Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Okiefoot wrote:

Quote

This means besides Roger, we have four other people (this includes Bob Gimlin) that were actually present or spoke directly to Roger by phone that could have confirmed Roger's activities and whereabouts on the evening/night of the 20th. That isn't hearsay. I'm curious if any of these people besides Bob G. had ever been interviewed and asked about meeting Roger that night. I'm also not aware of anyone that has ever pointed to anything that disputed any of this happening as said. 

 

Al Hodgeson had been interviewed, many years ago, Okie...and did corroborate Roger's claim....that he met with him on Friday, the 20th.  :) 

 

So, if Roger was not in the Bluff Creek area on the 20th....then Al had to have been in on the "hoax/deception".  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
34 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

Okiefoot wrote:

 

Al Hodgeson had been interviewed, many years ago, Okie...and did corroborate Roger's claim....that he met with him on Friday, the 20th.  :) 

 

So, if Roger was not in the Bluff Creek area on the 20th....then Al had to have been in on the "hoax/deception".  

 

 

 

Thanks Sweaty. You're right; if Roger was nowhere around Bluff Creek on the 20th, then Al H. had to be in on the hoax. That would make Al H,. at the very least, the 5th person on the "hoax participant list", (behind Roger, Bob, the suitmaker and the actor in the suit. ;))

I'd also bet Syl McCoy would have corroborated Roger's claim of the meeting at the Ranger Station on the 20th; assuming he wasn't asked by an interviewer or some other interested party about the meeting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
20 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

Thanks Sweaty. You're right; if Roger was nowhere around Bluff Creek on the 20th, then Al H. had to be in on the hoax. That would make Al H,. at the very least, the 5th person on the "hoax participant list", (behind Roger, Bob, the suitmaker and the actor in the suit. ;))

I'd also bet Syl McCoy would have corroborated Roger's claim of the meeting at the Ranger Station on the 20th; assuming he wasn't asked by an interviewer or some other interested party about the meeting. 

 

 

You're welcome, Okie. :) 

 

You're most likely right, about Syl McCoy. He was probably asked about meeting with Roger that night.

 

You can also add Bob Titmus to the list of PGF "co-conspirators"... ;) ....since he claimed to have followed Patty's tracks up onto the mountainside.....to a point where she apparently "sat down among the ferns"...

 

Quote

My first full day up near the end of Bluff Creek, I missed the tracks completely. I walked some 14 to 16 miles on Bluff Creek and the many feeder creeks coming into it and found nothing of any particular interest other than the fact that Roger and Bob's horse tracks were everywhere I went. I found the place where the pictures had been taken and the tracks of Bigfoot the following morning. The tracks traversed a little more than 300 feet of a rather high sand, silt and gravel bar which had a light scattering of trees growing on it, no underbrush whatever but a considerable amount of drift debris here and there. The tracks then crossed Bluff Creek and an old logging road and continued up a steep mountainside.

This is heavily timbered with some underbrush and a deep carpet of ferns. About 80 or 90 feet above the creek and logging road there was very plain evidence where Bigfoot had sat down for some time among the ferns. He was apparently watching the two men below and across the creek from him. The distance would have been approximately 125-150 yards. His position was shadowed and well screened from observation from below. His tracks continued on up the mountain but I did not follow them far. I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar. It was not difficult to find the exact spot where Roger was standing when he was taking his pictures and he was in an excellent position.

I spent hours that day examining the tracks, which, for the most part, were still in very good condition considering that they were 9 or 10 days old. Roger and Bob had covered a few of them with slabs of bark etc., and these were in excellent condition. The tracks appeared perfectly natural and normal. The same as the many others that we have tracked and become so familiar with over the years, but of a slightly different size. Most of the tracks showed a great deal of foot movement, some showed a little and a few indicated almost no movement whatever. I took plaster casts of ten consecutive imprints and the casts show a vast difference in each imprint, such as toe placement, toe gripping force, pressure ridges and breaks, weight shifts, weight distribution, depth, etc. Nothing whatever here indicated that these tracks could have been faked in some manner. In fact all of the evidence pointed in the opposite direction. And no amount of thinking and imagining on my part could conceive of a method by which these tracks could have been made fictitiously.

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_faq.HTM

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Bob Titmus failed to bring neither a camera or a tape measure to the PGF filmsite.

 

Bob titmus arrived days after and Bob Titmus’ abysmal track record :) as a tracker of Bf is its own thread.

 

Following OldMort’s inclination toward a Sunday processing is curious. If Roger had a Kodak friend able to do an early Sunday mix and print that might fly...

 

But the guests. Who had already been invited the [day?] before...

 

Seems like a long shot to me.

