Jump to content
Guest parnassus

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

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

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.

Gimlin stated the rain started about 5:30 AM. This matches what the hourly weather chart shows for Arcata that day (bottom of the page)-

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KACV/1967/10/21/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Orleans&req_state=CA&req_statename=California

The actual precipitation levels aren't recorded for that location but it does show most of the hourly conditions.

The chart shows that it rained from at least when Gimlin said it started (5:30AM), past the sunrise (7:33AM), and continued on.

Gimlin also stated that the creek waters started to rise. This would mean it would have to be raining pretty good up in the northern part of the creek.

Crescent City, CA shows the precipitation level got higher as you went north (nearly an inch of rain there)-

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KCEC/1967/10/21/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Crescent+City&req_state=CA&req_statename=California

So what are the odds of Gimlin getting the weather conditions right for his story?

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Especially if the film was really shot two weeks earlier...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I don't see the problem with them leavin'. I was lookin' for where it was mentioned before, but couldn't find it. It was already mentioned Roger an Bob headed there to camp overnight in that particular area(kitakaze should recall this) because Bob was goin' ta be leavin' soon anyway. So the trip was comin' to an end, the rains had come in, they had already gotten more than they hoped, footage of a sasquatch. I'm not sure if they still had any film left? Think I'd likely leave as well.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slabdog

Especially if the film was really shot two weeks earlier...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I thought he planned on going back as well, thats why he covered the tracks as best he could when he left to preserve them. Then he probably saw the film and became occupied with that, since it turned out pretty good after all. Or did he not try to preserve the tracks? I thought I read in there somewhere he did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KentuckyApeman

Before or after they went back to retreive the horses? The weather was a factor, and Bluff Creek could become the mighty Missouri overnight. Leaving their horses is a matter of question. Yes, we can second guess each step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Bluff Creek Road destroyed by flooding. Bluff Creek Bigfoot tracks in wet sand, no, those are fine.

Where did they state that the Bluff Creek road was destroyed by flooding? Are you referring to when his truck slid off the road from it being wet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Okay, after reading through John Green's book "On the track of the Sasquatch", Green explains why they left Bluff Creek as they did.

After they got the film they went into Willow Creek, and through Al Hodgson, Roger notified Don Abbott wanting Green to gather up scientists to come down with the tracking dog. Green could not get any scientists to go. He had no money to get there himself or to bring the tracking dog.

Rene Dahinden got wind and showed up just as Patterson/Gimlin got into town the next morning. Roger asked him: "Where's Green with those scientists and dogs?" He was expecting the scientists to be there and had no idea that nobody was coming until he was notified by Rene.

Apparently they went back to Yakima rather than try to get any scientists to come down there in bad weather, when it was easier to go to the scientists with the film.

So there you have it- no secret evasive tactic by Roger, sorry.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It seems he must have been a very confident hoaxer indeed if he was calling for scientist and dogs to come to the scene. Its to bad they did not show up, I doubt anyone would be debating now if they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It seems he must have been a very confident hoaxer indeed if he was calling for scientist and dogs to come to the scene. Its to bad they did not show up, I doubt anyone would be debating now if they had.

///

Those who are confident the film is a hoax don't want to focus on these kinds of details. Instead the focus is speculation

and assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

That would be the old complete lack of ability to think like a hoaxer in any manner at all.

Trying to get Don Abbott to come back down with Lady is a win/win for Patterson staging a hoax. Lady would not have done any better than she did at thhe end of August with the BCM hoax...

Titmus&Moffit-1967.jpg

But just the dramatics of trying to ask for something he can be fairly certain he isn't going to get will fit great into Patterson's constructed event. Getting John Green to call Abbott at night and see if they can rustle up another goosechase works whether Abbott does the likely thing and turns it down, or the narrow chance that he actually does come back. Patterson can play innocent and pretend to be confused when Lady doesn't do anything.

If Patterson really thought there was a Bigfoot to catch, he can get DeAtley's money working for him and get some tracking dogs in NorCal, not from another country. Patterson and Gimlin said Patty stunk horribly. She allegedly left huge tracks. You could track her with cat with a sinus infection. Patty is about as stealthy as a fart in the shower when you see her on film.

Patterson constructs realities he wants you to see for the dramatic effect. No? Don't think so? Ask impostor Gimlin about that.

Being too credulous and not being able to think like a hoaxer is what makes one think calling to Canada to get the guy back who's already been duped by fake tracks is somehow supportive of the film subject really being Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, because it's not a put down, but each time you post one of your "think like a hoaxer" explanations, I marvel at your imagination.

I really do hope you and the parn and the Alaskian dude over there can assemble these explanations of the hoax into one epic masterpiece and publish it, because it'll really be fascinating to see how amazingly complex and well thought out this "hoax" was. The scriptwriters from the old Mission Impossible TV series will be humbled by the complexity and subtle tricks and actions taken in anticipation of reactions you describe, the planning, the masterful way things were done then to mislead, etc.

On another note, any face melting or jaw dropping to be expected in the near future?

:)

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit:

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, because it's not a put down, but each time you post one of your "think like a hoaxer" explanations, I marvel at your imagination.

I really do hope you and the parn and the Alaskian dude over there can assemble these explanations of the hoax into one epic masterpiece and publish it, because it'll really be fascinating to see how amazingly complex and well thought out this "hoax" was. The scriptwriters from the old Mission Impossible TV series will be humbled by the complexity and subtle tricks and actions taken in anticipation of reactions you describe, the planning, the masterful way things were done then to mislead, etc.

