Bigfoot - serious, not follies [Archive] - Page 6

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Roger got into the heavy brush, but they decided not to pursue her into the forest. Her stride had lengthened by then and she was way ahead of them. The second roll was taken later, with shots of tracks and scenery.

Why do you describe the event the way you do? You are leaving out so much. You need to do lots of reading and research on PGF before you can defend it. Your biased suckage might be at its crown moment here.

Gimlin says that the last time he sees 'Patty' (after the filming), she is going up the logging road. He says he saw her 300 yards away on this road, then she goes around a bend and he loses sight. According to Gimlin, at that point they begin tracking her on horseback. They track her 3.5 miles up the mountain before they lose her trail. Then they backtrack the 3.5 miles to the film site then go another 2 miles back to their truck to get the plaster. Then they go the 2 miles back to the site to begin casting some tracks.

At what point has the sun set and they are in darkness on horseback? Then they still have to get back to the truck and drive into town to deliver the film (which would then be viewed about 35 hours later after a round-trip flight and developing in Seattle). Then they return to the camp (which is about 2 miles from the film site) that night. In the night a torrential rain starts. Gimlin decides to ride his horse through this rain in darkness to cover up the tracks which are 2 miles away. He covers some of them with pieces of bark then rides back to camp.

Lo and behold, 9 days later Bob Titmus shows up and views the footprint scene (after rains). He even claims to find a spot where 'Patty' sat down in ferns overlooking the film site. He suggests that she was watching the men cast her prints. So P&G tracked her 3.5 miles away from the film site, then she returns to the site to sit down and watch them. But she can't watch them until they have returned from the truck with the plaster. Isn't it night by now? I probably don't need to mention that Titmus was a Bigfoot believer before this incident. Skeptics ought to be catching on to that stuff by now.

This bit doesn't include other huge problems and insanities that were supposed to have gone on surrounding this film event. There is a whole box of nails to drive into the coffin of the PGF. You are depriving a skeptical audience of them. Shame on you!

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 09:10 AM

Isn't Wallace supposed to be responsible for some of the Bluff Creek tracks ?

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 09:19 AM

Lu, in the Argosy article of Feb 68, Patterson claims Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author also says he watched the film and Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author makes the claim twice.

That seems to be an odd mistake for two different people to make. I cannot see how anyone can claim Patty stops dead anywhere in the P/G film.

I can see Patterson might have thought Patty stopped dead as he was running after her with the camera, but Patterson had certainly already viewed the film by the time of the article and he must have known that she certainly did not stop dead.

LAL

11th August 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
So you are supporting your position with cover art from a book you are proclaiming to be " terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence "... ?

It's not nearly as out-of-date as Hill. Lucy hadn't been discovered yet when he said that. Scientist in 1967 really had no idea of how many species of bipedal primates there actually were (we may not have them all yet........there've been about half a dozen discovered just since Tattersal wrote the book, so, naturally he wouldn't have been able to include them). Hairy breasts may have been common on bipedal primates. Of course, none of that gets preserved.

Of course we know what Sasquatch breasts look like!

We have the PGF .. Not to mention the description at BFRO ...

Not all reports are on the BFRO. The comment (and I can't remember who said it), was back in the late sixties or early seventies.

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, in the Argosy article of Feb 68, Patterson claims Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author also says he watched the film and Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author makes the claim twice.

That seems to be an odd mistake for two different people to make. I cannot see how anyone can claim Patty stops dead anywhere in the P/G film.

I can see Patterson might have thought Patty stopped dead as he was running after her with the camera, but Patterson had certainly already viewed the film by the time of the article and he must have known that she certainly did not stop dead.

For all we know she did stop and look at him. This may have been in the film that Patterson was showing in 67/68. I'm not sure that we can establish that what we would see now (say from the LMS DVD) is exactly what folks were seeing when Patterson rolled the projector in 67/68. The skeptical community is forced to accept what is shown to them at any given time. That 'evidence' is always provided and in the hands of Bigfoot believers. Use your imagination to think about what that could mean.

LAL

11th August 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, in the Argosy article of Feb 68, Patterson claims Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author also says he watched the film and Patty stopped dead and looked back. The author makes the claim twice.

I know. He's wrong. See the film. I thought she may have hestitated, but on just viewing it three more times I don't even see that.

Roger may have stopped dead when she gave him that outta-the-ball-game look.

That seems to be an odd mistake for two different people to make. I cannot see how anyone can claim Patty stops dead anywhere in the P/G film.

I can see Patterson might have thought Patty stopped dead as he was running after her with the camera, but Patterson had certainly already viewed the film by the time of the article and he must have known that she certainly did not stop dead.

The author may have misunderstood Patterson and not had the film available for study. Mistakes happened.

This is one of the articles I was trying to find:

"Next day, LIFE took Roger and Al with the film to the American Museum of Natural History where a showing was put on for some of the scientific staff: notably Dr. van Gelder, head of the Department of Mammals and Dr. Shapiro of Anthropology. The wire services were permitted to view but the owners were excluded and within fifteen minutes the 'scientists'* announced that "It is not kosher (a funny word to use for a spokesman of a scientific organization) because it is impossible". Upon this, LIFE washed their hands of the whole thing and LOOK followed suit on the grounds that if the AMNH said it was a phony, it was. At this point we pounced; and contract was signed between the owners and Mr. Hal Steeger, publisher of ARGOSY, late that night. We then went to work to round up some other scientists and notably physical anthropologists.

