Jump to content

The Pgf Beard Challenge


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Roger Patterson said in a radio interview with Jack Webster in Vancouver after the two showings of the film on October 26th, 1967 that he had not taken any film at Bluff Creek before Patty Day...

Now Roger, what took you to that place, and precisely where was it, and why did you go there?

Roger: Well first of all, the reason that we were in this place was that I’d been filming a documentary on this thing for the past eight months or so and I’d been going to areas interviewing people that have seen these creatures, other than myself now, and we went to this particular area because a month before this they had found three different sets of tracks up in that area.

W: Now come back to yourself, first of all you showed some routine film of your packhorses, didn’t you?

R: Right.

W: Now what were you doing filming at that particular time on the pack horse trip?

R: Well, we hadn’t taken any and I thought right of that particular area there, before, and it was a beautiful area right in there, there was some of the ….

W: You were just taking odd shots, then?

R: We were just taking some shots of the scenery and of myself and Bob and ….

W: Alright, just jump to what you first saw that made you excited.

R: Well we rounded a bend in the road ….

The plaster pour scene is disputed to possibly be filmed a few days before Patty Day and show Roger creating and casting a fake trackway for the purpose of his film about the search for Bigfoot by a band of cowboys, a wise indian tracker, and an old prospector. Evidence for this is given in the form of testimony of a discussion with Patterson by Grover Krantz cited in his book Big Footprints...

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).

Patterson in his own words says that he and Bob Gimlin were only at Bluff Creek for a week...

Patterson has visited the area before and last month received word of the latest discovery of the giant footprints which have become legend.

Last Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night.

http://www.bigfooten...es/firstpgf.htm

Bigmurphynewsletter.jpg

Conversely, Bob Gimlin claims they were at Bluff Creek three times longer...

Green: How long were you there?

Gimlin: I think we were down there for a total of three weeks.

http://www.bigfooten...rviews/john.htm

"I we got down there... I can't remember the exact date, but I'd say it would be the last day of September or the first day of October." Bob Gimlin to MNBRT.

http://www.blogtalkr...with-bob-gimlin

If we decide that we would like to ignore Roger's own words about being at Bluff Creek only a week and that no film was shot prior to Patty Day, and we take Krantz' anecdote as being fact over Roger's own words, we have a window of about three days to deal with. Therefore, I issue a formal challenge for any member of the BFF to take a picture of themselves clean-shaven and then to not shave for three days, take a picture again and show beard growth that is comparable to this...

CompositelandscapeCopy14.jpg

Bigrogercastdisplay.jpg

I strongly doubt that anyone could grow that much beard that fast, let only in the span of a few hours in the afternoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

If we decide that we would like to ignore Roger's own words about being at Bluff Creek only a week ....

Roger Patterson wrote:

RogersWords2.jpg

Roger said "a little over a week". kitakaze 'rounds it down' to "a week".....and calls those words Roger's words.

kitakaze wrote:

The plaster pour scene is disputed to possibly be filmed a few days before Patty Day and show Roger creating and casting a fake trackway for the purpose of his film....

Actually...it shows only one footprint....not "a trackway".

And...the footprint may have been made by Roger. Using the word..."fake"....implies something more than Roger simply "making" a print.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question here, what day was the film of Patterson holding the two casts taken on? Possibly a few days after the filming of the PGF? Also, the film of Patterson pouring plaster or paris into the fake tracks was done on what day (After October 20th, right?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Roger said "a little over a week". kitakaze 'rounds it down' to "a week".....and calls those words Roger's words.

1) A little over a week is nowehere near three weeks.

2) Al Tostado reported Roger arriving on October 14th, the previous Saturday.

3) Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin as a fact that you can not deny stopped at Bob Heironimus' house just prior to departing for Bluff Creek to get his horse Chico. Heironimus reported to me that Roger and Bob left on a Friday or Saturday and that they had Chico for eight days. That's a little over a week.

i have a dumb question.could the film of rodger holding the plaster casts been done later?the land scape and color seem different.

No. Bob Gimlin says that the scene was shot at Bluff Creek. Anyone can confirm this with him and I have challeneged numerous Gimlin supporters, none of whom have done so. Roger never returned to Bluff Creek after the 20th. Even when his film was not accepted as proof of Bigfoot by scientists, he did not return to track Patty, but went off barnstorming for money. He had to be persuaded by John Green to even bother showing the film to scientists and did not want to bother.

The plaster pour and cast display are both reel 2 and reel 2 was developed at the same time as reel 1.

Operator, your question was not dumb at all and was perfectly valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

1) A little over a week is nowehere near three weeks.

"A little over a week"....... is NOT ........"a week".

Roger is not here to defend himself. Please stop distorting his words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did RP or anyone state unequivocally that no film was shot prior to to Patty day? Is this merely

an interpretation of the statements made? What precisely is the significance if it were so?

I agree that the two photos seem unlikely to be taken the same day but probably within a day or

so..both pictures show RP's plaster stains on his pants ..just trying to get the picture here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

"A little over a week"....... is NOT ........"a week".

Roger is not here to defend himself. Please stop distorting his words.

