Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

norseman
11 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Looks just like what was filmed in the Chena River. Must be a rope, huh?

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah, thresher sharks exist. I've caught one. California has a significant thresher shark fishery. But I've never seen one that BIG!

 

Sasquatches exist, too. I've seen trace evidence. Thousands of people have seen them. They are part and parcel of aboriginal history. 

 

Thus, in accordance with the denial entitled to me that so many others have expressed with sasquatchery that we see regularly, I say that the thresher shark in your pic is a hoax. Using the exact same logic (verbatim) that the genius Faenor used on this form, I suggest that your pic depicts a white shark in a thresher shark suit, and by their rules, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the thresher shark in your pic is real.

 

 

I would say that the video you provided and the Iceland video are the same thing. Yes.

 

The thresher I ate was in Ventura, Ca.

 

Ive seen Bigfoot trace evidence too. That’s why we should shoot one and prove they are real.

 

Well, since it is not my photo? I’m gonna have to capitulate that it is indeed a great white shark in a thresher shark costume.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On 5/6/2019 at 6:00 PM, Bill said:

First, there's only one film reel confirmed, a second one widely rumored but not confirmed, and no evidence of a third reel.

 

Bill,

 

Regardin' the second reel you suggest is "widely rumored but not confirmed". Based on study of reel one, you will agree, what reel two shows/the tracks, is not on the first reel correct ? 

So we can safely establish what is on real one, does not show what is seen in your unconfirmed second reel. Yet we have images from a second reel showin' the tracks, the castin', the walkin' along side the tracks etc. This second film was described by those who had watched it back in the day, some frames of the trackway still remain.

You've talked to Bob Gimlin about the second reel footage I'm sure Bill. Myself, I've talked Bob regardin' the second reel, talked to John Green about the second reel as well, he only recalled seein' it once. . 

So I find it strange you find the second reel a unconfirmed rumor. 

 

Pat...

(ps:Sorry, I skimmed a lot)

 

 

 

Bigpgfdaily1a (3).jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pat:

 

The footage of a trackway, Roger casting a footprint, and Roger holding two casts while standing by a tree, all are absolutely confirmed to exist. But there is a question of whether they were on the second reel, or another reel. There's a discrepency of Roger's beard shadow or lack of same that makes us question if his casting scene was filmed at Bluff creek, and there are issues with the shadows of the shot of Roger holding two casts which suggest it may have been filmed at night by a powerful artificial light, like a parking lot 2K lamp. The footprint trackway is about the only footage we can reliably assume was taken that afternoon with the second reel. But we only have 5.5 feet of footage, and by all logic, Roger should have filmed a lot more of the trackway. 

 

We have an intact copy of reel one, so we are certain what was on it, 8 horse and rider segments, and then the Bluff Creek encounter (in 6 segments). We are not certain what was in the second reel, the order, or what accounts for the missing 75 feet.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
Posted (edited)

Bill,

You an I have both talked to Bob about the second reel(independently). I expect you talked to John about what he recalled of seeing the second reel that one time as well. 

 

So we both know..."But we only have 5.5 feet of footage, and by all logic, Roger should have filmed a lot more of the trackway." is actually incorrect, as we know much more was filmed, as it was witnessed by multiple witnesses. You're 5.5 feet of second reel footage is merely a section that remains that we have seen. We know the second reel depicted more, as described by the witnesses. So we know for a fact Roger...by all logic, filmed more than what you suggest Bill, because it was described by multiple witnesses.   

 

🍻

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

with no disrespect to witnesses, I base my analysis on the empirical evidence I can hold in my hand. So all I can say with certainty is there's 5.5 feet of trackway footage. Assuming what you say is correct, it confirms my assumption there's more, but then we must wonder why if there's more, it's never been released or shown, or discovered in any archive of footage, not Roger's, not Green's, not dahinden's, not the Russians who got footage from dahinden, not the ANE company, nobody. Curious.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
12 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

So we both know..."But we only have 5.5 feet of footage, and by all logic, Roger should have filmed a lot more of the trackway." is actually incorrect, as we know much more was filmed, as it was witnessed by multiple witnesses. You're 5.5 feet of second reel footage is merely a section that remains that we have seen. We know the second reel depicted more, as described by the witnesses. So we know for a fact Roger...by all logic, filmed more than what you suggest Bill, because it was described by multiple witnesses.   

