Jump to content
Guest parnassus

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

Recommended Posts

Guest Primate

Thanks HOLDMYBEER ,

What's your impression of the weather ?

I've found it to be unpredictable and localised even by N. Ca standerds..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER
BFF Donor

Thanks HOLDMYBEER ,

What's your impression of the weather ?

I've found it to be unpredictable and localised even by N. Ca standerds..

Don't know that I have an impression as it was good weather every visit. I did not see indications of coastal rainforest like in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. What I noticed more than anything was how steep the landscape is. Rocky, vertical, the relief seemed much less forgiving and more like the mountains of coastal BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I've been to the area between Willow Creek and Happy Camp, but never in the area where the PGF was filmed. I once had my car break down about 50 miles north of Bluff Creek way up in the mountains. The weather in that whole region can change pretty fast on you.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Parn, check your JREF PM box. You have face-melting mail.

Sorry to have been away.

Yes, it did melt my face, and my laptop snapped shut and cut off my fingers. I'm running on stumps. That stuff does bear directly on this thread; however, I can't post it because of doctor's orders.

2jfytjq.jpg

Giganto,

sorry if you don't find this thread interesting. Whether you believe the PGF is real or fake, I think the decision to leave is interesting, as I have tried to outline. But you know what, I could be wrong.

You may not think this is interesting. As far as it being a waste of time, I guess that would be relative, if you catch my drift. I don't claim anything in this thread (and here I exclude anything referenced in my note to kitakaze above) will prove anything. Satisfied? I hereby sign your hall pass to go elsewhere on the internet where you can feel like you aren't wasting your time. :rolleyes:

Just to make giganto feel better, I will, I promise, be spending more time on more probative stuff. If my fingers hold up.

What's so odd if it was still raining when they left, so the creek was only going to get higher, and told the people you are not going to be able to get back in there ? even if they where going to get in there, how were they going to get to the area without knowing exactly where it was at and not having the horses to get to it.

It seems there actions were very logical .

Z,

well, good, I think the rain had some effect, but I'm not sure that there was enough to make them pull out if we are just talking about slippery roads, and certainly not there should have been no concern about flooding with 0.5 inches of rain. I hope that someone can provide any more information about the weather, but it doesn't seem to me that the rain, if it was 0.5 inch, would have lasted that long. I mean, it started in the wee hours, so to have even lasted til daylight it would have had to have been a pretty slow drizzle.

why would they not just sit it out until the roads dry out? Why wouldn't they drive 25 miles from Orleans to Willow Creek to hoist a beer with the boys and go back in the next day? What's a few hours, a day? I must say, for me that would have been the most reasonable option if you have something important scheduled. 0.5 inches of rain wouldn't even postpone a baseball game. I have sat in more than one tent and vehicle for hours to days waiting for rain to stop. And I was just waiting to do some recreation, not do something as important as verifying the site of the most important zoological discovery of the century and potentially become a rich man. Instead, Patterson seems to have just bolted in the face of a seemingly minor delay.

And, it was a double barreled loss for him: not only did the experts not verify his site, he would have to answer the issues of the improbable film shipping/ development timeline.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

It simply is not that complicated. It was raining Saturday morning. They probably had no way of knowing the extent of the rain ..they had footage..they bailed ..it makes perfect sense.

Thick,

actually, I don't think it was that simple, and I have posted why. To rephrase some of my argument, they had been out and about all evening, driving around, listening to the radio, making plans, committing to a big show on the weekend, don't you think they would have known what the weather forecast was? and there wasn't a big storm coming in. There was a small amount of rain. And by the time they called from Orleans it had likely stopped, and they could have checked on the radio, they would have known that the rain was finished; or Hodgson could have told them. Or they could have waited an hour or two or four. or a day. The footage wasn't gonna change; it was in the can. Whether they saw it in one day or five wouldn't change what was on the film. It's one thing when you are ten minutes from seeing the film and have nothing better to do. It's quite another, I would submit, when you have something important to do, you won't get a second chance at it, and the film is a twelve hour drive away. Not to mention the issue of the fact that showing the film to others will cast a shadow over the entire effort.

p.

