Jump to content

Has this been asked about the PGF before


Recommended Posts

OldMort
1 hour ago, Bill said:

I reasonably wouldn't expect such when trying to recall something that happened 45 years earlier. 

 

Personally, I would expect a far better and more detailed recollection of what was arguably the biggest day of Gimlin's life.

 

This was not just any random day.

 

The events that occurred at Bluff Creek contributed to shaping his life to this very day.

 

These are not difficult questions to answer - I would think the memories of that day have swirled through Bob's mind ten thousand times over the decades.

 

I'm pushing 70 now and can still recall vividly my most important and special times 45 and 50 years ago.

 

We tend to come back to those memories in order to relive them if just for a moment, over and over again. 

 

Granted, minor details may be inaccurate and colored or faded by the years, but early documentation of the events and statements did and does exist.

 

We are all different, but I'm quite confident that Bob could fill in some of the gaps if he chose to do so...

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
3 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

Personally, I would expect a far better and more detailed recollection of what was arguably the biggest day of Gimlin's life.

 

This was not just any random day.

 

The events that occurred at Bluff Creek contributed to shaping his life to this very day.

 

These are not difficult questions to answer - I would think the memories of that day have swirled through Bob's mind ten thousand times over the decades.

 

I'm pushing 70 now and can still recall vividly my most important and special times 45 and 50 years ago.

 

We tend to come back to those memories in order to relive them if just for a moment, over and over again. 

 

Granted, minor details may be inaccurate and colored or faded by the years, but early documentation of the events and statements did and does exist.

 

I'm quite confident that Bob could fill in some of the gaps if he chose to do so...

 

 

 

My mother in law lives in our basement and has no idea who we are or who she is. She is 74.

 

Your almost 70 and have a awesome memory. I think that’s great! But I don’t think that it’s uncommon for someone 80 plus years old to have memory loss.

 

I also feel like the camera was Roger’s deal. Bob just helped out.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
22 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

Personally, I would expect a far better and more detailed recollection of what was arguably the biggest day of Gimlin's life.

 

This was not just any random day.

 

The events that occurred at Bluff Creek contributed to shaping his life to this very day.

 

These are not difficult questions to answer - I would think the memories of that day have swirled through Bob's mind ten thousand times over the decades.

 

I'm pushing 70 now and can still recall vividly my most important and special times 45 and 50 years ago.........

 

I have an excellent memory, and remember my wedding day 43 years ago quite well, but for God's sake I can't tell you what color socks I wore, what hors d'oeuvres were served, who was there and who was not, the name of the rather famous Alaskan photographer who recorded the event, or countless other details of the day. 

 

My brother, nearly 3 years younger than me, can remember almost nothing of our childhood. He can't remember the names of people, or can't remember people we name off.

 

On one Alaskan adventure, when I was essentially staving off a pissed off grizzly with another man while others were skinning the one they shot, I can't remember all the guys who were on that boat. I sure remember that pissed off bear, though.

 

Not only can I excuse Gimlin for not remembering what was on which reel, I can excuse him for not knowing squat about any of the reels at all. They were pretty much in the complete control of Patterson or others, especially after the event. If Gimlin even touched the camera, it was likely only because Patterson handed it to him.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
  • 1 month later...
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Does Bigfoot Stink?

 

When we think of looking for 'bigfoot' we think in terms of looking for a hairy man ape.  In that way, we think how easy it would be for a person- sized thing to stay hidden.  

 

Isn't this a mistake?  What about Smell?

 

We are told that Bigfoot stinks.  If bigfoot stink then doesn't this increase  the 'size' of the target?   If I am lost in the woods a helicopter might fly right over me and not see me.  If I light a signal fire, that same helicopter might see me (the fire smoke) from a mile away.

 

If bigfoot smells so bad  wouldn't bigfoot be a 'target' the size of its stink.  If you can smell a bigfoot from 50 yards away, then bigfoot is essentially a 100 yard across circular target. (heck, ad a good hunting dog to the party and now it might be many times that distance).

 

Why doesn't the smell often reported help give bigfoot away?  

 

Bigfoot's reported smell should make it not just a little easier but much easier.  It should be like trying to hide in the dark while carrying a flashlight.

 

The smell should make Bigfoot a dead give away.  The ONLY issue would be the range of smell.  That is, does it stink just within 5 feet, 10 feet, 50 feet away?   I think in the PGF encounter Gimlin reported smelling (or maybe the horses did) Patty before they saw Patty.

 

Why isn't the smell a dead give away?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

They do not have a 'give-away' location smell all of the time. The pungent odor release is controlled. Windage is a factor. Patty was probably up wind of Roger and Bob.  Sasquatch hunting method is 'point blank'. If they smelled bad all of the time, they would be vegetarians.

Humans have a poor sense of smell relative to wild animals and your pets. Horses have a very different sense of smell. Tear gas does not have any effect on horses therefore you see them in tear gas crowd control situations.

There are dead zones in forests where one would expect a lot of wild life. Animals avoid those areas. Olfactory signaling / 'signage' from Sasquatch comes to mind in the way of marking their territory or leaving a scent trail due to frequent traveling. A scent trail would be weather sensitive.

From time to time I think about 'tracking' / sampling an area with a portable gas chromatography unit. Not available 'off the shelf'. One would have to have a unit made to sniff out Androstanes ( big assumption ). Very expensive.  Test it at a zoo in the ape area then red line it at a rave.  The sampling area would be so small that I consider such a device one notch above a ghost meter. Still, something to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
BFF Donor

Q:  Did anyone else report seeing Roger and Bob in the area of Bluff Creek around fall of 1967?

