Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SweatyYeti

Patty's Entrance And Exit

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

This is a detail of Patty's trackway, that recently struck me as very intriguing...because it seems to make more sense under the 'real' scenario...than it does, under the 'hoax' scenario.

Using the 'Titmus Map' of the trackway....I added arrows onto it, to indicate where Patty appeared to have entered the scene, and where she apparently left the scene....and, they were both on the same side of the creek...the 'South' side...(Roger and Bob's side)...

SceneDiagramTitmus3.jpg

The reason why I say it appears Patty walked onto the sandbar from the south side...is because of the description Bob Titmus gave, regarding the beginning of the trackway.

In a letter to John Green, he wrote this...

"I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar, since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar."

And Patty's tracks reportedly crossed back over the creek, after the point where the filming stopped....(as illustrated in the Titmus Map.)

So, I think it's an interesting detail, that Patty appears to have came down from....and gone up onto....the same mountain.

That makes a lot of sense, if Patty had a 'young one', and it was on that particular mountainside. Patty would naturally want to get back to her young.

And it seems rather odd, or counter-intuitive, under the 'hoax' scenario.....having your Bigfoot arrive, and leave the scene....on the same side of the creek, that you're on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sweati - I remember reading that particular quote some time ago and always thought it an odd choice of words on Titmus' part. He said it was "obvious" but really does not say how it was obvious. And if it was obvious then it would not be "probably" came down from the mountain but "...did come down..."

Titmus stated he did not spend much time trying to backtrack but he should have. Of course he was no scientist and would not have known what was the proper thing to do from a documentation standpoint.

Certainly though if the trackway as laid out was factual it would show that no hoax occurred. And it would make sense that she would have retreated whence she came, her safe haven. But I am not sure we know exactly what the trackway did or showed because it was not documented well enough if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweati - I remember reading that particular quote some time ago and always thought it an odd choice of words on Titmus' part. He said it was "obvious" but really does not say how it was obvious.

And if it was obvious then it would not be "probably" came down from the mountain but "...did come down..."

I think the reason he used the word 'obvious' was due to the fact that Patty's footprint trackway starts right by the large down-fallen tree, where she was first spotted...(right next to the creek)....and, under the assumption that Patty is 'real'...it would "become obvious" that Patty had arrived at that spot from crossing over the creek.

There weren't any footprints on the same side of the sandbar, leading up to that 'starting point'.....so a path along..."the creek, the 'hard logging road', and the mountainside"....became the 'obvious'/only...choice.

Titmus stated he did not spend much time trying to backtrack but he should have. Of course he was no scientist and would not have known what was the proper thing to do from a documentation standpoint.

Certainly though if the trackway as laid out was factual it would show that no hoax occurred.

And it would make sense that she would have retreated whence she came, her safe haven.

Sure....that's the point I'm making....that the apparent arrival/exit...being on the same side of the creek...points more in the direction of the 'real' scenario, than it does in the direction of the 'hoax' scenario.

But it doesn't prove anything.

But I am not sure we know exactly what the trackway did or showed because it was not documented well enough if at all.

While it is technically a 'possibility', that Titmus' claim of 'the trackway crossing back over the creek' was a lie....I don't think that is highly likely...because anyone making that claim...(as Titmus did)...would have expected others to be inspecting the film-site soon afterwards......as Jim McClarin, and others did.

A fabrication about where the trackway went would have been quickly 'found out' to be a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I never suggested Titmus or anyone lied about what was there. I just wonder about Titmus' interpretation of things. I am unaware of anyone corroborating his interpretation of the trackway..particularly about the BF walking up into the woods and sitting down in some ferns, If I am remembering his story correctly. It was 9 or 10 days after the fact and wonder about what kind of indication was left behind for his conclusions and if he was the only one who observed this. Did McClaren remark about the trackway heading up the mountainside? I don't recall.