There may have been other factors involved such as families at home, Roger's health and possibly running out of money.

LAL,

those are candidate ideas, but let's look at the evidence: As of Friday night, there was no hint of any of those things. And after that, until they showed up at Orleans the next morning, they had no phone contact with families. As far as health, Roger was jumping around Hodgson's store like he was "high." And Gimlin was buying supplies. I don't see the evidence for those things playing a role.

p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Did you actually check what was said on the radio in regards to the weather? Could you post that link please? I don't mean what the weather actually was, I mean what the local forecasters where actually saying on the radio, because we all know how reliable that is,but unfortunately, we do have to go according to whats predicted sometimes. Not that I doubt you, but if anyone else made such a claim, you would certainly ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Giganto,

sorry if you don't find this thread interesting. Whether you believe the PGF is real or fake, I think the decision to leave is interesting, as I have tried to outline. But you know what, I could be wrong.

Sure, analyse the decision to leave all you want. Let me know when it solves anything.

You may not think this is interesting. As far as it being a waste of time, I guess that would be relative, if you catch my drift. I don't claim anything in this thread (and here I exclude anything referenced in my note to kitakaze above) will prove anything. Satisfied? I hereby sign your hall pass to go elsewhere on the internet where you can feel like you aren't wasting your time. :rolleyes:

No, I said speculating on Roger's motives is a waste of time as far as solving the PGF mystery goes. Delving into Roger's psyche can be interesting, just a waste of time is all. All speculation is rife with bias.

Just to make giganto feel better, I will, I promise, be spending more time on more probative stuff. If my fingers hold up.

More cryptic stuff. You can't use it to bolster your arguments since you can't cite it. Instead, it gets lorded over us in "you have mail" posts. "If only they knew how wrong they are". Then, with this ultra-secret information, you skeptics actually debate us here! With total incredulity. Well, bollocks, I say!

Edited by Biggie
Removed insulting and inflammatory content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dr. Boogie

Thick,

actually, I don't think it was that simple, and I have posted why. To rephrase some of my argument, they had been out and about all evening, driving around, listening to the radio, making plans, committing to a big show on the weekend, don't you think they would have known what the weather forecast was? and there wasn't a big storm coming in. There was a small amount of rain. And by the time they called from Orleans it had likely stopped, and they could have checked on the radio, they would have known that the rain was finished; or Hodgson could have told them. Or they could have waited an hour or two or four. or a day. The footage wasn't gonna change; it was in the can. Whether they saw it in one day or five wouldn't change what was on the film. It's one thing when you are ten minutes from seeing the film and have nothing better to do. It's quite another, I would submit, when you have something important to do, you won't get a second chance at it, and the film is a twelve hour drive away. Not to mention the issue of the fact that showing the film to others will cast a shadow over the entire effort.

p.

If they truly believed that had filmed a live Bigfoot do you really find it strange that they'd want to miss the first showing and be there when the film was processed to take some credit and answer questions? How excited would Roger Patterson have been about getting that footage? I'm not actually convinced that the film is authentic but accepting their story for the sake of perspective I could still understand them scrubbing any previous plans they might have had once they'd had time to think about the days events and where the next events were likely to unfold.

If anything this thread actually makes me more inclined to believe their story. I think that you have to be prepared to let yourself imagine that their story might be true, no matter how much it is against your beliefs for just long enough to understand how they might have felt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Sure, analyse the decision to leave all you want. Let me know when it solves anything.

No, I said speculating on Roger's motives is a waste of time as far as solving the PGF mystery goes. Delving into Roger's psyche can be interesting, just a waste of time is all. All speculation is rife with bias.

More cryptic stuff. You can't use it to bolster your arguments since you can't cite it. Instead, it gets lorded over us in "you have mail" posts. "If only they knew how wrong they are". Then, with this ultra-secret information, you skeptics actually debate us here! With total incredulity. Well, bollocks, I say!

is your browser stuck on this thread?

motives are never used to figure out what may have happened....oh wait....