 

 

 

Let me start by saying I more than trust Pat and Bill and many others who I consider pretty darn knowledgeable on this stuff.  If you expect more track footage than I would bet there is more and hope one day it would pop up.  I do have a couple Q on it though:

 

1)  Is it true the actual run of footprints at Bluff Creek that day was a short distance?  That is, the total number of identifiable tracks were not 1000's but a short distance in the early part of the PGF only as I understand it.  Patty went from the loamy creekbed soil to more hardpacked soil.  Didn't she walk most of the distance on a hardpacked road?   That way maybe there was not a long run of footprints stretching for 100 yards but just a short run (10-15 yards?).   I don't really know.  I am thinking then tracks were only present in the first part of the film to maybe just after the turn back segment

 

2)  When the early viewing was done of the film, is it possible the PGF made such an impression on the viewers the film of the footprints and so on was the last thing they were focused on?  That is, maybe the trackway we have is all the trackway they actually filmed.  I just wondered even though Reel #2 might have been viewed in those early viewings memories on that reel #2 are distorted since i have to think nearly all the focus was on Reel #1.   I am just throwing out there if it is possible we assume there is a lot more reel 2 trackway footage based on 1) the memory of others who at the time might have really been focusing on the amazement of reel 1    2) a trackway that was a long Patty walk but only left footprints in the first section from which I think 2 casts were made by Roger.  In that way Roger might have thought to get some fairly close up filming of those tracks looking down and into them.   Roger filming 5 tracks (and having made plaster casts of 2 of them) might have been Roger thinking he had a decent amount of the tracks filmed close up.  He might have thought he had those documented pretty good.  He might not have saw any value in film more of a panorama trackway even though it is something we can now wish he did.  He also might have been saving some of this film in case they had another sighting.  

 

I am just wondering IF some of this could explain why we expect more track footage where none has turned up.  Maybe early witnesses think there was more and maybe there was.  But maybe, they were so focused on Patty memories of the track footage expectations of length grow with time.

 

Possible? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

My expectation of more trackway footage is a simple filmmaker's philosophy of shooting more footage of what you cannot duplicate later. We know there's only 5.5' of trackway footage documented so far, but Roger had somebody film 16' of film showing him standing by a tree holding two casts, which could have been re-filmed anytime later after the event. The trackway was perishable and far more crucial evidence to preserve that day, so all logic would suggest he should shoot as much trackway as his film and camera would allow. Shooting half the reel would have been reasonable, to document as much trackway as possible.

 

On that basis, I expect that more was filmed.

 

Now why everyone who has trackway footage has the exact same 5.5' of it, and nobody has a different segment, is a mystery I cannot solve yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)

Wouldn't the best approach be for one of you who have his confidence (Bill or Pat) to ask Gimlin about it in detail?

 

After all, it was he who admittedly did some of the filming that day.

 

What was filmed and how much footage existed? Did they finish the entire roll?

 

Those kinds of questions shouldn't be that challenging or intrusive for Bob to answer, at least in my opinion...

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


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

My expectation of more trackway footage is a simple filmmaker's philosophy of shooting more footage of what you cannot duplicate later. We know there's only 5.5' of trackway footage documented so far, but Roger had somebody film 16' of film showing him standing by a tree holding two casts, which could have been re-filmed anytime later after the event. The trackway was perishable and far more crucial evidence to preserve that day, so all logic would suggest he should shoot as much trackway as his film and camera would allow. Shooting half the reel would have been reasonable, to document as much trackway as possible.

 

On that basis, I expect that more was filmed.

 

Now why everyone who has trackway footage has the exact same 5.5' of it, and nobody has a different segment, is a mystery I cannot solve yet.

 

I hope you are right Bill.  That way there is a chance more may come into our view and consideration.   I guess it might explain why Roger was wanting to sleep vs preserving the tracks from the rain with cardboard.  Roger might have already banked plenty of film on this along with some plaster prints so he was more than satisfied he had plenty if the rain washed them away.

 

 

34 minutes ago, OldMort said:

Wouldn't the best approach be for one of you who have his confidence (Bill or Pat) to ask Gimlin about it in detail?

 

After all, it was he who admittedly did some of the filming that day.

 

What was filmed and how much footage existed? Did they finish the entire roll?