The results are fully recorded in the first ARGOSY piece. The film was flown down to Prof. W.C. Osman Hill at the Yerkes Primate Center, Emery University, in Atlanta, Georgia, and then Drs. john Napier, Vladimir Markotic and others viewed it at a closed showing in Washington at which Dr. A. Joseph Wraight Chief Geographer to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Mr. N. O. Wood Jr., Director of Operations for the Secretary of the Interior were present. A copy of the film was then handed to Dr. Napier of the Primate Biology Division of the Smithsonian for detailed analysis, a work that is of the time of writing, still in the process of being executed."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/pursuit68.htm

I'm thinking the other source was a book I returned to the library. Now all I have to do is remember which one and reorder it.

RayG

11th August 2005, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Then on what do you base your 90% certainty that they're real?

You mean the Skookum thread where I said this: "I'm also about 90% convinced that bigfoot is a real, undiscovered animal that may be living in the PNW. That's a far cry from a 'die-hard' skeptic, who would probably have 0% belief in bigfoot."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=80&#entry58376

It was something I said in comparison to the skeptical viewpoint of nearly 0% certainty. In the same paragraph that quote is taken from, I also said:

"Bigfoot is a subject that has continued to hold my attention over the years, and I am far less skeptical of bigfoot's existence than I am about some other topics. One thing I don't give ground on, is the evidence submitted for proof of something, and the methods used for providing said evidence. I guess you could say I have a fairly high standard concerning evidence."

At this point the ONLY thing that will convince me with 100% certainty is a dead body.

And what makes you think they [footprints] don't do much to prove anything?

Until you can slap the footprint cast up against the bottom of the foot that created that footprint cast, you don't have any absolute proof. Human feet can get rather large too, so a 14-17" footprint isn't impossible.

http://largefeet.com/images/perfectfit.jpg

RayG

LAL

11th August 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
For all we know she did stop and look at him. This may have been in the film that Patterson was showing in 67/68. I'm not sure that we can establish that what we would see now (say from the LMS DVD) is exactly what folks were seeing when Patterson rolled the projector in 67/68. The skeptical community is forced to accept what is shown to them at any given time. That 'evidence' is always provided and in the hands of Bigfoot believers. Use your imagination to think about what that could mean.

I'm thinking it would be impossible to edit that out without leaving a big jerk in the film. That's as far as my imagination goes, especially since this seems to be the only article that says anything about her stopping. Reporting error seems a much more likely explanation.

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by LAL

Actually, Heironimus wasn't there.

In a sense, this is true. Heironimus wasn't at Bluff Creek on Friday, October 20, 1967. That is the day P&G said they filmed Patty. Heironimus insists that they filmed him in suit prior to that date (was it weeks before?). That helps the crazy timeline that was given for the film development and would also give Patterson time to do some splicing (editing).

If P&G were at Bluff Creek on the 20th (they probably were), they were making the fake tracks that Lyle Laverty would see and photograph the following day.

LAL

11th August 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by RayG
You mean the Skookum thread where I said this: "I'm also about 90% convinced that bigfoot is a real, undiscovered animal that may be living in the PNW. That's a far cry from a 'die-hard' skeptic, who would probably have 0% belief in bigfoot."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=80&#entry58376

It was something I said in comparison to the skeptical viewpoint of nearly 0% certainty. In the same paragraph that quote is taken from, I also said:

"Bigfoot is a subject that has continued to hold my attention over the years, and I am far less skeptical of bigfoot's existence than I am about some other topics. One thing I don't give ground on, is the evidence submitted for proof of something, and the methods used for providing said evidence. I guess you could say I have a fairly high standard concerning evidence."

At this point the ONLY thing that will convince me with 100% certainty is a dead body.

Until you can slap the footprint cast up against the bottom of the foot that created that footprint cast, you don't have any absolute proof. Human feet can get rather large too, so a 14-17" footprint isn't impossible.

RayG

Except that the footprints don't have the characteristics of human footprints. Besides the dermal ridges, there are things like the flatness (except in tracks of what seem to be very young individuals), the heel width, the toes..........

If you don't know anything about Wrinkle Foot, just say so. ;) It was new to me too.

Again, what do you base the 90% on?

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 10:20 AM

The author may have misunderstood Patterson and not had the film available for study. Mistakes happened.

Can't be Lu. They are both looking at the film and stills. The author specifically says he viewed the film and that he and Patterson also went through the film frame by frame with a device that allowed them to do that without burning the film.
Patterson did the frame by frame to show that Patty was female.

The various descriptions of the event and the film are quite frustrating to me.

There are also other inconsistencies that are troubling, even if they don't refute the film. The Argosy article says that both riders were thrown and that Patterson's horse was like a mad bronco, for example.

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I'll let you know when I've had time to read it. I don't use the site much, except for the Skookum Cast, Green, the Denver Post article and the BBC's costume.

In addition to "Web site not responding....." and disappearing replys (that really gets me when it's one I've spent hours on, only to lose it by bringing up one two many articles for linking) I'm getting AOL errors and have to restart the computer when I try to close out the automaic virus scan results. Get's frustrating.

It shouldn't take all that long to read this..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

I've sailed through it several times , making sure I didn't miss the disclaimer that said " We just made all this stuff up.. ) But no, it wasn't there...