 

Id wager that Rog and Al had the whole thing processed and in the can before they invited Green et al. That is to say, they already knew they had something on film. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

My guess is they were faking the trackway on the 20th, setting up the eureka times cover story for the following day and going by Al Hodgson’s store to create a furvor.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^Whines about someone goin' to investigate the film site, haha, typical.

 

Titmus also showed the tracks to his sister an brother-in-law who also wanted to have a look. Halbritter, a hunter, walked along the tracks as a experiment to try an match their depth, a 200 pounder, he couldn't come close. Guess these things are irrelevant as well haha !

 

It's funny, if Roger new someone who could develop it on sunday secretly...that's works !    "That is to say, they already knew they had something on film."  Then why the need to first show it to Roger sunday before the others ?

 

His guess...haha ! My guess is he still hasn't figured how they would have created the tracks let alone understood the physical characteristics found in them. As quite simply, it was not common knowledge, matter of fact, scientists argued against the physical traits bein' found in bipedal primates, until only recently. These are facts we've come to know decades after the film. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
11 hours ago, PBeaton said:

^Whines about someone goin' to investigate the film site, haha, typical.

 

Titmus also showed the tracks to his sister an brother-in-law who also wanted to have a look. Halbritter, a hunter, walked along the tracks as a experiment to try an match their depth, a 200 pounder, he couldn't come close. Guess these things are irrelevant as well haha !

 

It's funny, if Roger new someone who could develop it on sunday secretly...that's works !    "That is to say, they already knew they had something on film."  Then why the need to first show it to Roger sunday before the others ?

 

His guess...haha ! My guess is he still hasn't figured how they would have created the tracks let alone understood the physical characteristics found in them. As quite simply, it was not common knowledge, matter of fact, scientists argued against the physical traits bein' found in bipedal primates, until only recently. These are facts we've come to know decades after the film. 

 

 

I remember you mentioning this in the past; that the tracks showed anatomical primate characteristics that were not known at that time.

The key question on this still defies a logical explanation after 50+ yrs.; If the primate characteristics in the tracks weren't common knowledge at that time, where would Roger have learned of them, and attained such a high level of knowledge about them that that he was able to properly and convincingly incorporate them into fake tracks?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

In the Quote/paragraph posted by SY, it would appear Titmus mentions the tracks and bark connection.  

 

My Q is 'what does Timus mean by it?'  Is he saying the tracks were in pretty good shape and he was aware some where covered by bark being the reason why they were in good shape OR is he saying some tracks were covered by bark when he first saw them?

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
On 2/10/2019 at 9:45 AM, SweatyYeti said:

 

You're welcome, Okie. :) 

 

You're most likely right, about Syl McCoy. He was probably asked about meeting with Roger that night.

 

You can also add Bob Titmus to the list of PGF "co-conspirators"... ;) ....since he claimed to have followed Patty's tracks up onto the mountainside.....to a point where she apparently "sat down among the ferns"...

 

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_faq.HTM

 

I can't help but think if Syl McCoy had ever contradicted Al Hodgson about meeting Roger on the 20th, that it would have been known long ago.  Think a skeptic would have simply ignored it? ;)

 

I think it's very interesting, and telling, that we have some corroboration for Roger's activities as all happening on the 20th and no corroboration for any of this happening on any day prior to the 20th. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^^ I don't recall any of the mean skeptics here, or anyone for that matter ever questioning if P and G were truly at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek or at Syl McCoys' the evening of the 20th.

 

What exactly is their presence there supposed to prove in your opinion?

 

Hodgson "corroborates"  their visit here: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/interview-with-al-hodgson-mr-bigfoot-of.html

 

Hodgson's story however, is quite different than the one Gimlin has been telling for decades.

 

"Corroborate" - To confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)

 

As far as the shipping of the film, all we have is the "word" of Gimlin.

 

Since Gimlin was admittedly a participant in this alleged activity he cannot be used to corroborate his own story.

 

Remarkably, we have no witnesses to this event, nor do we have a record of any flight to Yakima that night or of a film being shipped there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
6 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

I can't help but think if Syl McCoy had ever contradicted Al Hodgson about meeting Roger on the 20th, that it would have been known long ago.  Think a skeptic would have simply ignored it? ;)

 

I'm sure they wouldn't ignore a contradiction like that, Okie....(if one such contradiction did exist). :) 

 

 

Quote

I think it's very interesting, and telling, that we have some corroboration for Roger's activities as all happening on the 20th and no corroboration for any of this happening on any day prior to the 20th. 

  

 

Well, we do have corroboration for Roger and Bob being in the Bluff Creek area on October 20th...and for them talking with a few people....but we don't have any corroboration for their claim of actually having shot, and mailed, the film on the 20th. 

I'm not saying that I doubt their accounting of events.....only that we don't have any corroboration of those two details, from Al Hodgeson...or Syl McCoy. 

