Jump to content
Guest parnassus

Why Did Patterson And Gimlin Abruptly Pull Out Of Bluff Creek On Oct. 21?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Yeah, why would you want to investigate the source rather than sticking to the film? The history of Bigfootery has nothing to teach us in that regard... :wacko:

Should we get an award in Bigfootery for being the fortean fringe culture with not only the scantest evidence, but also the serial inability to learn anything from our own mistakes? No, really, why don't we learn?

*Picks up steaming kettle, oops I got burned. Picks up kettle again, oops I got burned. Picks up kettle again, oops I got burned.* Ad nauseum.

It's as if being duped is something gravitated towards and found to be enjoyable.

"It's as if being duped is something gravitated towards and found to be enjoyable."

PattyFingerBend-BobCompAG1Lined.gif

Speaking of "being duped".....Bob Heironimus has never mentioned ONE WORD about how he was "able to bend the extended fingers"....in "the suit".

He hasn't....because he was not Patty. :)

"It's as if being duped is something gravitated towards and found to be enjoyable."

In addition to Bob's lack of mentioning this "feature of the suit".....Patty's fingers curl and straighten in a manner more indicative of a 'natural habit of movement'....than movement done 'for show'....(since it doesn't show, under normal viewing).

Bob was not Patty. :)

"It's as if being duped is something gravitated towards and found to be enjoyable."

Hey kit.....was Bob Patty? You may have been duped. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

When Patterson was parading around an impostor Gimlin while barnstorming the film, was he being confedent and honest, or confident and dishonest? More importantly, did Gimlin feel that it was honest to be impersonated after being cut out?

Yes, as I mentioned before. Thinking like a hoaxer and going to the source pays huge.

kitakaze,

If you an a friend got together an created a exceptional hoax, an you then decided you could make more money by leavin' your friend(who helped, was apart of it an knew all the details)out of it, more or less sayin' screw you, the financial win fall is all mine. Thinkin' like a hoaxer, as you're fond of sayin', how do you think that would go over ? Do you think your friend who was involved would be fine with bein' left out, or do you think he might want his share ? If you're plannin' to hoax everyone, don't you think that's a little stupid, but more importantly...dangerous for/to the credibility of such a task.

Thinkin' like a hoaxer. Would you double cross your partner in such a hoax tryin' to make money ?

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

there had been a massive flood several years before. But that doesn't mean that it was caused by a half inch of rain....a half inch is not much rain. The roads were being built to harvest timber. There was was some timber salvage going on in the bottom.

I don't know the origin of your statement that they didn't know by morning the film had even been exposed properly. Neither you nor I know when that film was shot nor when Patterson first knew what he had captured on it. This thread is not about that. There certainly was a plan to promote it, as evidenced by the efforts made on Friday evening to get people to come to the site and validate the trackway.

I apologize for trying to keep things on track, but this thread is not about how many rolls of film were at DeAtley's.

p.

Obviously a half inch of rain, plus what may have occurred elsewhere that affected the creek levels, caused the creek to double in width by morning and caused the road down to the creek to become impossible to climb without the use of a CAT tractor. Common sense tells me that Gimlin's concerns were not evolved around what might happen, but what was appearing to happen if they didn't get out of there right away. To imply some sort of conspiracy out of it is a bit whacked in my view.

Yes, if we were not there with Bob and Roger, then we won't know what was said, when it was said, or by whom. So that leaves us with the record and that is there is no evidence that they knew if their film exposed properly when they mailed it and an ounce of sense would tell someone in my view that they wouldn't be any wiser by morning considering they went back into Bluff Creek after mailing off the film.

It is true that Roger wanted tracking dogs brought in so the animal could be tracked down and this decision was in the works before they had reached camp on Friday night. It was the rains that ended all that when Gimlin told Roger that he needed to get his horses and equipment across the creek the following morning. What should one presume to think otherwise ... that a pony express rider camp riding into camp with word that the film was developed during the night and that it exposed properly??? Give me a break!

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Obviously a half inch of rain, plus what may have occurred elsewhere that affected the creek levels, caused the creek to double in width by morning and caused the road down to the creek to become impossible to climb without the use of a CAT tractor. Common sense tells me that Gimlin's concerns were not evolved around what might happen, but what was appearing to happen if they didn't get out of there right away. To imply some sort of conspiracy out of it is a bit whacked in my view.

Actually I think Parn is making the mistake of using Eureka weather conditions as a comparison, when it's much more accurate to use Crescent City. Eureka is pretty far south of Bluff Creek, whereas Crescent City is almost parallel to the film site.

Crescent City showed nearly an inch of rain, which depending on the time duration could easily raise a creek.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Actually I think Parn is making the mistake of using Eureka weather conditions as a comparison, when it's much more accurate to use Crescent City. Eureka is pretty far south of Bluff Creek, whereas Crescent City is almost parallel to the film site.

Crescent City showed nearly an inch of rain, which depending on the time duration could easily raise a creek.

You got that right and by morning ... how was Gimlin to know if and when it would finally stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HucksterFoot

FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin. I was with Roger Patterson when he filmed the Bigfoot. My hair is long because I'm an Apache Indian. Bigfoot is real."

Hi, my hair is long because I keep forgetting to get a haircut.

:]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Long hair in that time period? Come on, I don't believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Long hair in that time period? Come on, I don't believe it.

Yeah no kidding.

Long hair in the late 60's? Proof that they're lying! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...