What's to respond to? What are you asking them... Maybe something like:

" Do you realize this stuff makes your claim to be ' scientific ' downright ridiculous, makes a laughing stock of serious Bigfoot researchers, and ruins any chances we have for acquiring any credibility ? "

Have you tried to get their attention by saying you are interested in joining an expedition?

Hitch

11th August 2005, 10:25 AM

I certainly have no proof that the P/G film is a hoax. But there are a number of bizarre inconsistencies in the story. (Which I won't repeat here because Lu has already posted them as evidence that it's not a hoax. I'm still working on the logic of that.)

But, if you play a little mind game and think about how it would play out if Patty (or Bob) was filmed a couple weeks earlier and then things were staged to report that the sighting and filming took place on Friday, October 20 then a lot of the strange things start falling into place, like how the film got developed so fast, why did they spend two weeks filming nothing in particular, etc.

Again, none of this is proof of anything, but it's enough to make a skeptic doubt that the film can be accepted at face value with no corroborating evidence.

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I'm thinking it would be impossible to edit that out without leaving a big jerk in the film. That's as far as my imagination goes, especially since this seems to be the only article that says anything about her stopping. Reporting error seems a much more likely explanation.

The big jerks are behind the camera creating the hoax.

But there are breaks in the sequence of her walk in what we see, aren't there? Viewers are sometimes confused by what they see, as if there are fluidity incongruences to her path. Some have suggested that she appears to enter the forest twice.

Then there are the first few frames of the LMS DVD, which blow past in a split second. Some have said that she appears to possibly be crouched at the creek when the camera first starts or is possibly just standing. But we really can't know when the camera started or if anything was removed... because we do not have the original and known to unedited film.

Here are the first few frames. Good luck figuring out what is going on.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1101268056.gif

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 10:33 AM

LAL

11th August 2005, 10:33 AM

LAL

11th August 2005, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Patterson says she stopped, and we are to doubt that part of his testimony, while believing everything else he said ?
Show me more articles and interviews where he said she stopped. This is the first I've seen on that.

Are you really that dense, or as someone once suggested, intentionally obtuse?

That would be Bill. Are you two related? You kind our sound alike sometimes. Be advised that ad hominen attacks aren't going to get you antwhere.

I can think of two articles that have reporter errors. What makes you think that couldn't be the case here?

That film is so jerky, and there are parts where Patty isn't even in the field of view .. ( ground shots ) It could be spliced all to hell with no noticeable discontinuity ....

And you know this without having viewed a good copy?

Again, where is the rest of the film, if there is nothing to hide ?

I've already posted about the second reel not being returned to Patterson. Ten feet were removed and shown on documentaries. As to the first reel, ask Patricia Patterson. She may know; I don't.
I'm thinking it may have gone to her when Dahinden died.

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 10:47 AM

But there are breaks in the sequence of her walk in what we see, aren't there? Viewers are sometimes confused by what they see, as if there are fluidity incongruences to her path. Some have suggested that she appears to enter the forest twice.

Yes! That is what I was trying to say when I talked about shooting Patty twice, William. You have done a much better job writing than I have, though. :D

You could splice a film and then copy it, and show everyone the copy, I suppose.

LAL

11th August 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Methinks William Parcher's patience with creduloids, losing he is.. :D

( Enjoying you contributions William.. Hope you will continue .. )

Thinking of filtering him, I am, but his contibutions may be showing some of the lurkers how inane some of the sceptical arguments are. Perhaps he should be encouraged for that alone.:D

RayG

11th August 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Except that the footprints don't have the characteristics of human footprints. Besides the dermal ridges, there are things like the flatness (except in tracks of what seem to be very young individuals), the heel width, the toes..........

And yet they don't prove anything.

If you don't know anything about Wrinkle Foot, just say so. ;)

I assumed you were talking about the Bossburg print. If not, I have no idea what you're talking about.

It was new to me too.

Is it actually new, or merely a new name for an old print?

Again, what do you base the 90% on?

I can raise that 90% to 100% if we're talking about possibilities. If we're talking about absolute proof -- there isn't any. I've also said that IF bigfoot exists it's no more paranormal than my cat.

RayG

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 10:56 AM

Lu, I maintain that you were indeed being intentionally obtuse regarding ways that bigfoot tracks could be hoaxed.

For example, there is no way that you actually believe someone would have to step over a fence to make a right foot appear on one side and a left foot appear on the other.

You aren't that stupid, despite your insistence about having to step over the fence.

It's just that admitting that it can be done without stepping over the fence means that the tracks might not be bigfoot's, and you won't make that admission.

LAL

11th August 2005, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Stuff it, LAL. Until you or your Bigfoot buddies rides into town with a gigantic bipedal primate carcass draped over your hood, you guys got all the nasty stuff stuck up your own arse.

That's no way to talk to a lady, William. I suggest you stop it.
<snip>

You are way cool for your indefatigability in this thread.

Thank you.

You haven't budged the needle one millimeter closer to 'Bigfoot is Real'. Who cares. It's a myth. Nobody can possibly show that the beast is real. But, that doesn't matter. It's how you play the game. The Bigfoot Game. Yippee kiyah yea. You keep wearing those cowboy boots, Gimlin. You are ridin' a monkey dream. The dream that a dream monkey is a real monkey in the world of thinking monkeys. Monkey monkey monkey.

Sorry if I drove you crazy, William. I certainly didn't mean to. I suggest you take a Thiothixene and come back when you're calmer.

