Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xspider1

Is There A Better Way To Explain What We See In The Patterson-Gimlin Film?

Recommended Posts

Guest

PB,

the white arrows are not mine...they were on the pic already. I think GF adressed the dirt around the track I'm talking about. It looks like dirt being thrown away from the track to me, but it doesn't show on the other tracks in the footage. If it's sand being put around the track, then the actual depth is slightly in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So you have no problem with the original film being "missing"? That doesnt raise any red flags for you? To me it "may" indiciate that they did not want anyone inspecting the originals. We can speculate as to the reasons, but given this was the "find of the century" I find it to be very fishy, and unlikely that it was "missing" without reason. No one seems to know the whereabouts.

You certainly are a speculator. Personally, I need more facts to hang my speculations on.

DeAtley says he cannot remember where he took the film. (Bigfoot Film Journal

By Christopher L. Murphy page 45)

In other words DeAtley didn't give you the answer you wanted.

So why wear the wig when being interviewed? This is the find of the century remember. Is Gimlin still playing "his part" in Pattersons movie during the interview?

Why else would he? Do you actually think Gimlin was trying to follow up on the hoax? Pretty dumb idea for savvy hoaxers don't you think?

I think its very dishonest. Yes there is something wrong with telling people you are Bob Gimlin and traveling around the country telling people of your bigfoot encunter, and telling people were there. It's very dishonest.

That was Roger Patterson for you. Near his death he apologized to Gimlin for doing that. But I don't see how this equates to hoaxing the PGF. This was Patterson's way of marketing the film. He went the "side show" route after the science community ignored the film. He wasn't going to make any money from them anyway.

I don't see any "real" looking tracks when I view them. I believe you may have stated on other websites that you believe the "actor in the suit" left the impressions and that perhaps they were wearing a cowboy boot inside of the costume foot. (if that was not you, i apologize, but I believe it may have been) I disagree.

It was "DesertYeti" Dr. Anton Wroblewski's opinion that he detects the outline of a boot inside the costume foot. He has several casts (copies) of the PGF tracks and his opinion is based on a 3D perspective. At any rate, Patty made the tracks.

I think Patterson fakes the tracks and that they were just as Gimlin said. "Deeper than the horses". They were expecting guests to the site were they not? Why would Gimlin make that claim, and make the film depicting this if it were not true?

You seem to think it would be easy to replace the actor's trackway in a convincing manner. Try it sometime and I'll bet you a donut you couldn't pull it off. IMO, it would be foolish to do it that way. Do you have any evidence that Patterson created the trackway? Or just a hunch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

You cherry pick your questions to answer, and then try to "dictate" the way a debate will go or accuse me of it because I asked you to stick to facts instead of debating anecdotal crap over and over again. No thanks.

You didn't ask me to stick to facts in the beginning. You were happy to ponder theories and semantics when it suited you.

You asked me questions and pondered why Patty exited the way she did and why she didn't bolt for cover/why she was in the open area in daylight initially etc etc.

I then graciously attempted to answer your many questions/ponderings with sound or at least reasonable logic. I took the time to do that and I also then asked you why did Bob H not go and hide in the complete cover of the tree etc. In essence I asked you the same question you asked about Patty. However, YOU refused to go anywhere near that question (or the other question about the location of this alleged giant hole etc) and instead you asked me even more questions. :o

As I said, I'm not interested.

But you were certainly interested when it was YOU asking the questions and doing the ponderings. Now you are being hypocritical about it.

You want to deal with the questions I asked above lets do this.

I don't care about answering any more of your questions. I've answered enough, to no avail.

I also asked some important questions before that you avoided. (about subject scale and so forth)[/b]

Incorrect. Those questions came after you refused and ignored my earlier questions and ponderings about Bob H's escape route and this giant hole etc.

I refused to answer any further questions from you until you had the grace to answer/address mine.

You asked me the questions about subject scale and so forth in post #81. Go back to page 3 and see for yourself. I had already asked you some decent questions well before that which you ignored/avoided addressing. My question about Bob H's escape route was asked in post #78. You ignored it. You also refused (when repeatedly asked) to acknowledge the reasonable conclusion that Patty might well have sighted/been aware of Roger and Bob Gimlin before October 20th thus explaining why she didn't panic like a terrified deer when she encountered them up close. What is the point in answering your questions if you can't even be bothered to acknowledge the answers?