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?

On another note, any face melting or jaw dropping to be expected in the near future?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

parnassus:

Above, where you said:

"and it disagrees with the evidence, common sense and what Patterson said."

It seems that you consider the evidence, common sense and what Patterson said, to be a cohesive group on one side of the argument.

Does this imply that you think Roger Patterson is truthful and sensable.

You seem to rely on what Patterson said, and when one relies on the word of another, there is an implied endorsement that the word of that other person is honest or truthful, thus reliable.

Just curious if you think Roger is telling the truth?

Thank you in advance for clearing this up, if you can.

Bill

Bill,

the statement was in response the idea that:

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?
.

My response was:

To recap, they had no plan to leave as of the middle of the night on Friday. Publicizing/validating the site of the sighting/filming was Patterson's plan. There was no plan for a first showing on Sunday (you don't have any evidence that there was, do you?). Patterson was planning to be at Bluff Creek. The "first showing" idea came about when Patterson decided to leave the area and take the visitors with him to Yakima. Patterson himself said they were leaving because of the weather.

So I can't buy into your idea, because the evidence for it doesn't exist, and it disagrees with the evidence, common sense and what Patterson said.

So Bill,

I may be interpreting your question wrongly, but it appears that you are raising the old and discredited idea that we have discussed at length before. I will summarize it in my terms:

"it's not fair for proponents to use statements of (fill in bigfooter of your choice: Meldrum, Gimlin, Patterson, etc etc) to argue against bigfoot because "skeptics" think that person is (pick a term: stupid, liar, wrong, etc etc.)."

In fact, this is flawed logic, and, I think it is playing the victim. It flies in the face of principles of debate. In a debate, one side may build up the credibility of its witnesses, (Patterson, for example) then whines when the other side presents one of his statements that is contrary to his own interest. One's own statements are used to impeach one's arguments; one's allies' statements are used to impeach ones' statements. Many times people make true statements that are not in their own interest. When one side can find such statements and use them, it can be a strong debating point, whether you know it or not, and it really stings the other side; so they whine about "well, you guys think he's a liar, so you can't believe him now."

In essence, it is not a question of whether I believe Patterson's statement, I believe the statement (as far as it goes); it is a question of whether the proponents believe the statement, and Patterson. It is your choice, not mine....He's YOUR witness. It is no detriment to my case to say that Patterson told the truth in some matters. Everyone does. That's common sense. But, on the other hand, if you have to say that your own principal witness can't be trusted, it makes your case weaker.

To get back to the present case,

I will simply say that when Patterson made statements that disagreed with the evidence, there is reason to believe he was deceiving. But no one lies all the time.

When the evidence agrees with what he said, or when he seems to have no reason to lie, then I think it is reasonable to consider that Patterson was telling the truth. In this case, I think he was probably was telling the truth, but not the whole truth, being just a bit deceitful by omission, as I will suggest in detail later. So what is your judgment? Do you think Patterson was lying? Stings, doesn't it?

I hope that answers your question. If not, I hope that you will open a thread based on examining that question, and not try to derail this thread. Thanks for your cooperation.

p.

It seems he must have been a very confident hoaxer indeed if he was calling for scientist and dogs to come to the scene. Its to bad they did not show up, I doubt anyone would be debating now if they had.

well, I don't think you're right on that last, since we still haven't found any animal that fits the image, but that isn't the point of this thread. The thread deals with his decisions, and I do think you are right that he seemed very confident on Friday night, and I would submit that his decision on Saturday morning to completely derail the inspections indicates that he had really lost his confidence. The question I ask is, since the amount of rain would not seem, on the evidence so far presented, at least, to have been more than a possible temporary mild obstacle, why did he blow off the inspection in favor of a course that might cast doubt on the timelime?

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

parnassus:

"In essence, it is not a question of whether I believe Patterson's statement, I believe the statement (as far as it goes); it is a question of whether the proponents believe the statement, and Patterson. It is your choice, not mine....He's YOUR witness. It is no detriment to my case to say that Patterson told the truth in some matters. Everyone does. That's common sense. But, on the other hand, if you have to say that your own principal witness can't be trusted, it makes your case weaker.

To get back to the present case,

I will simply say that when Patterson made statements that disagreed with the evidence, there is reason to believe he was deceiving. But no one lies all the time.

When the evidence agrees with what he said, or when he seems to have no reason to lie, then I think it is reasonable to consider that Patterson was telling the truth. In this case, I think he was probably was telling the truth, but not the whole truth, being just a bit deceitful by omission, as I will suggest in detail later. So what is your judgment? Do you think Patterson was lying? Stings, doesn't it?

I hope that answers your question."

Nope. Didn't even come close.

The essence of my question is, does the person who relies on statements by Roger to establish, prove or support an idea believe he is truthful or not. If sometimes yes, and sometimes no, how does the person using his statements know which remarks are the truthful ones and which are not?

It appears to me people using Roger's remarks think any remark which supports their agenda is truthful, and any remark that does not support the agenda is a lie.

You rely a lot on what Roger said, and so I wonder how you determine what remarks you find reliable and which you do not, and how you determine which.

Personally, I don't rely on anything Roger said to prove the film is the real deal, so nothing stings for me. He's not my principle witness and if his word is unreliable, it doesn't weaken my case one bit.

I'd be perfectly happy to erase everything Roger ever said and just look at the film, and the evidence is there to show conclusively it's something real and not a guy in a fur costume.

I don't know if we are getting any closer to actually understanding each other, but the above is my best shot at trying.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...