I think you've summed up the sceptical stance pretty well, though. It seems to boil down to,"I don't believe it, therefore it's a myth, and all your evidence won't make me chance my mind."

Interesting.

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 11:09 AM

For the record, evidence of bigfoot will make me change my mind immediately.

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Show me more articles and interviews where he said she stopped. This is the first I've seen on that.

Is every statement you make, backed up by two ore more episodes? Does that make a statement more valid ? Did Patterson scream ' misquote ' regarding the Argossy article ?

That would be Bill. Are you two related? You kind our sound alike sometimes. Be advised that ad hominen attacks aren't going to get you antwhere.

It is not ad hom if it is true and relevant to the debate. You continue to appear dense and obtuse, but I also have evidence you are not either; so I am witholding final judgement at this time.

I've already posted about the second reel not being returned to Patterson. Ten feet were removed and shown on documentaries. As to the first reel, ask Patricia Patterson. She may know; I don't.
I'm thinking it may have gone to her when Dahinden died. And I'm sure you can understand why your accounting for the film is of no value, or do we need to go over the ' dense ' thing again ?

RayG

11th August 2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Nobody can possibly show that the beast is real.

Not without bringing in a body anyway.

RayG

LAL

11th August 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by bruto
LAL wirtes: He's showing proportions here. The pics aren't to scale. BH is 6'2"...

Exactly. You have continually argued that the proportions are not possibly those of a human. It appears, however, that they are. Scale is irrelevant, since one cannot accurately judge the size of the bigfoot in the film unless you have an absolute reference point in the film which is either the same distance from the camera as the bigfoot was, or a known distance which could be calculated if one also knew for sure what focal length lens was used (and not unless!). If one knew within a very very small range what distance the camera was from the bigfoot and also what focal length lens was used, one could also calculate its size, but as it is presented in the film, its size is entirely unknown because the distance is not known. Only its relative proportions are known. Proportions are relevant, and a superimposed image that shows this much similarity to human proportions means that the bigfoot in question has human proportions, as simple as that.

Try looking at the picture, then read Krantz for a detailed analysis of the film, and a few corrections on earlier analyses.

The pictures are given approximately the same size to show relative leg length, etc. Note the bulk. There's picture of Heironimus as he was in 1967 in Long's book. It's been posted on BFF. He was thin then, yet he claimed no padding was used. The rest of the thread has some adjustments. I don't really know who nightwing is other than a poster on BFF who has photoshop. I didn't present him as an authority. I suggested the rest of the thread be read because some of the points are clarified. Guess I'll have to check Rense.com myself. I've read a scathing review of Long's book on it.

Detailed measurements were taken by Titmus at the scene, Green had a 6'5" friend do a reenactment, the stride and footprint length is known, Krantz calculated the weight (the method is described in Bigfoot/Sasquatch Evidence)and arrived at 500 lbs., which was what Patterson told him, although Patterson's estimates ranged from 300-800 lbs. I've already mentioned the experiments with weight Green did.

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 12:22 PM

He was thin then, yet he claimed no padding was used.

I recall that BH said he had some football shoulder pads on, so I am not sure why the "no padding" line is constantly repeated.

It doesn't matter a whit anyway, even if BH said there was no padding.

If the padding was built into the suit, then BH would indeed say he wore no padding. He would be telling the truth. He could indeed have worn a suit without putting any padding on.

Given the thigh bulge, the padding could indeed be part of the suit and the thigh padding may have come loose.

Lu, I will say it again, you seem never to have given any thought to what a hoaxer would do. None at all.

That's hard to believe. That is why I brought up "intentionally obtuse".

It seems odd that you wouldn't have thought of padding being part of the suit. It's such an obvious thing to consider.

You can think of a horribly wrecked tendon though, and accept that. Even on a creature with such a cool smooth walk.

Strange.

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 12:38 PM

I wouldn't describe Bob Heironimus as being thin back then. I would describe him as others have and can be seen here. He was muscular. Obviously he wasn't fat. He was also a friend of Patterson & Gimlin. He said that Patterson asked him to be the guy in the costume and would pay him for it. He never paid him.

Patterson thought that Heironimus did a damn good Bigfoot walk. He did and he still does.

Nice Vette too.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1101252818.jpg

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 02:32 PM

Another scientific tidbit from a BFRO expedition report..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

Under whispered advice from our guides, we refrain from activating the infrared function of our night-vision goggles. "We're not certain, but we believe they may somehow have the capability to see that spectrum of light," says Jones. "They have exceptional night-vision capability, even better than owls, so we just have to let them come to us."
Not certain ? No shi......... uh, scat .. !

Better than owls, and infrared vision..

There is plenty of other crap to go around in this one paragraph, but can someone tell me if activating the infrared function of night-vision goggles, makes them ' emit ' infrared ? Or significantly more infrared than this group was already emitting to begin with ?

Hellbound

11th August 2005, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Another scientific tidbit from a BFRO expedition report..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

Better than owls, and infrared vision..

There is plenty of other crap to go around in this one paragraph, but can someone tell me if activating the infrared function of night-vision goggles, makes them ' emit ' infrared ? Or significantly more infrared than this group was already emitting to begin with ?