It appears to me you refused to play the game that you yourself instigated when I called you on your obvious lack of knowledge regarding the terrain of the film site and the fact that the edge of the treepile can be seen in the first few frames on the footage.

You are a bad sport and a poor debater and that's a fact. Just like it's a FACT there is not one shread of viable data and evidence that places Bob Heironimus anywhere near Bluff Creek California in October 1967. No corroborating evidence, no eyewitnesses, no photos, no footage. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

Those are the FACTS, Mr River.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Mommy River won't go out with me! wahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh

Your posts remind me of a child that can't get their way. Congrats on being the first to my ignore. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

You certainly are a speculator. Personally, I need more facts to hang my speculations on.

So missing out of camera film is "no problem" for you? Interesting. That is the first thing I would ask for to authenticate any film or video, or photo. I'm pretty sure any forensic examiner would tell you the same thing. But it means nothing to you? cool. :)

In other words DeAtley didn't give you the answer you wanted.

In other words they refuse to reveal where it was developed. No problem for you? Interesting.

Why else would he? Do you actually think Gimlin was trying to follow up on the hoax? Pretty dumb idea for savvy hoaxers don't you think?

Yeah it was a pretty bad idea for him to try and pull off the indian guide thing when interviewed. Definitely didn't help give credence to their story. Neither did Patterson by hiring a fake Gimlin to tour and take people money.

That was Roger Patterson for you. Near his death he apologized to Gimlin for doing that. But I don't see how this equates to hoaxing the PGF. This was Patterson's way of marketing the film. He went the "side show" route after the science community ignored the film. He wasn't going to make any money from them anyway.

The science community at the time ignored the film for a reason. Because its phony. Patterson went on tour just like Hanson did with his "iceman" to cash in from folks curious nature.

It was "DesertYeti" Dr. Anton Wroblewski's opinion that he detects the outline of a boot inside the costume foot. He has several casts (copies) of the PGF tracks and his opinion is based on a 3D perspective. At any rate, Patty made the tracks.

So you're willing to dismiss the whole "deeper than the horses tracks" and the second reel which allagedly depicts this and Gimlins stomp test to also show the depth of the prints. I think that film disappeared for a reason. The casting footage of Patterson allegedly from the "second reel" also, was that the film he told Krantz that he made? They allegedly only came back from Bluff Creek with two films. There must be 2 casting scenes if one of them is "real" from the tracks "patty" left right? What gives? ;-)

You seem to think it would be easy to replace the actor's trackway in a convincing manner. Try it sometime and I'll bet you a donut you couldn't pull it off. IMO, it would be foolish to do it that way. Do you have any evidence that Patterson created the trackway? Or just a hunch?

They may or may not have followed the exact tracks the actor made. I didnt see much of an impression at all where Patterson and Gimlin were next to the subjects tracks. This also may be why when Green films McClarin he walks on a slightly different path. Some of those prints were supposedly still visible when they made that film. Why does Patterson have to follow the exact steps of the actor? Most of the tracks to me look like they were stamped in the ground with a cookie cutter. They do not show signs of a walking foot. The ones that do are inconsistent as to the pressure ridges (pressure ridges on the bottom of the foot only, massive, and the toes are perfect and clean, or the big toe only leaves a pressure ridge while the other toes look like they were perfectly stamped. looks completely faked to me)

Do you think the subject of the film left tracks "deeper than the horses"? or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

River, don't put words in my mouth please. I never once claimed I have "no problem" with anything re the PGF. You don't put quotes around words unless you are quoting someone.

My only "problem" is that your speculations are not based on any facts. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I would like to see the mystery get solved too, but so far it's been all a bunch of rehash about what you find suspicious about the PGF. Been there, done that. But that's all you are willing to discuss. You won't acknowledge the anomalies in this film and everything else you consider "cherry picked" counterpoints. That's an unorthodox debating style you got there. Do you think if you pile it high enough you'll debunk the film? IMO, needs more cowbell. ;)

ETA:

Do you think the subject of the film left tracks "deeper than the horses"? or not?

I DON'T KNOW. And neither do you.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

River, don't put words in my mouth please. I never once claimed I have "no problem" with anything re the PGF. You don't put quotes around words unless you are quoting someone.

