken any rules. In fact, he has brought up an extremely important question.

of course, that's just my opinion.

knowing kitakaze, he will not respond in anger. Only those who want it closed will try to create an uproar. That would be an old trick.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

There is one excellent book..."The Hoopa Project: Bigfoot Encounters in California"....which should contain a lot of information relevant to the question of whether other Bigfoot sighting reports match Patty.

I just recently got the book, myself, but I haven't read much of it yet. So, I can't say anything, as far as how well the (alleged) eyewitnesses' descriptions match Patty's features.

Here is one review of the book...(from Amazon.com)...

This book, written by former police investigator Paulides, covers a 3-year investigation into the Hoopa Reservation and town just 14 miles north of the Bigfoot Capitol of the World, Willow Creek, California. He interviews many natives of the area and has each of them sign an affidavit, attesting to each witness' truthfulness. There are photos of all the witnesses, and also of the locations these sightings took place in. An interesting note is that some of the sightings took place in the same proximity and within less than a mile from each other. The witnesses' tales are quite compelling and stark in their detail, but Paulides has gone beyond just giving witnesses' descriptions-he also brings in forensic artist Harvey Pratt, who has done quite a bit of sketch work for the FBI and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, and did the initial sketches of the BTK Killer, the Green River Killer, Ted Bundy, Henry Lucas, Otis O'Toole and many other famous cases, and utilizes his skills in forensic art to bring a truer picture of the witnesses' sightings to life, which he does in bold detail. The Sasquatch creatures portrayed by Pratt as described by the witnesses describe a more humanlike face than apelike, whcih is quite fascinating. I highly recommend this book

Another related question would be...."Where are the RUGS that match Patty??"... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The below post is my opinion, is not being made as member of staff, and does not reflect or represent the BFF in any way.....

(moderator badge off)

"Countless"? Hmm, isnt that a term indicating that its such a high number, that it's nearly incapable of being documented?

How exactly did you achieve that? Rent out cinema's did you ?

No, I used the Internet. It's just about the easiest way to communicate with very high numbers of people that there is. On my Facebook I have a very high number of people on my list of all ages from teenagers to seniors.

If your so "interested", why dont you do a search yourself, and pore through the reports to find what you need..?

Hmm, maybe your not really as interested as you say you are..

I have searched for myself. Most of my report perusing was done in the 20 or so years I was a believer. This is an Internet forum and asking as a member to other member where these reports we've been told about are is a fast and effective way to help get me looking at these. Just about the most useful post so far was Rogue's link to John Green's report database. I am currently looking through that using the "breasts" search specification LAL suggested.

Should I not ask the question, Art?

I think that's what the thread is actually about, and I for one am just getting tired of the same stuff being rehashed over and over again- in thread after thread.

So don't read it. It's 2012, Art, and 45 years later we're still without Bigfoot being catalogued. People are going to hash, rehash, and then hash some more this film.

Why dont you just start a thread called "Why I think Roger Patterson is Evil" and put all of it in one spot?

Because I would have nothing to contribute since I don't think Roger Patterson was evil. I am not Greg Long, Art. Please feel free to attack my argument and not me. I think and have written countless times that I don't think Roger was evil or should he be two-dimensionally villainized as Long did. He had all sorts of factors in his life that I have not had to personally deal with. I do not have cancer and I am not poor with a wife and three children to look after. I can be understanding of why Patterson would be motivated to do a hoax. Roger had both good and bad elements to his personality. Welcome to humanity.

I seem to have caught you on a bad night, Art. This thread is a simple and relevant question that if asked by a person who believed the film to be real would not be objected to. If you don't like it, I welcome you as a fellow member not to read it. If you are obligated to read it in your staff duties, I know I can count on you to let me know if I violate the rules in any manner. If you're frustrated with me personally, you are of course welcome to tell me all about it via PM.

Just do an advanced search on John Green's database. Search for breasts in the "Account of Incident" field.

http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com/

I got 25 hits.

Guys, this search engine is quite good and very refinable. I'm using page four in the "breasts" field specied by "large." I get 18 hits, but just perusing the initial results, the incidents are catalogued in such a way that their doesn't seem to be a whole lot of descriptive info in the report. Maybe this is because of the filing system?

Here are my results...

http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com/(S(mhoi5a45nwknla45njx5uzbp))/SearchResult.aspx?c_breasts=large

(Hmmm... broken link)

Has anyone found any very Patty-esque reports with this engine? I haven't yet, but I will keep looking.

Another related question would be...."Where are the RUGS that match Patty??"... :lol:

You can start with Hoffmanfoot and then go on to ask yourself why so many Bigfooters think it is so much like Patty.

Archie Matkoluk

Swan River, Manitoba

1960

Description: 6'1" 300-320 pounds, dark brown fur from head to toe, brown skin face, very thick body, breasts covered with hair, gray palms and soles of feet, not particularly graceful in movement, (he says the Ivan Marx photo was given him by a grandchild...he says it is similar in some ways and dissimilar in others).

That's very interesting, HMB. The first problem I'd have with it if I was a Bigfoot believer looking for Patty-esque reports recounting incidents prior to Patty, is that man did not make his claim in 1960, he made it in January 2011 in the Winnepeg Sun...

After a half century of nightmares, Winnipegger Archie Motkaluk, 70, has finally revealed the secret behind his decades of sleepless nights.
]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/laurie_mustard/2011/01/07/16808681.html

It could be said that the PGF was the blueprint for this as how I'm saying William Roe's encounter story reads like a script to the PGF and what Roger claimed about the encounter. The creature and encounter description is not fully recounted in that article, but they do say it is recorded fully on Sun Radio, which I will find and listen to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man

I'm not really understanding this thread. Over in the "Munns Report" thread you are claiming that you are paying someone who will blow the lid off the entire PG film. So why start a thread on if there are other reports that match Patty? Do you want a list of other reports you want to debunk or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...