Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
BFF Donor

Thanks for the recent info guys. 

 

A few more Q's for those who might know:

 

When they talked to the newspaper/ Media guy that night from the general store, they described the encounter. 

 

This call happened after general store phone call to Al but before going back to the camp site right? 

 

Did they ever tell the meida guy they were going back to Bluff Creek? 

 

Did they indicate to him they had filmed the tracks as well?  

 

Did they tell the newspaper/media guy about the stomp test effort or how deep the horses sank into the soil?  

 

Did they tell the media guy they were soon going back to cover the tracks to protect them as soon as they got off the phone?

 

Did they try to purchase or did they purchase more film at the general store be it KCII or some other film?  I think if most of us were going back under such a scenario we would not rely on a half spent (?) reel #2 only.   

 

For that matter did they purchase extra ammo for the Rifles before going back :D

 

Since Gimlin stated he had covered some Tracks with Bark, did anyone coming on to the site report seeing bark covering some tracks?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
4 hours ago, hiflier said:

Thanks, OkieFoot :) 

 

Since I used to somewhat keep up with hunting rifles, I specifically remembered that part of the interview. Something we do need to keep in mind was even though Roger also had a rifle in his scabbard, he couldn't get to it since his horse had taken off in the initial flurry of excitement of the encounter.

 

Something that has always amused me is, in a hoax scenario, and a film with no sound, when Roger got the camera out to start filming, why would Roger tell Bob Gimlin to "Cover me". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
10 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

 

Something that has always amused me is, in a hoax scenario, and a film with no sound, when Roger got the camera out to start filming, why would Roger tell Bob Gimlin to "Cover me". 

 

No sound:

Too bad the film had no sound to hear the panic in Roger or Bob's voice.  Another factor we could consider to see if it sounded fake or real to us when we watch the film.  I would expect a lot of 'holy _______" and other words like that which would need to be bleeped out in real life.

 

Cover me:

I guess when we consider stuff we say, "what would I do" in that scenario?  If I was running toward some Bigfoot with a camera to capture it (and I doubt I would out of fear of what it might do) then I would want to be armed.  When Roger got the camera out of the saddle he did not also have time or the ability to get the gun. Makes sense an excited and fearful Patterson would say, "cover me"    Now if such a point was not included in some hoax story it would make me question it.  That is because I have to think unless Roger was confident his buddy Bob could cover him, he -and certainly not me- would not be expected to pursue.

 

This goes for the after event as well. If they were going to do the casting and so on you would only do so if armed after seeing such a creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Backdoc, on the question about if the call to the newspaper reporter happened after the call to Al D. from the general store but before going back to their campsite.

Per Wiki, which used a Chris Murphy article, this is correct. According to Wiki, after the call to Al D. from the store, Roger and Bob G. went to ship off the film and on the way back to camp, stopped at the Ranger Station and met with Al. H. and Syl McCoy, as planned. While they were there, they called the newspaper reporter. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Makes sense an excited and fearful Patterson would say, "cover me"

 

My thinking exactly. Why would Roger need Gimlin to cover him if it was a hoax. Because even though Bob agreed with Roger's request to not shoot a Bigfoot how could Roger POSSIBLY know how Gimlin would actually react and respond to seeing such a creature? How did Roger know Gimlin wouldn't panic and shoot the thing? It would have been a terrible risk to take if it was just a bloke in the suit wouldn't you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Thanks Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

You guys act as if the “story” is true.   Of course there is a “cover me” moment In the re-telling.  That ads excitement.   What version of filming a monster doesn’t include you being thrown off your steed and recovering just in time to view said monster exiting stage right. Lol.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ And you act as if the "story" is false.  The difference is that PGf proponents have a lot of very good reasons to believe that the film subject is/was a real animal just as she appears to be, and PGf denialists have what exactly?  Oh yeah, they have "it isn't a known species with a slab body for everyone to critique so, it cannot possibly be real."  History has heard that same excuse many thousands of times for many thousands of years, only to have it shown to be nothing more than the near-sighted view of those who continue to think (very incorrectly) that we know everything already.  

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
10 hours ago, Twist said:

You guys act as if the “story” is true  

 

But if the story is not true then Bob Gimlin is a liar. Is this what you are saying?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
8 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ And you act as if the "story" is false.  The difference is that PGf proponents have a lot of very good reasons to believe that the film subject is/was a real animal just as she appears to be, and PGf denialists have what exactly?  Oh yeah, they have "it isn't a known species with a slab body for everyone to critique so, it cannot possibly be real."  History has heard that same excuse many thousands of times for many thousands of years, only to have it shown to be nothing more than the near-sighted view of those who continue to think (very incorrectly) that we know everything already.  

 

If the PGF is the open and shut case you claim it is then why hasn’t academia used it as a jumping off point to find BF?  You only have a handful of scientists that have shown interest in the subject enough to pursue it.  I’d go out on a limb and say that proving bigfoot would be a huge breakthrough, what scientist wouldn’t want that on their resume?   Who wouldn’t want to be the next Goodall ?

17 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

But if the story is not true then Bob Gimlin is a liar. Is this what you are saying?

He could have been hoaxed, or in on the hoax, not sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

A photo of the gun with the late Bigfooter Warren Thompson was published in the Bigfoot Times (www.bigfoottimes.net). The gun was sold by Bob Gimlin to Bruce Bonney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Twist wrote:

Quote

You guys act as if the “story” is true.   

 

 

We can't help it, Twist....we're proponents of Bigfoot's existence. ;) 

 

 

Twist saith:

Quote

I'm in the BF proponent camp myself and would love it to be a living breathing creature.

 

Shuuur you would, dude.  :lol: 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
11 hours ago, Twist said:

You guys act as if the “story” is true.   Of course there is a “cover me” moment In the re-telling.  That ads excitement.   What version of filming a monster doesn’t include you being thrown off your steed and recovering just in time to view said monster exiting stage right. Lol.   

 

 

I don't know that the story is true and it could be false.  My point is, if such details of the gun/ cover me were not included in the story (true or false) it would be a big tell to me it was false. This comes from my own bias I would be too dang afraid to pursue. I think apart from a gun most would.  I would just stand there camera in hand and film from a distance the whole time yelling "$$%$%   ^%%%^^  %^^%%^^&*$$$  !!!!!!!"

 

The story is very plausible.  Had they not been armed (assuming the were) few if anyone would ever pursue Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Having experienced what some of you consider non-existent in my first encounter,  even though I had a gun with me, I never even thought about getting it out of the holster.   That Bob did draw his weapon shows at least he was more on top of things that I was.   He was concerned for Roger.      My thoughts, when I heard the thing crashing through to underbrush right towards me were "Well, I hope I get a good look before it kills me."    I like to think it was because I did not have enough gun (357 Magnum) , which is likely very true.     Bob drawing his weapon does add much to his version of the encounter.     That he did not fire it adds even more.   That is consistent with many encounter reports in which the witness has a weapon but the BF look way to human to shoot.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

My experience with what I assume was a a BF definitely had me running for the hills at the time!   Being a young teenager however we were right back out there a day or two later, it was our main stomping grounds for the local kids.   What I experienced, if truly a BF was definitely an act of aggression or warning but it stayed out of sight.    I’d like to think if I got the same opportunity as an adult I’d try to get a glimpse but then again, I may just run again lol!

Share this post


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

×