Criminal Jury Instructions

Criminal Jury Instructions Home

2.6-2 Motive

Revised to December 1, 2007

The law does not require that the state, in a criminal case, prove a motive, because it is not an element of the crime. It is not necessary for the state to prove what reason the defendant may have had for committing the crime charged.

Because crimes are generally committed for some motive, evidence of a motive may tend to prove the guilt of a defendant. In the same manner, if there appears no adequate motive on the part of the defendant to commit the crime, that may tend to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. <Identify the evidence introduced as to motive.>

do you think that acting like this is going to get you more or less access to stuff that people are in the process of developing?

p.

Edited by parnassus
Removed insulting and inflammatory content from Giganto's quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

motives are never used to figure out what may have happened....oh wait....

Like all the people that have proven the moon landing a hoax because of motive, and proven 9/11 a government job because of motive..

Motive alone doesn't prove anything. Without establishing there was a crime it becomes nothing more than speculation. You cite a legal quote but you're forgetting that they've already established a crime has been committed.

In the Bigfoot world if you could establish that there was a hoax then you don't need motive. So really what's the point?

do you think that acting like this is going to get you more or less access to stuff that people are in the process of developing?

Now you're starting to sound like the people that don't want to share that elusive Bigfoot evidence they claim to have because of the way people are treating them.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thick,

actually, I don't think it was that simple, and I have posted why. To rephrase some of my argument, they had been out and about all evening, driving around, listening to the radio, making plans, committing to a big show on the weekend, don't you think they would have known what the weather forecast was? and there wasn't a big storm coming in. There was a small amount of rain. And by the time they called from Orleans it had likely stopped, and they could have checked on the radio, they would have known that the rain was finished; or Hodgson could have told them. Or they could have waited an hour or two or four. or a day. The footage wasn't gonna change; it was in cthe can. Whether they saw it in one day or five wouldn't change what was on the film. It's one thing when you are ten minutes from seeing the film and have nothing better to do. It's quite another, I would submit, when you have something important to do, you won't get a second chance at it, and the film is a twelve hour drive away. Not to mention the issue of the fact that showing the film to others will cast a shadow over the entire effort.

p.

Parn, committed to a big show? I think you overstate..i will stick to my simple version of why things happenened. Roger

may have thought big things about tracking dogs and such but thought differently about it as time passed. I don't see any hoax indication about it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

If they truly believed that had filmed a live Bigfoot do you really find it strange that they'd want to miss the first showing and be there when the film was processed to take some credit and answer questions? How excited would Roger Patterson have been about getting that footage? I'm not actually convinced that the film is authentic but accepting their story for the sake of perspective I could still understand them scrubbing any previous plans they might have had once they'd had time to think about the days events and where the next events were likely to unfold.

If anything this thread actually makes me more inclined to believe their story. I think that you have to be prepared to let yourself imagine that their story might be true, no matter how much it is against your beliefs for just long enough to understand how they might have felt.

I think that there's an automatic assumption that questioning anything about the PGf means someone thinks it's all a fake. Maybe some questions are raised simply because the scenarios seem out of whack for some reason. Accepting everything at face value is great for some people, but others can easily get hung up on some details that just don't make sense. Like their leaving the day after seeing a real bigfoot. I mean, hot dang, a real bigfoot! Got a shot at filming it too, and with numerous tracks in the area suggesting that here are several individuals in the vicinity, with supplies to last however long, with more film to shoot, why leave? To me that's inconsistent with what I would have done. Regardless of the excitement about seeing what was on the film, the film would wait. Was Roger such a Patsy that once the film was sent off he had to get back home so fast because DeAtley would mess with it in his absence, would start showing it to people before he got back? If DeAtley was such a schmuck to do that, then why the big hurry to ship it off to him in the first place? What was the freaking big hurry to get the film rushed back home, and to physically rush back home? Whose clock was running so fast that they would have to up and vacate a second opportunity to get the most elusive creatures on earth caught on film again, to insure that they didn't end up with nothing but an overexposed blurry mess? What happens if they rush back home only to find the film ruined, exposed improperly, worthless? Go back down again? Why not stay a couple more days and take out a bit of insurance that you'd have at least two chances of having one on film?

