Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Martin said:

Pat,

Laverty drove by site. In a jeep on a nearby road.  He didn't stop and check the area. He drove by just like he had in the past with his crew of workers. Are you disputing that?

 

I posted the statement and sources.

 

He is the text in full:

"US Forest Service "Timber Management Assistant"[75] Lyle Laverty said, "I [and his team of three, in a Jeep] passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th"[76] and noticed no tracks. After reading the news of Patterson's encounter on their weekend break, Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday, the 23rd, and made six photos of the tracks. "

 

Richard Henry said that the creek was only a few feet from the road at the point where the creature was first seen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, Martin said:

Pat,

Laverty drove by site. In a jeep on a nearby road.  He didn't stop and check the area. He drove by just like he had in the past with his crew of workers. Are you disputing that?

 

I posted the statement and sources.

 

He is the text in full:

"US Forest Service "Timber Management Assistant"[75] Lyle Laverty said, "I [and his team of three, in a Jeep] passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th"[76] and noticed no tracks. After reading the news of Patterson's encounter on their weekend break, Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday, the 23rd, and made six photos of the tracks. "

 

Instead of getting into the back and fourth of Lyle L I would like to suggest a point or two:

 

If Lyle L and his crew were in the area, if seems the could have saw a couple guys faking a film and taking the risk to fake or alter tracks. Also, possible the hoaxers could not even be sure they were not being observed.   Now it might also be a Q that if Lyle and co where in the area, why didn't this scare off Patty.  I could be said maybe their activity was what drove Patty to the area of bluff creek where Roger happen to come along.  Most don't suggest the tracks lyle photographed were tracks lyle had any part of faking.   If they were faked they had to be faked by that time.

 

I am a bit surprised at least to my understanding there were not several guys in the crew who reported seeing 'some bigfoot tracks' that day.  We know lyle did only because he claimed to and he took photographs.

 

Fighting about what Lyle L did or didn't see at some precise moment is more of a skeptic trait to dilute what is a pretty strong witness which helps the PGF case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Backdoc,

 

How is the truth "a skeptic trait to dilute a pretty strong witness?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Interestin' find OldMort, didn't recall that one !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
51 minutes ago, Martin said:

Backdoc,

 

How is the truth "a skeptic trait to dilute a pretty strong witness?"

 

 

 

Martin,

 

Can we agree it is the truth that by the time Lyle photographed the tracks, the tracks had to be  1) put there by the creature who made them or 2) the hoaxer who made them.  

 

We know by the time Lyle heard about it, he went back to the bluff creek sight, saw the tracks and took the pics.  He did not see them shortly before

 

I don't have any memory of anyone suggest Lyle L faked any tracks. With no dog in the fight then he would support the fact he saw no cowboys faking tracks while he was in the area.  He supports the fact that just before the filming he did not observe such tracks and shortly after did observe such tracks.  So did his camera.

 

Both side want the truth I guess, but it just seems obvious to me the skeptics need Lyle to have a slightly diff story.  It does not help their case since they need the film to be shot earlier than the time Lyle L sees the tracks near 10/20/67. 

 

*

*    <---------Lyle goes by (no tracks present)

*

*    <----------[ PGF shot ]

*

*  <----------- Lyle goes back (Tracks now present)

*

*

V

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
22 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Martin,

 

Can we agree it is the truth that by the time Lyle photographed the tracks, the tracks had to be  1) put there by the creature who made them or 2) the hoaxer who made them.  

 

We know by the time Lyle heard about it, he went back to the bluff creek sight, saw the tracks and took the pics.  He did not see them shortly before

 

I don't have any memory of anyone suggest Lyle L faked any tracks. With no dog in the fight then he would support the fact he saw no cowboys faking tracks while he was in the area.  He supports the fact that just before the filming he did not observe such tracks and shortly after did observe such tracks.  So did his camera.

 

Both side want the truth I guess, but it just seems obvious to me the skeptics need Lyle to have a slightly diff story.  It does not help their case since they need the film to be shot earlier than the time Lyle L sees the tracks near 10/20/67. 

 

*

*    <---------Lyle goes by (no tracks present)

*

*    <----------[ PGF shot ]

*

*  <----------- Lyle goes back (Tracks now present)

*

*

V

 

 

 

Lyle not noticing any tracks as he drove by the site is very different than no tracks present.

 

By his own admission: "I asked if it was possible that he might have missed seeing the tracks and he responded, "It was possible--it was quite possible."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Just now, Martin said:

 

Lyle not noticing any tracks as he drove by the site is very different than no tracks present.

 

By his own admission: "I asked if it was possible that he might have missed seeing the tracks and he responded, "It was possible--it was quite possible."

 

 

I agree. From this, he is not sure at least in this quote.   But with that  being said, he is not changing his position.   He is just saying 1) He did not see any and 2) it is possible they were there and he didn't see any.