The difference between 8 and 7 days is quibbling when compared to 21 days. Roger wrote a little over week in a newsletter and told Al Tostado that he arrived at Bluff Creek the previous Saturday, which is October 14th. He definitely stopped at Bob Heironimus' house with Gimlin and his truck to pick up Chico which Heironimus reported being gone for 8 days, which is a little over a week. Seven days or eight days, I accept that Roger had Chico at Bluff Creek for that much time before returning the horse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yes, that's fine, but his horse being there is a fact. Do you think Patterson did not have Chico for eight days? He says he was there for a little over a week so are you saying that Roger was not there with Chico a little over a week?

Did RP or anyone state unequivocally that no film was shot prior to to Patty day?

This is Roger Patterson telling Jack Webster just that only six days after Patty Day...

Now Roger, what took you to that place, and precisely where was it, and why did you go there?

Roger: Well first of all, the reason that we were in this place was that I’d been filming a documentary on this thing for the past eight months or so and I’d been going to areas interviewing people that have seen these creatures, other than myself now, and we went to this particular area because a month before this they had found three different sets of tracks up in that area.

W: Now come back to yourself, first of all you showed some routine film of your packhorses, didn’t you?

R: Right.

W: Now what were you doing filming at that particular time on the pack horse trip?

R: Well, we hadn’t taken any and I thought right of that particular area there, before, and it was a beautiful area right in there, there was some of the ….

W: You were just taking odd shots, then?

R: We were just taking some shots of the scenery and of myself and Bob and ….

W: Alright, just jump to what you first saw that made you excited.

R: Well we rounded a bend in the road ….

What precisely is the significance if it were so?

Good question. What does that mean? Well, what it means is that whether you are accepting Gimlin saying they were there an entire three weeks rather than what Roger says, or you take the seven or eight days Roger refers to, the significance is that in all that time that Roger and Bob are there, Roger does not once pull out the camera until the very afternoon he is supposed to film Bigfoot and that he shoots just enough film, about a minute and a half, that leaves him perfectly to have that approximate one minute to film Patty walking away and oops, I ran out of film.

What are the odds that he only took out the camera on the afternoon he just happened to film Bigfoot?

Now take that probability and compound it with this...

In 1966 Patterson depicts in his book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist an encounter by an armed man with a female Bigfoot, with silver-tipped dark brown hair weighing 300 pounds with grey-brown skin on the soles of its feet that is encountered in a clearing by a downfall tree that briefly looks over its shoulder at the person viewing it as it quickly walks away and gives a look and impression like it wanted nothing to do with the observer.

This is not only from his book the year before Patty, but also from the magazine that got Patterson into Bigfoot that interested him so much, he plagiarized it twice.

In 1967 Patterson claims to film a female Bigfoot along with his armed partner with silver-tipped dark brown hair weighing 300 pounds with grey-brown skin on the soles of its feet that is encountered in a clearing by a downfall tree that briefly looks over its shoulder at the person viewing it as it quickly walks away and gives a look and impression like it wanted nothing to do with the observer.

And this is the best piece of evidence Bigfootery has to offer.

Thickfoot, on a scale of one to ten, one being abismal and 10 being flawless, how would you rate the provenance of the PGF? That means your assessment of the quality of the source and the information we have in terms of it being reliable evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Well since it has it's own thread now I'll just post my thoughts on it from the other thread-

This is Roger taken in bright sunlight causing the film to overexpose (notice there's no definition between his hands and the bucket- they blend together showing loss of detail from the overexposure)

Bigsweats14.jpg

Now here we have Roger in a shaded area with heavy contrast (dark areas blend together, details are blacker and heavier than normal, and his beard growth is magnified). Also notice how much darker and thicker his sideburns appear:

Bigrogercastdisplay.jpg

Now as an example of lighting here we have Hugh Jackman in photos taken only minutes apart. First pic with bright flash overexposing his face, second pic normal light, 3rd pic with contrast boost to match the Cast Display image, making Wolverine's beard even heavier:

efq8fm.gif

Yes I made sure they're the same event-

http://www.zimbio.co.../browse?Page=14

The lighting/overexposure can erase a beard, and a contrast boost can magnify a beard. This is a possibility of the difference between the two films and my opinion of the beard controversy.

Note that these pics were taken with a hi-res digital camera, so even more detail will be lost with a 16mm film camera.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Well since it has it's own thread now I'll just post my thoughts on it from the other thread-

This is Roger taken in bright sunlight causing the film to overexpose (notice there's no definition between his hands and the bucket- they blend together showing loss of detail from the overexposure)

Having white plaster on your hands will do that. He's cleanshaven, Rogue...

CompositelandscapeCopy14.jpg

You know that and you know it's nothing like this...

Bigrogercastdisplay.jpg

When would you be able to go see Gimlin and discuss these scenes as you said you were interested in doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Rogue's photos (examples) were from the same night, and your challenge was beard growth over three days, I think film exposure could account for a great deal of this. Consider "Wolverine" going to that same event for three days without shaving...you'd have some significant (exposure related) growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

1) Do you seriously believe that film exposure is to account for the difference that you see in the above two images?

2) Do you seriously believe that the above images were filmed either on the same day or within three days of each other?

3) Would anyone like to volunteer to take these images and show them to Bob Gimlin and ask how he accounts for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Having white plaster on your hands will do that. He's cleanshaven, Rogue...

You only need to look at how much detail has been lost in his shirt pattern to see how overexposed it is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...