Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Really, just because he says it's possible he missed them doesn't mean he did miss them. He sure didn't miss them Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

But he and his crew sure missed Patterson and Gimlin supposedly looking for Really, Really, Real Bigfoots for what Gimlin tells us was three weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

 "I think that now there's no reason for maintaining confidentiality, because it's important for Bigfooters and skeptics to know the truth, and because I want to undo my Bigfoot Times article of 9/2006, in which I claimed that Laverty's failure to see the tracks on Thursday or Friday morning discredited Heironimus's claim that the tracks had been laid down days or weeks in advance of Oct. 20.": 

 

The bolded statement above is the real issue here. For many years proponents here have pushed the idea that Laverty's failure to see the tracks on the 19th or 20th proves somehow that they could not have been made prior to that and thereby negates Bob H's claim of being in the suit. It has been used as one of the cornerstones of the argument against Heironimus's involvement.

 

Since when has someone's ability or inability to notice something that wasn't there (when they weren't specifically looking for it), ever stood up as reasonable evidence?

 

The troubling but not surprising revelation here is, that for years, the "facts" have been twisted and modified in order to support a certain conclusion.

 

Statements such as these by Bigfoot Hunter are false and intentionally misleading and are not supported in any way by the facts.

 

 

1. "But like I told Crowlogic, there is a narrow window of time from the time period Laverty says he walked over the site when no tracks were present to the time Patterson was forced to leave the area and go home due to the rains that came. It would be fair to say less than 24 hrs."

 

 

2. Furthermore - In a response about Heironimus claiming the film had been shot weeks earlier, Laverty said that an earlier filming date was impossible for he and his crew were working in that area as late as Friday morning (10/20/67). Laverty said he walked over that site and there were no footprints on it at that time. When he returned there on Monday (10/ 23/67) - the tracks were now there.

 

 

 

3. That window closes a little more considering that from the time Laverty walked over the site to the time Roger stopped at Hodgins Hardware Store on the evening of 10/20/67 is when the track-way had to of been made. The conspiracy arises from those who can't or didn't bother to make a time-line based on several events that took place in the record.

 

4.when it was shot was after Thursday or Friday morning when Lyle Laverty said he walked the spot where the film was taken and there were no footprints there at that time

.

"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,"

 

 

We know conclusively that Laverty merely drove by the film site in a jeep.

Please cite where Laverty stated that he "walked the site.", 

 

  

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
24 minutes ago, kitakaze said:

But he and his crew sure missed Patterson and Gimlin supposedly looking for Really, Really, Real Bigfoots for what Gimlin tells us was three weeks.

 

Patterson and Gimlin           =       Moving

Bluff Creek Tracks               =       Stationary (not moving)

Kit                                        =        All over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

He most likely can't but don't worry he'll find a way to muddy the water and post some wacky picture.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
27 minutes ago, OldMort said:

  For many years proponents here have pushed the idea that Laverty's failure to see the tracks on the 19th or 20th proves somehow that they could not have been made prior to that .....

 

 

Mort,

 

He /They could have missed them.

 

I do think we need to define just what 'It' or 'them' is. 

I get the feeling people continue to think what Lyle and Crew should have seen are the Patty tracks.  Those tracks they reason are hard to see.  Fair enough. But for me at least we need look at what they would really be seeing.

 

I would suggest the following would be seen at the bigfoot encounter:

1)  Patty tracks

 

AND the following...

 

2)  3 horses tracks

3)  Roger's running across the sandbar and down to the creek tracks

4)  Rogers running up the other side and squat/ repositioning tracks

5) Gimlin's tracks from his dismount/ "cover me" time during the filming on the other side of the creek

6) Stomp test tracks

7) Traces of plaster from casting done by Gimlin and Bob

8- Further horse tracks of Gimlin going further down the creek to follow Patty from a distance.

9) Tracks to round up the horses.

 

 

Now the Q for me is this: 

Could someone go right by JUST #1 on that list and miss it?  Yes

Could someone go by with 3 other people 1-9 and all miss it?  This I really doubt.

 

We need to define just what is being missed here.

Edited by Backdoc
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^ The only person who would know that answers is Laverty. He said it was quite possible he missed it.

 

The only reason that people continue to think Laverty should have seen the tracks is because footerlore requires there to be no tracks prior to the 20th.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

^ The only person who would know that answers is Laverty.

 

 

Yea, certainly the other 3 individuals should have no opinion on the matter.  I guess we are to assume they had blindfolds on.

Also, Laverty once again said he did not see the tracks to repeat the point. 

 

Keep in mind, the things I have listed in my post from 1-9 are ALL what would be seen.   That is why Lyle was able to find the spot without seeing the dang film.   You do understand that right?

