Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Squatchy McSquatch

Patterson Confession Diary Found?

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Patterson could have written it; signed it; and have a written and signed one from Gimlin.

 

That film is an animal.  Not a person in a suit.  So it wouldn't matter.

 

If Congress voted the earth to have no atmosphere...wouldn't change what common sense told me to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

 

Betty Allen was the unsung columnist who brought early proponents of bigfootery together.

 

She was an acquaintance of Patterson, Crew, Wallace and others.

 

Whether or not she was the recipient of the alleged Patterson diary is beside the point.

 

It's speculation for the point of conversation, 

 

This site is built upon such a concept.

 

I never said Roger dated her. 

 

Yes - I thought if rumors were now proof of anything, then I'd start one about Roger dating all those gals named Betty.

This is a rambling by someone who claims second-hand knowledge of a document that has not been produced for examination. Kind of like speculating about a photo that has not been authenticated. 

 

Sounds like the skeptics version of the dead Bigfoot in the Georgia freezer caper.

Well the diary needs to be on genuinely 50 year old paper and written in correct period ink. for starters.  OTOH depending on how long the diary is the question needs to be asked who would go to the trouble of making it?  As usual there won't be anything clear about it's origins and it's authenticity.  Typical bigfoot mish mosh that's all.

 

How are you coming by the way on explaining away the guy wearing cowboy boots making tracks 6x deeper than other men wearing boots?

 

I posted the boot and foot description a couple of weeks ago.  That was my illustration of the point.  It has been demonstrated there.  How are you doing on doctoring your Wallace Stomper photos and the print photos they made? 

 

As for the mega deep prints the soil conditions are the key to determining how deep anything could go.  No real on site tests were done except Gimlin's claim of stump jumping.  Also a mime/animal in motion purposefully walking away can be expected to be leaving distinct tracks.  A person coming up on the tracks to observe will be treading lightly so that partial human boot print was not made with the same dynamics as the mime/animal   Add this to a bit of dampness allows for much deeper prints and they were next to a creek in a drainage basin.  .  If the mime and suit came to 225-250 lbs it's better than twice the weight of Roger or Bob.  Shallow human prints made by P&G can be expected to be on the shallow side.  That said when viewing a PGF cast on edge they are not so mind mindbogglingly  deep.  But keep up the self deception it keep the myth going..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Betty Rubble? Betty Crocker?  LOL ... Okay then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Patterson could have written it; signed it; and have a written and signed one from Gimlin.

 

That film is an animal.  Not a person in a suit.  So it wouldn't matter.

 

If Congress voted the earth to have no atmosphere...wouldn't change what common sense told me to think.

There's a bit of folk wisdom that says you can't fix stupid.  Stupid is sometimes forgivable but self deception is another thing altogether.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 


I posted the boot and foot description a couple of weeks ago.  That was my illustration of the point.  It has been demonstrated there.  How are you doing on doctoring your Wallace Stomper photos and the print photos they made? 

 

Still carrying on about nothing and still haven't said what the inserted aspect ratio of the Wallace carving had anything to do with discussion about the continual toe wall.  I made no reference to one foot being wider than the other ..... nor did I say anything about the toes not lining up to the ground print.

 

You have been asked several times now to explain what the aspect ratio of the insert had to do with the context of the post I had made. Seeing if you had anything sinister to report, then you would waste no time in doing so. I will give you the answer that you don't seemingly want to admit to and that is It had nothing to do with anything other than being an insert I fitted into a photo of a ground print.

 

But if I had known that it would cause a couple paranoid skeptics to look so silly trying to make something out of nothing, then I may do it more often.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the mega deep prints the soil conditions are the key to determining how deep anything could go.  No real on site tests were done except Gimlin's claim of stump jumping. 

 

 

 

smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-013    Did not Pat post to you a photo that Laverty took that had shown a deep Patterson trackway print with a shallow boot track next to it. Isn't a visual one way of testing something - if not, then why do we read rulers?

 

And was there not cast made that shows how deep the subject stepped into the substrate - yes there are. Did not Laverty state that there was nothing about the film site that disputed what Patterson and Gimlin claimed to have happen -  yes he did.

 

 

 

Also a mime/animal in motion purposefully walking away can be expected to be leaving distinct tracks.  A person coming up on the tracks to observe will be treading lightly so that partial human boot print was not made with the same dynamics as the mime/animal   Add this to a bit of dampness allows for much deeper prints and they were next to a creek in a drainage basin.  .  If the mime and suit came to 225-250 lbs it's better than twice the weight of Roger or Bob.  Shallow human prints made by P&G can be expected to be on the shallow side.  

 

Crowlogic:  "A person coming up on the tracks to observe will be treading lightly so that partial human boot print was not made with the same dynamics as the mime/animal". 