Yes, it does. When using night vision goggles (NVGs) in passive mode you get a greenish tint on everything, but it doesn't always give a clear picture (for example, reading a book is most likely not gonna happen). The IR light gives much better clarity and resolution (you can read with it on), but would appear like a flashlight beam to any other NVGs out there. Think of it as an NVG-visible flashlight for a better idea of what it does.

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 02:52 PM

I have used NVG's in the U.S. Army and you do indeed have a passive and an active mode. The active mode does emit IR.

"We're not certain, but we believe they may somehow have the capability to see that spectrum of light," says Jones.

This is rather silly. As you hinted at Diogenes, if BF can see IR, then a warm homo sapiens will be easily spotted anyway.

A bunch of loud ones riding around the woods & playing amplified screeching noises all night must be really annoying to BF.

I suppose the active NVG mode would let BF see you a lot farther away. Supposing BF exists, that is.

Giving the mythical BF this IR ability nicely ties in with the fact that they can't seem to find one, so it is probably in one of their excuses somewhere.

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Yes, it does. When using night vision goggles (NVGs) in passive mode you get a greenish tint on everything, but it doesn't always give a clear picture (for example, reading a book is most likely not gonna happen). The IR light gives much better clarity and resolution (you can read with it on), but would appear like a flashlight beam to any other NVGs out there. Think of it as an NVG-visible flashlight for a better idea of what it does. That makes sense.. Thanks for setting me strait.. Need to have a slice of humble pie on that one..

However, in light of the IR signature of a bunch of people in the first place ( it doesn't say they were wearing thermal camo ), it doesn't seem that the use of IR goggles would be the deciding factor in keeping ol' Mr. Infrared vision, Sasquatch at bay..

Edit: I see LTC8K6 was going down the same path as I was posting.... I'm sure this will pass over some though..

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:04 PM

"Their intelligence is what makes them so difficult to track," says Robert Lieterman, a park ranger and BFRO volunteer from Fortuna, Calif." But like many other wild creatures, they are very territorial, so we can use that trait to help study them."

When a Bigfoot's space has been intruded upon, says Moneymaker, the creature will resort to intimidation. "They'll break off large branches in the darkness and smash them against the surrounding trees to let you know their power," he claims. "Sometimes they'll actually throw those branches in your direction or even bluff charge to try and frighten you."

Bobo Fay, a regular on BFRO expeditions, says he learned firsthand about the Sasquatch's territorial behavior. On a late-night field trip in Northern California, he had set out on his own to "call-blast"â€”the BFRO term for playing back audio recordings of Bigfoot vocalizations on portable speakersâ€”at a location 14 miles from the nearest town. "I was sitting in a field a few yards from the tree line when I began getting some response from a distance and realized, as I sent out more calls, that the replies were getting closer," Fay recalls. "It took almost 45 minutes until he was on the edge of the tree line, and I could see him pretty clearly moving in the shadows. His screams were incredibly powerful, and my usually fearless pit bull was terrified, hiding in the back of the camper. This `squatch had broken off a huge branch and was smashing it against the trees. You'd have thought it was Barry Bonds in there swinging that branch from the sounds it made. He was also shaking these 70-foot trees and making them swing like they were in a gale. This went on for what seemed like an hour, with my dog cowering in fear and me with tears streaming out of my eyes. When I finally got in the truck and tried to drive out of there, it was alongside. I was doing 30, and it kept up easy. Even now it still makes the hair on my neck tingle when I think about it, but that's why I'm here. I can't resist the possibility of another encounter; only now, I'm far better mentally prepared."

And sometimes they just stroll off nonchalantly on camera as if they couldn't care less about their territory or anything else. :D

I guess these expeditions need to try to run across Patty again.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:08 PM

"There aren't too many unknowns left in our universe," says Moneymaker. "But just imagine the thrill of 'discovering' a new primate species, something as huge as Gigantopithicus, which has long been thought extinct, living here among us for hundreds of years, going largely unseen. That's something really worth devoting your life to." Or, for those in search of unique adventure, it might be worth a couple of nights in the woods.

Unless one of them sits down right near you and eats your bait only hours ago, then it's time to go home and forget about the thrill.....

Unless you get really close to one, then it's time to get out of the woods and forget about those unknowns.....

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6

Giving the mythical BF this IR ability nicely ties in with the fact that they can't seem to find one, so it is probably in one of their excuses somewhere. It's much more sinister than this.

A Bigfoot found a pair of NVG's in a downed Cessna ( in the PNW ) a while back..
He figured out what they were and how they work..

You know, it just occured to me.. What would be the evolutionary advantage of having IR vision, if you had better night vision than an owl ?

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 03:22 PM

he had set out on his own to "call-blast"â€”the BFRO term for playing back audio recordings of Bigfoot vocalizations on portable speakers Can you imagine how this has spiraled..

Bigfoot hunters have been playing recordings of Bigfoot, that have been recorded by other Bigfoot hunters ... and on and on and on....

And now we have Bigfoot running 30mph, a Forest Ranger in tears and a Pit Bull cowering in fear.. Still no body though...

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:26 PM

"EACH OF US has a considerable body of personal information that we've gathered on our field trips over the years," states Jones, a full-time security guard at southeastern Washington's now-deactivated Hanford nuclear site, over dinner earlier that night. "It's available to any other serious researchers once we've verified their intent."

So, if you are not a believer you can't see the "considerable body of personal information" on bigfoot.

What a way to run a railroad.....

They are never going to get anywhere at all, even if there really are bigfoots out there.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

What would be the evolutionary advantage of having IR vision, if you had better night vision than an owl ?