 

3 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

He said it was quite possible he missed it.

 

To this we assume he was responding to the Bigfoot tracks themselves as he was Q about those. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Martin said:

The only reason that people continue to think Laverty should have seen the tracks is because footerlore requires there to be no tracks prior to the 20th.

 

 

No, we just tend to believe Lyle when he actually stated they were not there.  We consider no other person of the 3 in the jeep with him have come forward to say otherwise.  Are you saying had he seen tracks we should not believe him?  Just tell me when it is OK to believe him and when it is not.

 

You seem to see this as an agenda thing instead of a issue thing.  Do the statements made (esp fairly early on) tend to line up with the physical evidence and the film to the best we can reasonable tell?

 

I understand why it is so critical for you to need to have Lyle go right by 1-9 on the list and he and his 3 others sitting up in a jeep somehow just missed this.  We get it.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Can you show a quote directly from Laverty saying the tracks were not there on the 19th or 20th as he drove by and not a paraphrased comment by a bigfooter?

 

The statements I find from early on are like Bigfoothunters claim of Laverty walking the sand bar instead of driving past the site on his way to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Martin,

 

We haven't seen much in regards to direct quotes from Laverty himself, we have Roger Knights sayin' Laverty said '' It was possible, it was quite possible." An we have claims from knight an McClarin the tracks wouldn't be visible from the road.

You said..."He said it was quite possible he missed it." Is it also possible he didn't notice all the tracks because there were non to be seen yet ? 

 

With regards to the comment above that Laverty an crew sure missed Patterson an Gimlin for possibly up to three weeks, simply could suggest like they had claimed, they had only been in the area earlier. Nothin' placin' them at the site earlier for this two part hoaxed theory.

 

Pat... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Pat,

 

Laverty not noticing any tracks isn't a big deal.  

 

Laverty walked the sandbar vs Laverty drove by in a jeep..... huge difference. 

 

The big question is just how much of the data base has been corrupted by confirmation bias? 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Martin,

 

Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin'...we should disregard anythin' verbal an just stick with the film ! haha ! ;) 

 

I often wonder about how much valuable information/evidence has been lost to time, unrecognized for its value back in the day.

 

Pat... 

Share this post


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

 

The troubling but not surprising revelation here is, that for years, the "facts" have been twisted and modified in order to support a certain conclusion.

 

Statements such as these by Bigfoot Hunter are false and intentionally misleading and are not supported in any way by the facts.

 

 

1. "But like I told Crowlogic, there is a narrow window of time from the time period Laverty says he walked over the site when no tracks were present to the time Patterson was forced to leave the area and go home due to the rains that came. It would be fair to say less than 24 hrs."

 

 

2. Furthermore - In a response about Heironimus claiming the film had been shot weeks earlier, Laverty said that an earlier filming date was impossible for he and his crew were working in that area as late as Friday morning (10/20/67). Laverty said he walked over that site and there were no footprints on it at that time. When he returned there on Monday (10/ 23/67) - the tracks were now there.

 

 

 

3. That window closes a little more considering that from the time Laverty walked over the site to the time Roger stopped at Hodgins Hardware Store on the evening of 10/20/67 is when the track-way had to of been made. The conspiracy arises from those who can't or didn't bother to make a time-line based on several events that took place in the record.

 

4.when it was shot was after Thursday or Friday morning when Lyle Laverty said he walked the spot where the film was taken and there were no footprints there at that time

.

"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,"

 

 

We know conclusively that Laverty merely drove by the film site in a jeep.

Please cite where Laverty stated that he "walked the site.", 

 

  

 

 

 

Getting BH to admit spreading false information will be as likely as an acknowledgement of a warped understanding of what constitutes firsthand knowledge while telling others their understanding is in error. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
13 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Martin,

 

Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin'...we should disregard anythin' verbal an just stick with the film ! haha ! ;) 

 

I often wonder about how much valuable information/evidence has been lost to time, unrecognized for its value back in the day.

 

Pat... 

 

We sure know that confirmation bias kept a lot of questions from even being considered and footers have never even noticed.

 

Luckily Roger Knight'so asked Laverty happened on the 19th or 20th when he rode byou because footerlore was being created that he walked the sandbar.

 

Down inside footers don't like this truth. Are footers truth seekers? Are they eager to confirm their own beliefs?

 

Was Gimlin wearing his Indian costume on the Patty trip? Footers need to ask themselves why they refuse to ask him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Did he have the wig on at Hodgson's?

Did they discuss the bent stirrup Patterson brought out for Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy?

Why did Gimlin consider Heironimus a close, trusted friend for so many years?

Can you pick a story why you rode his horse at Bluff Creek?

Soaring maverick thinkers should ask....

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...