Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^

 

Do you believe in magical contracting "padded" calves??... :) ...

 

 

PattyRightCalfFootAG1_zpsigbst98m.gif

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

Quote

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

 

 

Why does Heironimus fail every test of his claim to be Patty.....such as his highly-conflicted stories...and his physical comparisons?  

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

 

1 hour ago, Martin said:

 

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.

Martin,

 

That goes both ways Martin, we have skeptics here who don't even believe they exist, talk about confirmation bias...it's all fake because they don't exist. haha ! Let's not forget our intransigent skeptic, he literally tries to make up his own facts based on his opinion..."The hoaxing of Jerry Merritt is a fact. Only the exact details of who and how are not established with certainty."  but also said this..."You're trying to inflict an opinion as a fact..."  ha ! ha ! :huh:

 

I agree, I'm glad Knight's asked Laverty, it's funny that down inside he didn't want the truth, yet he lucky for us, sought out the truth...oh my !

 

As eager as the skeptic who just praised a footer for askin' questions seekin' the truth, while in the same breath...sayin footers don't like the truth !

 

I would think, others might think it a absolutely useless question Marrtin. No offense meant, but what possible reason would one want to ask such a question ? Why in the world would he wear the costume on the Patty trip ? They went lookin' to film tracks. You have mentioned this question a number of times, have you looked at images of Bob while they were out there, does it look like he has a long haired wig on ? When I had long hair, it hung down my back. Have you ever had long hair ?

Does it look like he has a long haired wig on here Martin ?

 

Pat...

Gimlin at Bluff Creek.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

One reason is IF Gimlin had the costume during the trip it would mean that that was one less time they had to borrow Chico.

 

Straight question to Gimlin should be:

 

Did you wear the Indian tracker costume on the Patty trip? Yes or No

 

A direct question with no qualifying statements and wait for the answer. That might be beyond a footer to do because it is a simple yes on no answer with no space for wiggle room. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
On 2017-05-09 at 8:55 AM, Martin said:

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.

 

What Laverty is saying is that it is possible he may have missed the tracks and its possible that the tracks were not there at that time. It's an open ended argument that has not definite ending.

1 hour ago, Martin said:

One reason is IF Gimlin had the costume during the trip it would mean that that was one less time they had to borrow Chico.

 

Straight question to Gimlin should be:

 

Did you wear the Indian tracker costume on the Patty trip? Yes or No

 

A direct question with no qualifying statements and wait for the answer. That might be beyond a footer to do because it is a simple yes on no answer with no space for wiggle room. 

 

The answer is "No" - Gimlin did not wear a wig and /or an Indian costume on the Bluff Creek trip. I find that question an idiotic one that there is no justification for even asking it. What's next - Gimlin had a fetish for wearing Indian clothing to bed because no one who saw him on that trip ever claimed he was dressed like an Indian.

Share this post


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

 

What Laverty is saying is that it is possible he may have missed the tracks and its possible that the tracks were not there at that time. It's an open ended argument that has not definite ending.

 

That is exactly what I have been saying bigfoot hunter.

 

What was your source when you made this claim:

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

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

 

 

 

The film of the subject walking the sandbar was filmed Friday afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
44 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

The film of the subject walking the sandbar was filmed Friday afternoon.

 

More specifically then:

 

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.

 

What was your source for your claims #1 and #2?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Martin,

 

Does it look like he is wearin' a long haired wig here ?

 

Pat...

Gimlin at Bluff Creek.jpg

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Wild Guess Q:

 

Anyone have an idea how fast the jeep (or any jeep) would reasonably be traveling along the road running by Bluff Creek at the film site in 1967?

 

I ask this because obviously if someone is going highway speeds 60pmh = about 90 feet each second.  That is little time to see something on the side of the road so to speak.

 

If the Jeep was running at a fairly slower speed it would give more time to see details at the PGF site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

An if they had been passin' that area all summer like Laverty said, it would be much likely for them to notice any differences.  

Share this post


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

The film of the subject walking the sandbar was filmed Friday afternoon.

 

You have claimed on at least 4 occasions that Laverty walked on the film site on Thursday or Friday before the film was shot. Here they are:

 

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.

 

Where did you get the information that he walked on the site rather than driving by it? You have been asked by more than one person to provide your source.

The sad truth is that you can't provide one because you made it up...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Let's just get an answer BFH.  Your notorious for following ppl around asking them questions over and over.  This is something you should have no problem answering no and get it over with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
6 hours ago, Martin said:

 

That is exactly what I have been saying bigfoot hunter.

 

What was your source when you made this claim:

 

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

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

The film of the subject walking the sandbar was filmed Friday afternoon.

 

 

daoqi.jpg

Share this post


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

 

You have claimed on at least 4 occasions that Laverty walked on the film site on Thursday or Friday before the film was shot. Here they are:

 

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.

 

Where did you get the information that he walked on the site rather than driving by it? You have been asked by more than one person to provide your source.

The sad truth is that you can't provide one because you made it up...

 

 

That information came from other sources. I stopped posting that information once it had been posted that Laverty had rode by the site.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

haha Speakin' of Dodge...remember the Fratzog...

-Fratzog (1962-1976): The next symbol, a fractured deltoid shape commonly compared to a rocket or triangle, was named the Fratzog. If you’re wondering what that word means (it sounds German, doesn’t it?), it’s totally meaningless. The designer made up the gibberish term due to being obligated to come up with a name. Again, there are still many conspiracy theories about it…

Image result for dodge fratzog logo

The totally meaningless made up gibberish reminded me of...

 

"The reason I brought the suit home in the trunk of the car is because, after they went back and made the tracks they headed for town to announce they had filmed the bigfoot. They didn't want anybody seeing that maybe taking a chance on having somebody see it. So I brought it home in the trunk of the car."

 

And when asked "So you mean they announced that they had filmed Bigfoot before the film was developed ?"

 

Heironimus replied "Uh, yes."

 

Heironimus...1st week of Oct...2nd week of Oct...3rd week of Oct...possibly as early a Sept... :huh:

 

hahaha !

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...