 

Those kinds of questions shouldn't be that challenging or intrusive for Bob to answer, at least in my opinion...

 

 

 

 

 

Great thoughts OM.

 

I am curious what Gimlin did film post-encounter if anything.  Certainly not the stomp test if I understand right he was the one doing the stump stomping.   

 

Also, even though weather prediction was crude in the day, did they know or suspect it was going to rain the night or the next day?  Clearly someone must have or Al would not have offered or maybe suggested to take the cardboard back to the site.  (Maybe that was Gimlin's idea).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

It could have happened maybe two ways: The low sun angle on Roger holding the foot casts could mean that the casting material was set up enough at the end of the day on the 20th to dig out and handle? Or Bob covered the footprint casts early in the morning on the 21st and the sun angle was a morning situation when the casts were released. It would mean Bob went out to cover the prints especially to preserve the castings?

 

My understanding is that they had to return 3 miles to camp to get the plaster for making the casts which would mean they lost about 2 hours of daylight before returning to the footprint location. Depending on how long it took the casting material to set up enough to handle the sun angle late in the day on the 20th would make sense. So please refresh my memory on just when the footprint casts were removed from the ground.  The late afternoon on the 20th? Or early in the morning of the 21st. Obviously the filming of the tracks and the application of the casting material was on the 20th but I'm not clear about just when the casts were lifted and photographed with Roger holding them.

 

The reason I ask is that if they had already filmed the trackway and cast the prints and had them and Roger photographed on Friday I'm not too clear on why it was so important to cover the tracks since at least two of them would have already been messed up just from the casting process. The tracks that Lyle Laverty photographed didn't show any evidence of being disturbed by the castings? Or did they and I simply didn't notice since I wasn't thinking about it.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I don’t think it’s any mystery to a packer why Roger may have been sparing with his film reels. Two men, two saddle mounts and one pack horse. Packing a whole bunch of camera equipment and film canisters around in the mountains just isn’t practical. Compared to today with tiny SD cards.

 

Typically your already packing,

 

1) Horse feed, feed bags

2) Trail clearing equipment (Axe, saw, shovel)

3) Hobbles, highline

4) Horse shoeing equipment in a pinch. (Spare shoes, nails, hammer)

5) Grub for yourselves, fire makings, cooking utensils

6) Sleeping bags, tent

7) Rifle, pistol, lariat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

As the story goes they did take some stuff with them for a possible overnight but maintained a base camp? At least that's where the plaster was because they had to go back for it. It could have just been kept in the truck though which would make sense too. I don't know if the truck was part of the base camp or they packed into the location away from where the truck was parked and then packed out further on the day they came across Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I did a 4 hour interview with Bob a few years back, and while I don't have a transcript to refer to, my recollection is that Bob didn't remember a lot of specifics about the other filming of trackways and such. I reasonably wouldn't expect such when trying to recall something that happened 45 years earlier. 

 

As I described in my book, chapter two, there are problems with memories of PGf events and actions, enough that I tend to regard any recollection with caution unless I can find some empirical evidence to corroborate the recollection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Movie footage of static footprints seems something of a waste to me. Photographs work as well. But, admittedly, they probably didn't have another camera.

 

Seems I remember seeing footage of Patterson jumping off of something to show that he didn't sink into the soil as much as the creature did.

 

I can see the second and any subsequent reels being blown off and traded off cheap and easily after the main event essentially got blown off by those who should have given a damn.

 

The trackway within the movie footage area was confirmed afterwards by independent parties anyway (Titmus & Laverty), and Laverty's confirmation was recorded photographically, and soon afterwards. I don't think even the kooks at ISF would attempt to claim that Laverty was in on any hoax by Patterson, but nothing those people say can surprise me anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

As the story goes they did take some stuff with them for a possible overnight but maintained a base camp? At least that's where the plaster was because they had to go back for it. It could have just been kept in the truck though which would make sense too. I don't know if the truck was part of the base camp or they packed into the location away from where the truck was parked and then packed out further on the day they came across Patty.

 

They must have. Because your not packing in a base camp on one horse. A wall tent and stove alone would take up one pack animal.

 

So because they are only ponying one pack animal along? I would guess they had intentions of making a spike camp. Not much reason to bother with a pack animal if your plan is to stay each night at a base camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...