Jump to content

Has this been asked about the PGF before


Recommended Posts

OldMort

I came across this on Youtube today: The quality appears to be quite a bit better than the PGF versions that we normally see on YT.

 

Apparently these came directly from John Green's copies.

 

I also recognize some of Patterson's earlier filming efforts from British Columbia. 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing the complete footage which hopefully will be released shortly

 

 

 

 

The Sasquatch Archives

 

This is a teaser of what's to come on the channel. Make sure to have your YouTube viewing settings quality at 1080p --- pristine PGF footage - perhaps the clearest, unaltered footage ever seen on YouTube! --- various old audio interviews of eyewitness. There are at least 25 to convert. --- the best version of the Blue Creek Mountain film footage to ever grace YouTube. This should help to put a damper on the ridiculous "Massacre Theory". --- never before seen film footage of John Green's showing Native ceremonial masks and totems. --- old conference footage. I am just waiting for permission from all. There are at least five to transfer. It all takes time but it'll be worth it in the end

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone

Those John Green taped interviews are extremely important, in my opinion. I very much look forward to hearing some of them. They can help add perspective to John Green database entries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks, Mort. :) 

 

Looking forward to seeing all of what Todd posts!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

That is some awesome footage.

Thanks very much for sharing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
ShadowBorn
MODERATOR

On the footage at the 5:14 mark you can see that the dog is alerting to the track or might even be alerting to the maker . Now I do not know how well trained this dog was for tracking but if it was it seems that it was alerting to the culprit that made the tracks. When looking at these tracks there is some thing that is just off. But looking at the toe's there does not seem to be no spread in them toe's.  In the castings of the prints was it found that there were any dermal ridges found in them. The sand that the prints were found seem to be good packing material for dermal ridges to be found.  Even though that they found different size prints they should still have found some other type of evidence within those prints.

 

I do not want to place doubt on the capture on film of the creature. But I do have some doubt on the prints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

There is no capture of a creature on film associated with this footage of the tracking dog. The expedition is simply examining a trackway, nothing more.  And this trackway has no direct connection to the PGF trackway footage. This footage was taken two months before the PGF, in another area of the same forest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
MODERATOR

Hi Bill

I am not saying that they have sighted the creature. What I am saying at the 5:14 mark of the film is. That the dog might be alerting to the maker of the tracks at that time when they were going over the tracks. To me in my opinion it seems that the dog might be barking at that unknown person. That maybe these tracks might have been made by this person. This could be why the dog is alerting and barking towards him. 

 

 Now I know that I am not an expert on dog tracking. But the behavior of the dog barking at that unknown person is very strange.  What I know about them is that they work of a scent to track. They d o not follow by sight but with their nose. Now remembering from when I was trying to train my German Shepherd . I would use clothing from my kids and make a track way on paper. I would then lay that trackway out in the field. I would drag that piece of clothing exactly the way I had it on paper. At first I would use flags. But that just taught the dog to use it's sight. So then i took away the flags and it started to use it's nose. 

 

Now there are several ways of training these dogs to be sniffers. But this is not what the thread is about. I just thought it odd that the dog would start alerting the owner at that 5:14 mark towards that unknown person. The other thing is that the tracks seem very odd to me. They seem to uniformed with in the ground on the road. In my opinion the culprit that made these tracks is standing in the film where the dog is barking at him. But this is my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I don't have sufficient knowledge about sniffer dogs, their capabilities, their methods, etc. to make any comment or evaluation of what's seen in the film. So I'll leave this aspect of the topic to others who may be more knowledgeable to discuss.

 

:)

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
MODERATOR

I am with you on this Bill. But it just seemed odd that this dog would react this way towards that unknown person.  Most sniffers just sit when they find their objective.  But from what i have read and heard about the dog that they brought I believe after the Patty sighting was this the same dog ? and it was then why before the sighting would this dog be barking at this unknown stranger. Especially if this dog was trained in tracking and might of even been trained in attack.

 

If this is true then this would place the whole Patty film in a whole different prospective. This dog could be a lead to a hoax and along with the film. The people involve who did the filming had nothing to do with the hoax. It is the unknown people who were there. That no one seems to have no info on them that i see on the film. It is that person that I see where the dog is barking at in the 5:14 mark of the film. Who could of been one of the perpetrator who carried out the maybe fake prints. Now this is just speculation on my part. But the prints look to convenient being that they were found on the road. That is what does not fit well with me. They were just to easy to find. it is like they were meant to be found. Again this is my opinion and speculation. But at the same time it leaves doubt in me.

 

At one time I had found prints up in northern Michigan during a convention. They were in the middle of the dirt road where they could be seen very quickly. I took photo's of them but I was very weary of posting them on the forum. They just did not seem right. It was a complete set of tracks following horse tracks. They were good prints and all. But how convenient were these tracks while a Bigfoot convention was taking place. I kept the pictures but discounted that they were made by Bigfoot. Lesson learned. I do not want to discount what Patty might be. But it is hard to have a definitive answer to the film.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

It would be immaterial if it's the same dog brought to Bluff creek, because Buff creek was 2 months after this search by Green and Dahinden. So the dog would not have any prior olfactory sensations or memories when it was sniffing this location in this film. And we don't actually have any documentation that a dog was brought to Bluff Creek immediately after the PGF filming. As far as I know, we only have remarks of people suggesting or asking for such a dog to be brought there.

 

So whatever this dog is doing, whatever it is smelling, it is entirely based on what it encountered on this location, and has nothing to do with Bluff Creek or the PGF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

“Lost tracks“ vs “film tracks“

 

 

There are tracks which brought Roger and Bob to bluff creek- only to find them mostly ruined by the elements by the time they arrived.  I’ll call those the “lost tracks”.  The tracks which appear in the above film  I will call “film tracks”  I have always understood these “film tracks” which appear in this movie were not those “lost tracks” which caused Gimlin and Patterson to come to the Bluff Creek area.  Do I have that correct?  They are not the same, right?

 

To my thinking we can only say the “lost tracks“ which brought Roger and Bob to the bluff creek  ARE associated with the PGF ONLY because they were the cause which lead them there and explain what brought Roger and Bob there.  
 

As far a the PGF we have an event decently documented and tracks from that very spot made by Roger and others as well as photos of tracks by others made near the time of the event at the site of the event.  
 

They all seem to match up well <~~~~ that PGF event lives or dies on its own merits even if the “film tracks” or “lost tracks” are real ( or a hoax).
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The trackway filmed by Roger is generally accepted as what he and Bob witnessed at Bluff Creek, and is not the Blue Creek Mountain trackway.

 

The only connection between the two events is that it was news of the Blue Creek Mountain trackway that prompted Roger to select Northern CA as the location of his planned October excursion, when he returned from a September trip to the Mt. St. helen region and returned home to hear from his wife that Green and Dahandin had found and examined a trackway in August.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
49 minutes ago, Bill said:

The trackway filmed by Roger is generally accepted as what he and Bob witnessed at Bluff Creek, and is not the Blue Creek Mountain trackway.

 

 


Don’t know why I am confused by this.  Sorry.  I just want to be clear:

 

1- The BLue Creek Mountain tracks are the tracks which appear on this above film?

 

2- These same tracks caused Roger to come to N. California?

 

3- these same tracks were in bad shape when Roger arrived?
 

I had assumed there was these BCM tracks (filmed by others) and other tracks which were reported to Roger and yet eroded by the time Roger arrived to film them/ see them but were separate from the BCM tracks.  It seems I have that wrong and it was the BCM tracks which drew him there and were eroded by the time Roger got there.  
 

im just trying to get it right.  I hope I have it right now.  Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...