I don't know, but I hope BF can turn it off when the sun comes up. :D

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:29 PM

Bigfoot hunters have been playing recordings of Bigfoot, that have been recorded by other Bigfoot hunters ... and on and on and on....

Not only that, but you've got folks like Melvin Skahan who can do the bigfoot yowl all by himself.

Skeptical Greg

11th August 2005, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Not only that, but you've got folks like Melvin Skahan who can do the bigfoot yowl all by himself. From the same story..

Jones first saw a sasquatch while on a hunting trip as a teenager in 1967. "I watched him for almost 40 minutes through a nine-power rifle scope, so I knew it wasn't a bear or any other known creature," he recalls," A herd of elk passed by this animal, which had squatted down in the grass to be unobserved, and the elk never sensed his presence. Then a couple of hunters came on the scene, and they, too, walked within feet of him. After they passed, he moved away so quickly and stealthily that it was hard to believe what I'd seen." Fearing ridicule, Jones told no one about his encounter, not even his father, but the image has remained vivid in his memory. When he discovered the BFRO web site, he decided to share his experienceâ€”and to dedicate much of his spare time to the pursuit of Bigfoot. "I went down to New Mexico last year to verify some information from a Jicarilla Apache who had reported a close encounter that he'd had almost two years earlier," says Jones. "We'd gone out to the location to reenact the circumstances he described, and as we were walking back to our car, one of our party spotted a huge creature just yards from her in the brush. I went right in, chasing it up the side of the mountain almost 350 yards. When I finally stopped on a saddle where I could see, he was about 75 feet away, peeking around a tree, staring at me. We looked at each other, eye to eye, for almost a minute, and then he snapped a branch, turned, and disappeared. Since it was getting dark, and I couldn't get anyone to go back in there with me, I waited until the next day and went down with another guide to check for prints. There was nothing good enough to cast, but we could see where he'd scrambled up a 60-foot cliff, tearing away the moss as he climbed." What's wrong with this story ? I mean really wrong...

I've got a $1.00 off coupon for RightGuard, for the correct ansewer.. ( this really should be in the Puzzles forum )

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:41 PM

Moneymaker says the film's veracity has been endorsed by several noted primatologists, including Daris Swindler, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Washington.

From that same BFRO page.

Again the claim that the film has been endorsed as true.

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:42 PM

I've got a $1.00 off coupon for RightGuard, for the correct ansewer

It's blowing in the wind, my friend..... :D

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 03:42 PM

Bobo Fay, a regular on BFRO expeditions...
I thought he was an Intergalactic bounty hunter.

The above quotes from the BFRO really show the brilliance of mythmaking. Bigfoot is a wonderful American myth. It fun, exciting and relatively safe (as long as nobody shoots anyone going for a pee behind a tree). The myth makes superb campfire stories.

Any imaginable excuse is given why Bigfoot cannot be photographed, captured or found. None of them have to be rational. They only have to be acceptable to the Bigfoot crowd. Since this is a mostly isolated subculture, the excuses only bounce around within this self-contained reality world. Bigfoot believers are from Mars. Everyone else is from Venus.

Do not forget the most genius excuse of all... from the father of this thread. Beckjord makes an end run around everything and just concedes that Bigfoot is paranormal. This 'electric ape' appears and disappears. It even changes shapes while it is visible.

Bigfoot has infrared vision? Lordy, that is paranormal. No animal on earth has infrared vision. Some have the capacity to sense infrared emission very close to them, but they don't use their eyes. Pit vipers and other snakes are the classic example.

The Bigfoot myth is cool until one of the supportive folks decides to carry their medicine show outside of the subculture. When Beckjord and LAL showed up here they took a spaceship from Mars to Venus. Then Lu complains about softball hostilities and recommends medication for me? Puhleeeze!

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 03:48 PM

Lu probably thinks it's guys like Beckjord that are making bigfoot research look silly.

I submit that it's not really Beckjord or his kind at all.

It's the people Lu keeps citing as experts, and the people at TBRC and the BFRO that are making bigfoot research look silly.

FFed

11th August 2005, 04:08 PM

I found this story awhile ago from my old University newspaper.
Just in case anyone is interested...

http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/article.shtml?/19991019-26/sasquatch.htmlf

William Parcher

11th August 2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu probably thinks it's guys like Beckjord that are making bigfoot research look silly.

I submit that it's not really Beckjord or his kind at all.

It's the people Lu keeps citing as experts, and the people at TBRC and the BFRO that are making bigfoot research look silly.

Agreed. But ironically, the reverse is true. Beckjord is so far outside of Bigfoot subculture that he appeals to me in weird ways. The line between pure paranormal entity and pure myth is much small than between irreconcilably improbable natural creatures and myth. That might not make sense to you. I mean, Beckjord's description of the ape is much closer to mythical (which Bigfoot is) than trying to explain it in completely ridiculous naturalistic ways.

Obviously, I'm convinced that Bigfoot does not exist. But because LAL (and her like) will argue all day long about Bigfoot as a real giant stinky American ape, I am compelled to give counterarguments all day long. I suspect that I would stop arguing against Beckjord quickly, because his position claims that Bigfoot cannot be evaluated in naturalistic terms.

If LAL wants to argue for a nocturnal bipedal ape, I've got my gloves on. When Beckjord argues for a thing that appears, disappears and morphs, I have no functional argument.