That sort of thinking doesn't automatically say "fake" or "hoax", it just suggests that it seems odd to immediately vacate the area, head home, right after the most incredible opportunity in a lifetime, when it is very questionable whether it was even caught on film. Don't automatically jump to the skeptic bashing, or hoax defense, the only thing on the table right now is that it seems incongruous for them to split the scene when they could stay and get more film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

post 21 parnassus said, in part

". . . .and, instead, change to a plan that had a sigificant "crack" in it, a flaw that he never adequately was able to answer, that constitutes one of the principal pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film?"

post 79 parnassus said, in part

"I don't claim anything in this thread (and here I exclude anything referenced in my note to kitakaze above) will prove anything."

So your position is that something which you first assure us "constitutes one of the principle pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film", you now also assure us that you "don't claim anything in this thread will prove anything"?

So, a principle pieces of evidence against the authenticity of the film will not prove anything?

Wow. Thank you for sharing this insight into your thoughts and reasoning process.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dr. Boogie

I think that there's an automatic assumption that questioning anything about the PGf means someone thinks it's all a fake. Maybe some questions are raised simply because the scenarios seem out of whack for some reason. Accepting everything at face value is great for some people, but others can easily get hung up on some details that just don't make sense. Like their leaving the day after seeing a real bigfoot. I mean, hot dang, a real bigfoot! Got a shot at filming it too, and with numerous tracks in the area suggesting that here are several individuals in the vicinity, with supplies to last however long, with more film to shoot, why leave? To me that's inconsistent with what I would have done. Regardless of the excitement about seeing what was on the film, the film would wait. Was Roger such a Patsy that once the film was sent off he had to get back home so fast because DeAtley would mess with it in his absence, would start showing it to people before he got back? If DeAtley was such a schmuck to do that, then why the big hurry to ship it off to him in the first place? What was the freaking big hurry to get the film rushed back home, and to physically rush back home? Whose clock was running so fast that they would have to up and vacate a second opportunity to get the most elusive creatures on earth caught on film again, to insure that they didn't end up with nothing but an overexposed blurry mess? What happens if they rush back home only to find the film ruined, exposed improperly, worthless? Go back down again? Why not stay a couple more days and take out a bit of insurance that you'd have at least two chances of having one on film?

That sort of thinking doesn't automatically say "fake" or "hoax", it just suggests that it seems odd to immediately vacate the area, head home, right after the most incredible opportunity in a lifetime, when it is very questionable whether it was even caught on film. Don't automatically jump to the skeptic bashing, or hoax defense, the only thing on the table right now is that it seems incongruous for them to split the scene when they could stay and get more film.

Yes, it's all hypothetical. You think that you wouldn't be in such a hurry if the same thing happened to you, fair enough . I do actually agree that not being in such a hurry might be a more sensible strategy from a 'long term' perspective. The thing is though IMO you have to include emotions, excitement, impatience, anticipation into the equation when considering what was or wasn't understandable behaviour. For example; how much sense does dancing make if you remove the emotional element while considering it? Why would people want to do that? So yes, changing their plans might not have been the most logical thing to do but it can still be understandable behaviour.

While putting forward my views on this issue I really don't think that I have jumped into 'skeptic bashing' mode. My own stance on the PGF is that I'm a skeptic myself but open to the idea that I could be wrong and therefore willing to accept their story hypothetically on this point for just long enough to try to understand why changing their minds might not be any reason to discredit this part of their story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

While putting forward my views on this issue I really don't think that I have jumped into 'skeptic bashing' mode. My own stance on the PGF is that I'm a skeptic myself but open to the idea that I could be wrong and therefore willing to accept their story hypothetically on this point for just long enough to try to understand why changing their minds might not be any reason to discredit this part of their story.

Fair enough. My own opinion on it is not intended to discredit their story. I just have a really hard time wrapping my mind around their decision to leave instead of stay, based on having just discovering the Holy Grail. That's all... :-)

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...