 

This suggest no tracks were present but we both agree if it not certain proof.  I would suggest it is probable no tracks were present but possible there were and they did not see them. All 4 in the Jeep didn't see them. If they were there is would seem we would expect someone to have seen them out of the 4 (maybe).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
7 hours ago, OldMort said:

I am glad you (Dan Perez) posted Jim McClarin's statements last month (June) that Patty's tracks would not have been visible to passengers in Lyle Laverty's Jeep. I had obtained a similar statement from Laverty himself about nine years ago

 

Backdoc, explain how you could determine whether there were or were not footprints present on an elevated sandbar (3 feet) across a creek, well over a 100 feet away from the roadway that is below the line of sight of the sandbar while seated in a  moving vehicle? Here's a view from the road----

 

road.jpg

 

The road is visible in the bottom right of the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

site map.jpg

 

This map confirms the road location,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, Martin said:

 

Lyle not noticing any tracks as he drove by the site is very different than no tracks present.

 

By his own admission: "I asked if it was possible that he might have missed seeing the tracks and he responded, "It was possible--it was quite possible."

 

 

It's just as possible that the tracks were not there on Thursday or Friday morning. The one thing Laverty should have seen were the tracks alongside the water and the first step onto the sandbar because he wasn't 10' from them when he made his turn.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I agree, he might not have seen the tracks earlier simply because they weren't there yet.

 

The tracks started where it took one step up the 28-30 bank, right by the road, strange they wouldn't be visible from the road ? Laverty was in the town of Orleans when he heard about it, so I'm curious how he was able to find the tracks, an just why they weren't supposed to be visible from the road. Be interestin' to read these statements.

 

PGF Early Creek Frame.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

Backdoc, explain how you could determine whether there were or were not footprints present on an elevated sandbar (3 feet) across a creek, well over a 100 feet away from the roadway that is below the line of sight of the sandbar while seated in a  moving vehicle? Here's a view from the road----

 

road.jpg

 

The road is visible in the bottom right of the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

site map.jpg

 

This map confirms the road location,

 

 

Mort, 

 

The diameter of a 1966 jeep tire is 24 inches which is 2 feet.  The bottom of the seat of a 1966 jeep sits higher than the top of the tire.  With this in mind the driver and the other 3 occupants are fairly high off the ground.  I would then put their viewing at  5 foot eye level or so.  It's not like they were crawling on the sand.

 

As as far as the sand bar is concerned I do not read it as a long continuous berm as much as a varied raised area where one would go down into the creek.  Patty was said to start at the creek itself and up the bank when they first spotted her. 

 

I dont know if they sat up high enough to notice any tracks.  I do t know if they could see them had there been any/if they were there.  I can only consider the words of Lyle L who might have been the first person not named patterson or gimlin to see the tracks. It is also possible there was just no chance to see the tracks or at least few of them.  Depending if they were looking that way and the speed of the jeep they may have missed it assuming they could even see it at all.  

 

Pi would just have you consider this before we get into geometry...

I would trust his initial impression as a comparison. That is, he would know the "crime scene" post PGF would show patty AND horse tracks all over the place.  If that scene was there when they went by I would think they would remember it.  

 

I would refer to this difference as "Messy Scene " vs "Clean Scene ".  

 

It it seems reasonable to me the " messy scene"  they saw post PGF would be remembered had they driven by that.  It was not just Patty's feet that made tracks that day.

 

Drive by, clean scene, hear news, go back, messy scene.   <~~~~~~~~~ I think their memory is clear on the scene itself.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Laverty, himself, who drove by before and explored the site after the fact says it was quite possible he had missed them.

 

He would know if he might have missed them or not anything else is pure speculation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

What seems more reasonable?  

 

there is an event where you have multiple horses and a guy running on foot across a creek bed. (you could even take Bigfoot out of the equation and say it was a deer).   Those riding by a couple days before the event do not notice human activity such as Roger's path of running and the horses and so on.  Nothing stands out.  They might even notice such activity since it was 'hunting season' and they might to be aware as such activity could be hunters. The might want to avoid having a bullet 'crack them in their butt'  They see only a creek bed where nothing unusual was present and to them no stand-out human activity.  It's clean.  Then, the report of an event happens. When they go back Now they don't just ONLY notice signs of some footprints of the reported animal.  They also see the more obvious and expected things that go with the encounter.  They (or at least Lyle L. and his camera) see multiple horse prints from multiple horses. They would see cowboy boot tracks that ran across the creek bed and up the other side.

 

With this in mind, when someone states it is possible they missed it, they are just being honest and saying they can't be sure. They say this because they didn't see anything in the first place.  They -having no dog in the fight- are just saying what any of us might say.  "Yea, it's possible I missed it."  That is what honest people do esp those not specifically tied into an event. 

 

Can you at least consider the event left signs beyond just the tracks left by Patty be they visible from the road or not?  To the best we know 4 witnesses have not disputed the fact such signs did not appear before the filming event and did after the report of the filming event.  They were the first to come across the event and the first to see it.  Please consider this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Why not just take the word of Laverty?  He was there on the 19th or 20th and then returned after he found out about the event to document the area the best that he could.

 

He says he quite possibly could have missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
14 minutes ago, Martin said:

Why not just take the word of Laverty?  

 

 

I am. He didn't see any tracks.  No one with him as come forward to dispute this.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...