 

So what does your research on track depth tell you about a faster walking man wearing boots that inhibit foot dynamics compared to a slower walking man wearing boots that inhibit foot dynamics?  How much deeper would the faster walking man's tracks be than the slower walking mans? For instance - let's use the Laverty photo example that Pat posted to you for a reference.

 

And would a boot wearing man leave not leave a mid-tarsal break like that seen in the PGF trackway.

 

 

Crowlogic:  " If the mime and suit came to 225-250 lbs it's better than twice the weight of Roger or Bob." 

 

So you have Roger and Bob weighing (minus a 50lb suit) weighing in at 62.5 to 75lbs each.

 

Question:  Do you ever think about what you are saying to see if it makes any sense before posting it?

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

 

 

 

 

 

Crowlogic:  " If the mime and suit came to 225-250 lbs it's better than twice the weight of Roger or Bob." 

 

So you have Roger and Bob weighing (minus a 50lb suit) weighing in at 62.5 to 75lbs each.

 

Question:  Do you ever think about what you are saying to see if it makes any sense before posting it?

 

Time for your 4th grade math lesson BH.  Roger was a small man.  He weighed about 125 pounds.  So if the mime in the suite weighed 250 pounds that's twice what Roger weighed.  Bob Gimlin is not a big man either.  And yes having those tracks in the ground a person concerned with bigfoot, and those early observers of the site were VERY concerned with bigfoot you will not go charging up on the tracks like a line backer.  You'll try not to disturb them.  Which means tread carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

^

 

The problem is with neither person, Trog. :)

 

I don't mean any disrespect to Bill....or his work. As the old saying goes...."it is what it is". I just don't think Bill's findings rise to the level of 'proof', that Patty was a real creature. 

 

The only problem I see, is people promoting his work as "proving Patty is real"...yet not being able to cite specific details on Patty which cannot be replicated in a suit. 

 

Not too long after Bill's book was published, I asked Bill what specific finding/s of his proved Patty was real...and even he didn't specify one detail. Instead, he said I'd have to read the book, to fully understand his work...and conclusions. 

 

I just think something stronger is needed, to effectively prove that the Film is legit. :)

 

SY,

 

I think we agree.  I recall in the book itself that Bill M pointedly stated that his analysis couldn't determine whether the subject, Patty, was real or not.  However, his analysis sheds a lot of light on issues that can lead one to conclude that the subject is, more likely than not, a real Bigfoot.  Splicing, which likely would have been necessary for a truly effective hoax pre-CGI, is ruled out.  Multiple takes, also a likely necessity, is ruled out.  

 

It's a great technical book, it just may not be the book that some are looking for. (Buy the book!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crowlogic:  " If the mime and suit came to 225-250 lbs it's better than twice the weight of Roger or Bob." 

 

So you have Roger and Bob weighing (minus a 50lb suit) weighing in at 62.5 to 75lbs each.

 

Question:  Do you ever think about what you are saying to see if it makes any sense before posting it?

 

Time for your 4th grade math lesson BH.  Roger was a small man.  He weighed about 125 pounds.  So if the mime in the suite weighed 250 pounds that's twice what Roger weighed.

 

Thanks for the fourth grade lesson in math.

 

1)  Man wearing a 50lb monkey suit weighs 225lbs (your statement)

 

2)  Roger Patterson weighs half of what the man in monkey suit weighs.

 

3)  Half of 225 = 112.5lbs without a monkey suit.  Half of 250 = 125lbs.  If either man wore a 50lb monkey suit, then you would have their suit-less weight at 62.5 - 75lbs.

 

Bob Gimlin is 5' 6" tall now - maybe an inch or so taller in 1967. Bob said he weighed between 170 - 175lbs at the time of the PGF.  Bob said that while Roger was shorter than he - Roger was "way more muscular". 

 

And while none of this answers the question as to how a man wearing boots in a monkey suit could make ground impressions 6x deeper than that of a man wearing boots who isn't in a monkey suit .... it gives you some better figures to work with.

 

So other than just saying it - what data can you share concerning track depth achievement between a slow walk man in boots and a faster walking man in boots?     :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
"Someone Claims to Have Roger Patterson's Confession Diary"

I checked that link and the only thing I learned is that I will probably never get that 5 minutes of my life back.   :crazy:   thx 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

Maybe the confession diary is locked in a study inside a glass case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

"Someone Claims to Have Roger Patterson's Confession Diary"

I checked that link and the only thing I learned is that I will probably never get that 5 minutes of my life back.   :crazy:   thx 

 

The upside is that you saved myself and others from losing 5 minutes of our lives that we'd never get back.   :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I CONFESS!  I CONFESS!  - Roger Patterson

 

ME TOO!  ME TOO!  - Bob Gimlin

 

OK, now let's talk about something serious.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...