 

And, I agree with you, Okie...that there is no evidence...(of any substance)…indicating a pre-20th filming date.  The color of the foliage in the PGF is consistent with a filming date of October 20th....(as opposed to a week earlier). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

Sweaty, while it is true there is no corroboration for the actual mailing of the film we do know this:

We have zero that says the film was done and shipped before the 20th and we have a developed film at Al D.'s house two days later. My contention is why should we believe a scenario of an earlier filming and shipping date that has zero evidence to support it?

It's ironic there are some that want to believe a scenario that has nothing to support it yet don't want to believe a scenario that does have some support for it. 

For me, a lack of details does not automatically mean lies and fabricated stories and conspiracy.  

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
17 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^ I don't recall any of the mean skeptics here, or anyone for that matter ever questioning if P and G were truly at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek or at Syl McCoys' the evening of the 20th.

 

What exactly is their presence there supposed to prove in your opinion?

 

Hodgson "corroborates"  their visit here: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/interview-with-al-hodgson-mr-bigfoot-of.html

 

Hodgson's story however, is quite different than the one Gimlin has been telling for decades.

 

"Corroborate" - To confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)

 

As far as the shipping of the film, all we have is the "word" of Gimlin.

 

Since Gimlin was admittedly a participant in this alleged activity he cannot be used to corroborate his own story.

 

Remarkably, we have no witnesses to this event, nor do we have a record of any flight to Yakima that night or of a film being shipped there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To my thinking, the significance of Roger being at Al Hodgson's store in Willow Creek on the 20th is because shipping off the film was the biggest reason Roger was in Willow Creek. From Willow Creek, it was only about 45 miles driving distance to Eureka so it wasn't very far to go. My impression was he stopped at Al H.'s store to call Al DeAtley to let Al D. know he was shipping off a film. And then Roger and Bob went off to ship the film. If I'm wrong on Roger calling Al D. from the store, then someone correct me. Al D. just seems to make the most sense.

 

If we look at a scenario that Roger actually shipped off the film on a different day than the 20th, then Roger had no reason to go to Willow Creek on the 20th. Yet we know he was in Willow Creek on the 20th. He would have called Al D. on whatever day he shipped the film. He also could have called the newspaper reporter on whatever day he shipped the film.

 

 

Edited by OkieFoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
12 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

^^

Sweaty, while it is true there is no corroboration for the actual mailing of the film we do know this:

We have zero that says the film was done and shipped before the 20th and we have a developed film at Al D.'s house two days later. My contention is why should we believe a scenario of an earlier filming and shipping date that has zero evidence to support it?

It's ironic there are some that want to believe a scenario that has nothing to support it yet don't want to believe a scenario that does have some support for it. 

For me, a lack of details does not automatically mean lies and fabricated stories and conspiracy.  

 

 

I agree, Okie....there is no evidence...of any substance...which indicates a pre-20th filming date.

 

And, there are problems with any pre-20th filming date scenarios. A day or two earlier wouldn't make any sense...because, what would be the point?? What would Roger and Bob have gained, from waiting 1 or 2 days before announcing the shooting of the footage? 

 

It couldn't have been shot more than a week earlier....because then the color of the tree foliage wouldn't have matched with what is seen in the footage....(the filmsite could have been visited within a day or two after the 20th).

 

So, that really only leaves a 'time window'....(for a pre-20th shoot)....of something in the range of about 4 - 6 days earlier. And again...what would be the advantage, for Roger to try to pull such a deception?? Roger and Bob would have to have stayed at Bluff Creek...it would have been impractical for them to travel back to Yakima, to assess what they had on film...and then to turn around, and drive all the way back to Bluff Creek. 

 

And, if they stayed at Bluff Creek for those 5 days, or so....who was going to "let them know how the suit looked", on film.....Al DeAtley? He knows nothing about costumes/suits....and, to boot...he has always maintained that he thinks the film is a hoax. :wacko:

 

So, the 'pre-20th filming date' scenario has one major problem.....it makes absolutely no sense. :)

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
BFF Patron
On 2/11/2019 at 6:42 PM, OkieFoot said:

 

I can't help but think if Syl McCoy had ever contradicted Al Hodgson about meeting Roger on the 20th, that it would have been known long ago.  Think a skeptic would have simply ignored it? ;)

 

I think it's very interesting, and telling, that we have some corroboration for Roger's activities as all happening on the 20th and no corroboration for any of this happening on any day prior to the 20th. 

  

 

I honestly do not get the whole point of this thread.  The video exists and it certainly is not CGI.  We know how and with what equipment it was made (ok, the speed of the film is still not 100% nailed down).  We know the exact spot of the video.  Depending on your perception, it may or may not show evidence of a BF.  I understand both perspectives.  Please explain to me why it matters when it was shot and developed.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...