 

I don't doubt they were there.  I just wonder if they ever stopped or were spotted by others in any other small town, hunter, DNR Ranger, or whomever?

 

The reason I ask is the logic of needing 3 people to fake the film.  That is, if spotted, shouldn't there have been 3 people spotted instead of just Roger and Bob if Patty was a man in a suit?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor

Well I was within 20 yards of two BF and smelled nothing.    Then again the wind was blowing the smell away from me and mine towards them.    That wind likely prevented me from having a very close encounter  because I think they smelled me before they saw me because of thick underbrush.     Since one of the two was a juvenile being carried the second was likely female.     Perhaps only males make the stink?  

 

I think sound detection would have a better range than smell detection and be a lot less expensive.    BF make a very low frequency thud even as they move quietly.    I can just barely pick it up at the low range of my hearing.   Two or three probes and an oscilloscope and you should be able to get direction and distance.   Bear or any heavy animal likely would make the thuds but it should be easy to discern the bipedal foot falls from a quadruped.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Well I was within 20 yards of two BF and smelled nothing.    Then again the wind was blowing the smell away from me and mine towards them.    That wind likely prevented me from having a very close encounter  because I think they smelled me before they saw me because of thick underbrush.     Since one of the two was a juvenile being carried the second was likely female.     Perhaps only males make the stink?  

  

 

SWWASAS,

 

I wonder if you took 100 people with an encounter what % would say they smelled something.  I think Roger said something with Patty like the smell of a wet dog if I remember right in that reported encounter.  I always think of TV shows involving reported sightings and it just seems to me many will say they smelled something unpleasant but Strong Smelling.  I guess I am getting at the idea we think to 'see' a Bigfoot we would think of the limitations of trying to actually see one with our eyes.   That would be expected to be a tall order unless one randomly came across one.  I say that no diff than if some Army Ranger was trying to hide in the woods as 3 campers walked by on a forested path.  That would be expected to be a piece of cake to hide for a trained Army Ranger.   Yet, if that Ranger had a camp, a boom box with loud music, a campfire cooking yummy food, those things all would make one say, "Hey there must be some people over there."  At that point the hikers increase their chance of either catching the person or noticing them if they attempt to hide.   I see Bigfoot the same way.  Even if patty was hiding and IF she was really skinky Gimlin and Roger would likely stop and look closer.  This would increase the chance of catching her hiding.  They would ride right by if she did not stink (if they didn't see her).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
SackScratch
On 5/6/2019 at 10:59 PM, Bill said:

Thank you. I must admit to being dumbfounded that a purely technical and factual answer of laboratory procedures is somehow "disapproved". It reminds me of our dear departed court jester, Squatchy, who voted down a posting of mine that was pure fact and technical reference. Maybe some people are offended that i actually have some knowledge to contribute to the discussion.

 

Oh well. I'll just continue to dwell in the land of facts, knowledge, and truth. Nice place to live.

 

Bill

 

It's the Ghost of Leroy Blevins! 

 

If he was alive he'd put a Thumbs Down on 90% of the postings in this forum for sure! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Crazy Q:

 

Is it even possible the original cast of plaster at bluff creek might have traces of DNA in them?

 

if we assume the Tracks were made by a real creature might that DNA end up in the footprints at Bluff Creek and be captured in the plaster print?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor

Oh the original casts of bluff creek would have DNA:   all the dozens of people who have examined them and contributed their DNA!  .     Viable DNA has to be inside something to protect it for any length of time.     The best you could hope for on any footprint cast would be that the maker of the print had a open sore on the foot.    But that would have to be collected and tested within hours to not be severely degraded.        A hair could have DNA if it has a medulla.    But BF hair seems not to have a medulla according to various people who claim to have found and tested it.      The  Skookum cast is a good example of the folly of expecting to find DNA in a cast.    If it was made by a BF,   it sure did not produce any BF DNA.  They found DNA from other sources including those that were present before and after it was cast.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
49 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Oh the original casts of bluff creek would have DNA:   all the dozens of people who have examined them and contributed their DNA!  .     Viable DNA has to be inside something to protect it for any length of time.     The best you could hope for on any footprint cast would be that the maker of the print had a open sore on the foot.    But that would have to be collected and tested within hours to not be severely degraded.        A hair could have DNA if it has a medulla.    But BF hair seems not to have a medulla according to various people who claim to have found and tested it.      The  Skookum cast is a good example of the folly of expecting to find DNA in a cast.    If it was made by a BF,   it sure did not produce any BF DNA.  They found DNA from other sources including those that were present before and after it was cast.    


 

yea each person who touched them would contribute DNA no doubt.    I was just imagining a scenario where it sank into the plaster itself and suspended there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor

Well Backdoc you do have a point to consider.      .Lets say a BF had a bleeding sore on his foot that left a spot of blood in the footprint.   If cast soon enough,  the blood would be incorporated into the casting material,  protected as would marrow in a bone,  and might produce viable DNA if the discolored casting material is scrapped out and subjected to DNA testing.      Casting material is a strong base, so I am not sure how DNA subjected to that, would fare.   Bones are base so it may fare pretty well providing DNA if marrow and the interior of teeth do.  .         Maybe those with casts should look for discoloring that would indicate the casting material picked up some blood?    BF have to injure their feet quite often walking on rocks etc.   

Edited by SWWASAS
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Since the topic has gotten onto DNA.....I think I'll post this video, which I just recently came across...

 

 

 

I'm not endorsing this "tooth" as being legit...but, it may be, as far as I know....(with DNA...as far as the 'eye tooth' can see).  :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...