Edited by Thickfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Most likely:

The beginning of the track way starting at the creek did not cross over to the other side, viewing the back tracking, otherwise it would have been documented somehow (words, pictures, casts). The subject may have walked up the creek in the water and then out where it left tracks. It's route to the creek originally may have occurred further up stream(?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I never suggested Titmus or anyone lied about what was there. I just wonder about Titmus' interpretation of things.

Well, I don't know how Titmus could have thought the trackway crossed back over the creek, and went on up the mountainside...unless he saw some footprints, as he followed Patty's trackway.

Bob Gimlin also described how Patty's footprints became more like 'scuff marks' as they went onto the gravel, by the creek.

I am unaware of anyone corroborating his interpretation of the trackway..particularly about the BF walking up into the woods and sitting down in some ferns, If I am remembering his story correctly. It was 9 or 10 days after the fact and wonder about what kind of indication was left behind for his conclusions and if he was the only one who observed this. Did McClaren remark about the trackway heading up the mountainside? I don't recall.

I don't know if McClarin ever confirmed Titmus' description of the trackway. But, he could still be asked about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Most likely:

The beginning of the track way starting at the creek did not cross over to the other side, viewing the back tracking, otherwise it would have been documented somehow (words, pictures, casts). The subject may have walked up the creek in the water and then out where it left tracks.

It's route to the creek originally may have occurred further up stream(?).

That is certainly possible. It's a shame that nobody took any photos of the ground, in the area where Patty's tracks first appeared.

If she had walked out of the creek, there should have been tracks very close to the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

And possibly wet looking.

As Science Officer Spock would say...."Seems logical". :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, I don't know how Titmus could have thought the trackway crossed back over the creek, and went on up the mountainside...unless he saw some footprints, as he followed Patty's trackway.

Bob Gimlin also described how Patty's footprints became more like 'scuff marks' as they went onto the gravel, by the creek.

I understand. However, once you get into the woods where track making is not so discernable..and he stated he could tell where BF sat down in the ferns..I am just curious how he came to this conclusion, particularly so long after the fact (9 or 10 days). I am not saying any of this concludes hoax, far from it, I just want to understand how he or anyone for that matter comes to their conclusions based on observations made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I understand. However, once you get into the woods where track making is not so discernable..and he stated he could tell where BF sat down in the ferns..I am just curious how he came to this conclusion, particularly so long after the fact (9 or 10 days).

I am not saying any of this concludes hoax, far from it, I just want to understand how he or anyone for that matter comes to their conclusions based on observations made.

I wonder how Titmus could have been able to determine that, also.

Here's how he described it, in his letter to Green...

"The tracks then crossed Bluff Creek, and continued up a steep mountainside. This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns. About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him. The distance would have been approximately 125 - 150 yards. His position was shadowed and well screened from observation from below.

His tracks continued on up the mountain, but I did not follow them far."

It would have been nice if he had mentioned exactly what the "plain evidence" was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

There are some who have questioned the existence of the road. Regardless of belief status, it seems clear that there was a road.

came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bigfoot sat down in the ferns and watched the men....or...the guy in the suit sat down in the ferns and removed the suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

There are some who have questioned the existence of the road.

The 'hard' area (road) seems clear enough on the overhead Dahinden pic from just a few years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Now I don't know how similar the overhead shot taken by Dahinden a few years later was to late '67 but it looks to me that (going by the picture) the hard packed road/gravel on the left of the creek wouldn't leave much or any tracks from Patty if she came down the mountain and along this substrate towards the log jam.

It's long been my contention that Patty was going from point A to point B and she comes along this hard packed road/gravel area and then sees a point in her traverse when she can stop for a drink and a rest by the creek and at the same time be hidden by the log jam. She comes along the hard road, crosses the creek by the log jam, stops for a drink on the other side of the creek (hidden from the other direction by the log jam)and then a short while later Patterson and Gimlin come from the opposite direction on their horses...and the rest is history.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...