When you are out in the woods with LAL and she hears a Bigfoot sound, you can run over there and show her it was a coyote. With Beckjord, even pointing at the coyote won't work because he can say that that is Bigfoot. Then what do you say?

Truth is, I want to camp out in Bigfoot country with LAL and Beckjord and have fat cheeseburgers and beer around the campfire. But ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, not together. I want them to immerse me in the myth and talk to me for hours about it.

LAL, I don't hate you. I don't think I even pity you. I just think you are completely wrong about the existence of Bigfoot as a real animal outside of myth. You seem to be persistent and possibly enjoying your prolonged debate here. That is something worthy, even if you are 100% incorrect.

Lu, when I tell you to 'stuff it', I'm telling you that you are taking this myth outside the boundaries that a myth should be taken. I love you, you little deluded thing you.

bruto

11th August 2005, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
And sometimes they just stroll off nonchalantly on camera as if they couldn't care less about their territory or anything else. :D

I guess these expeditions need to try to run across Patty again.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

They only stroll nonchalantly for movies. They defend their territories with ferocious displays and vocalizations only when they know that a squatchhunter has once again traipsed out into the woods without a camera.

LTC8K6

11th August 2005, 08:29 PM

Well, I just dismiss Beckjord outright and don't bother to listen after the first few sentences.

I don't count Beckjord against the rational folks who genuinely believe in sasquatch.

They do need to weed those folks out of their conferences and symposiums though.

If I decided to attend one to learn about bigfoot and the state of bigfoot research, and had to listen to any of those lunatics, I would be mighty upset. If I had paid any money, I would demand it back.

Hellbound

11th August 2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
That makes sense.. Thanks for setting me strait.. Need to have a slice of humble pie on that one..

Nah, asking when one doesn't know is nothing to apologize for...now if you still insisted they didn't emit that'd be a different story ;)

However, in light of the IR signature of a bunch of people in the first place ( it doesn't say they were wearing thermal camo ), it doesn't seem that the use of IR goggles would be the deciding factor in keeping ol' Mr. Infrared vision, Sasquatch at bay..

Probably not, but also you need to remember not to confuse IR with thermographic. IR is not necessarily "heat vision" or "infravision" in the typical sense. Using NVGs, the IR signature of a person is a brighter spot, but can still be blocked by most anything in between (such as weeds, trees, bushes, etc). With the active IR on, it's a beam that would shine out from their hiding place, and (since it shines in the direction you are looking...it's mounted on the goggles) into BF's eyes/orafices/IR sensing gonads.

Not that I think these people have any grounding in reality, but the active IR is a concern, even in groups of people, because it's like the difference between the glow of a small campfire and the beam of a large flashilight. If you are facing an enemy that has NVGs (or other infrared capability), you do NOT turn your active mode on.

Of course, I'm also considering this from the view of trained soldiers facing trained soldiers, or night-time sniping, so what I might or might not consider acceptible risk may vary from the average person, as well :)

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 06:15 AM

Why would you use up most of your film, anyway?

You don't have much in the first place.

You are trying to document an unknown creature.

Why use up most of the roll and ride around with hardly any film left?

On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself.

Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.

Gimlin comes back that morning and finds Patterson gone.

Patterson was out early that morning by himself, then he comes back to camp and wants to know where Gimlin has been exploring. Patterson then tells Gimlin where to look next, which was where both of them had been before.

Suspicious, if you ask me.

On October 26, 1967, the film was shown at the University of British Columbia (U.B.C.). Two screenings were conducted. The first screening was given to University scientists only. The second screening was to university scientists and Don Abbott and Frank Beebe (both of the British Columbia Provincial Museum). Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were at both sessions to answer questions. They also showed the audience the casts of the footprints found at the film site. Whether or not the second film roll was shown at these sessions is not clear. John Green, who was present, states this roll was shown; Ren&eacut; Dahinden, also present, says it was not shown. Unfortunately, this roll vanished in the early 1970s.

The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group. The museum people, Frank Beebe and Don Abbott, however, were not restrained. Frank Beebe, although impressed with the film, implied the strong likelihood of a hoax. Don Abbott did not give a personal opinion at this time. A press screening and conference was held later the same day. Subsequent newspaper reports were given very high profile.

Because the scientific community, as it were, was either silent, non-committal, generally negative or vague, public interest in the new evidence quickly diminished. Hopes held by Dahinden and Green for government backing to further research the Bigfoot phenomenon also rapidly faded.

Why would you give strict orders not to comment on the film's authenticity?

Why would you then wonder why the scientific community reacted the way they did?

Very odd.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 06:34 AM

Patterson was eager to get his film of the creature developed to ensure that he had in fact caught the creature on the film. On this point, Gimlin has stated, "We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sandbar and getting up and running...we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on the film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything."

This is just BS. Patterson knew damn well he had captured Patty on film. His comments in the Argosy magazine article and elsewhere make it clear that he knew for sure he had the creature on film.

Why make the heroic, and presumably expensive effort to get the film developed so quickly if it was doubtful anything was on the film?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
How about sixty seconds?

What research? By whom?

Drs. Meldrum and Nelson. See LMS.

The film speed was 18 fps. That rules out human even according to Grieve. Krantz found some flaws in Grieve's analysis. I'm still reading about this.

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by bruto
Proportions are relevant, and a superimposed image that shows this much similarity to human proportions means that the bigfoot in question has human proportions, as simple as that.