My only "problem" is that your speculations are not based on any facts. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I would like to see the mystery get solved too, but so far it's been all a bunch of rehash about what you find suspicious about the PGF. Been there, done that. But that's all you are willing to discuss. You won't acknowledge the anomalies in this film and everything else you consider "cherry picked" counterpoints. That's an unorthodox debating style you got there. Do you think if you pile it high enough you'll debunk the film? IMO, needs more cowbell. ;)

ETA:

I DON'T KNOW. And neither do you.

Intead of playing "devils advocate" why not give your honest opinion on the issues. I suspect your views may be quite similar to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Gigantofootecus: You commented previously about how the subject of the films foot doesnt

in that its not being slapped down flat on the ground so you cannot compare the two. A horses foot does not hit or leave the ground flat either. It too leaves pressure ridges and comes in contact with a very small surface compared to say a human or theoretically sasquatch. Why do you think a huge flat flexible foot of a sasquatch (that is around 6 feet tall) would leave a deeper impression than a horses sharp edged size one horse shoe from a 1400 lb horse? Edited by River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Yeah it was a pretty bad idea for him to try and pull off the indian guide thing when interviewed. Definitely didn't help give credence to their story. Neither did Patterson by hiring a fake Gimlin to tour and take people money.

Is there any documentation that Gimlin actually appeared dressed up as an Indian during interviews? There is only two photo's I'm aware of showing Gimlin in Indian garb. The cover of Argosy and the Cowboy Bigfoot posse photo. There however photos of Gimlin with Bigfoot casts etc. and he's in typical period dress. The cowboy bigfoot posse photo seems to be directly tied to a movie and not directly tied to the PGF.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Perhaps you should consider the flip side of that argument. First you need to prove there is such an animal despite no proof being presented in the history of man.

Not again, please.

This thread is specifically about discussing the best photographic evidence of such a creature. It came with matching plaster casts of footprints (and photographed by a completely independent "bystander", to boot), and the testimony of two men. The casts matched casts taken in the area years before.

The PGF is not proof (yet again, no photographic evidence will be proof), but this is exactly the type of compelling evidence that literally screams for the appropriate people to get with the program.

So after 40 some years, why no more film of said "animal"?

Said "animal" is dying out, and the appropriate wildlife managers are still sitting on their hands.

Youve got to prove such an animal even exists to be filmed.

No, "we" don't, any more than we have a responsibility to capture Osama Bin Laden. A sasquatch appears to have been filmed (and before it has been "proven" to exist), whether you like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Please reply to the argument, not the poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Is there any documentation that Gimlin actually appeared dressed up as an Indian during interviews?

I'm still waiting for any smidgen of fact that puts Bob Heironimus anywhere near northern California in October 1967, nevermind some irrelevent piece of scoftic tap dancing about Bob Gimlin in a wig. I mean seriously has that got to do with anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Kerchak,

I had to report your post above.

Name calling is not allowed under the Forum Rules and Guidelines, which apply equally to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The debate seems to go this way too often:

PGF Proponent: It looks like a real creature to me.

PGF Non-believer: But, Bob Gimlin did an Indian act and Roger borrowed money!

PGF Proponent: No one has ever been able to create any hoax as believable as the PGF.

PGF Non-believer: I don't know how they could possibly get the film developed so quick.

PGF Proponent: Roger and Bob G. were looking for a Bigfoot and got lucky.

PGF Non-believer: How could people interested in Bigfoot be the ones to provide proof?

PGF Proponent: The Creature seen in the film does not appear in any way to be a man in a costume.

PGF Non-believer: A realistic fake Bigfoot would be easy to create but nobody really cares.

Hmmmm. The **** thing just evidently cannot be de-bunked. :o

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

There was no 'name calling'.

Hypocrite is not name calling. Hypocrite is a perfectly valid and reasonable word to describe a person's behaviour.

Something like "silly fool" is name calling. Hypocrite isn't. Nor is saying somebody knows nothing, especially when it is proven in the case of River.

If the word 'hypocrite' and saying somebody knows nothing is deemed as a reportable then I'm out of this forum, especially considering the post I was replying to (post #124) where River made fun of my earlier post and put his own words into MY QUOTES. Are you going to report that too? Or is messing with a person's quotes acceptable?

Is calling somebody a hypocrite worse than messing with another posters quotes and pretending they wrote something they didn't? :o

River quoted me as posting this:

""

Kerchak, on 22 November 2010 - 11:16 PM, said:

Mommy River won't go out with me! wahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh""

I actually posted no such thing.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...