How do you see a similarity in proportions? Even at the same scale they are clearly very different.

Follow the lines nightwing supplied, especially in the leg area.

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Approx how long is the PGF footage in LMS ?

I can't give you a time, but it apparently has all 953 frames, from the time Roger started trying to get the camera on her to when she is no longer visible behind trees.

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I can't even get an answer as to whether a couple of stills are in the video on LMS...

Of course they are. I thought you were sending out a call for a clip online. I don't know of one. You could try joining BFF and asking someone there to post it. I don't have the software to do it. They may block you if you have an AOL or a couple of other e-mail addresses because Beckjord tries to sneak in under different SNs. A cyber friend had this problem until I vouched for him to the moderators.

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

It is.

Of course I think we'd all love to see everything that Patterson shot on those 2 rolls. Well, maybe Lu wouldn't. :D

Sure I would. Northern California is really nice. The footprint section was clipped and included in old documentaries, so it's not like it's gone.

I do not think I want to purchase all of the other claptrap that I am certain the LMS DVD is full of.

The thought of paying for BFRO "research" on video makes me nauseous.

You'd be paying Whitewolf Productions. The BFRO didn't produce this. Doug Hajilek did. It was shown on the Discovery Channel and used to be available as a free download from their website. Actually, it's not full of claptrap, and how could you be certain of that without seeing it? It has the call analysis at Texas A&M, the reenactment of the MD film with Richard Noll, Drs. Meldrum and Nelson on the gait and tissue anomaly, Chillcut on the footprints, Meldrum, Sarmiento and Swindler on the Skookum Cast, Nelson on biomechanics, the computer analysis (done by a sceptic, BTW), peels, hair and scat (that didn't yield DNA). The only eyewitnesses interviewed are the people who were involved in the MD filming.

Maybe your library would purchase it if you think there's some thing wrong with ordering it through the BFRO. I know of no other place to get it, but perhaps the library would. MM aside, there are still many good people left in the organization. I'd hate to see them all painted with the same brush.

Thurkon

12th August 2005, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
It shouldn't take all that long to read this..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

I've sailed through it several times , making sure I didn't miss the disclaimer that said " We just made all this stuff up.. ) But no, it wasn't there...

What's to respond to? What are you asking them... Maybe something like:

" Do you realize this stuff makes your claim to be ' scientific ' downright ridiculous, makes a laughing stock of serious Bigfoot researchers, and ruins any chances we have for acquiring any credibility ? "

Have you tried to get their attention by saying you are interested in joining an expedition?

I understand the fascination with Bigfoot. I understand that some people want to believe in it, and will go so far as to organize scientific expeditions, and attempt to scientifically evaluate the evidence available.

What I donâ€™t understand is when those same individuals allow nonsense like the BFRO website to go unchallenged. I mean, where are your standards? Is this some kind of indication of the lack of scientific understanding within the Bigfoot community in general? Thatâ€™s all I can imagine when this garbage is on a website of one of the more â€œreputableâ€ Bigfoot sites on the net.

Iâ€™ve read quite a few reports of Bigfoot encounters. Did I miss the one where there was observed mating? Observed births? If there were no such reports, Moneymaker and crew are outright lying. From what Iâ€™ve gathered, the bulkâ€¦if not allâ€¦of Bigfoot encounters are at the maximum a few minutes in duration. How would this allow a researcher to establish such things as gestation periods, average lifespans, and such? Is the BFRO merely guessing? What kind of serious scientist would make blind guesses about such things?

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 08:10 AM

The film speed was 18 fps.

How is it possible to say this with any certainty? The K-100 had a tolerance of 10% in this regard. It is highly unlikely that the film speed was actually 18fps, imo.

It's really too bad that we can't see any more examples of the film taken with that camera.

Really too bad...

How much of bigfoot's details were created by the restoration's use of filters to enhance the P/G film? Would the actual film look as good? Would any opinions change today if the unaltered film could be viewed?

The image restorations involved motion and focal blur removal which was performed using FIR and IIR filters. Image enhancement included Wallis enhancements, homomorphic equalization, histogram equalization and curve adjustments.

It appears none of us, owners of the LMS DVD included, are looking at the actual P/G film at all, really. We are looking at an altered version of the film.

LAL

12th August 2005, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I wouldn't hesitate to plunk down $30 if I thought I would be getting something objective.

It's pretty objective. It sticks to the best evidence; no "gee whiz" reports. The producer was sceptical, at least until he found some tracks himself.

I would like to know the source of LMS's PGF footage.. How was it mastered.. What is the length of the footage..

I'll see what I can find out.
It's 953 frames.

Supposedly, the encounter that was filmed lasted about two minutes.. I have never seen more than a few seconds...

The encounter may have, but Roger had to get the camera out of the saddlebag (on a badly spooked, if not falling, horse) and aim. By my watch, the film on LMS is about a minute.

The missing footage alone, is reason to consider the PGF inadmissible as evidence for anything..

The missing footage, if we're talking about the second reel, wasn't important. It wasn't returned to Patterson, as I've already posted.

The Bigfoot creduloids see all this amazing detail, but the facial features remain a blob, as do the soles of the feet.

The nose is pretty clear. The soles may be coated in damp sand.
"Scofftics" see suits. I suppose that makes me a "creduloid". Beats being a "woo", but I fail to see how name-calling really accomplishes anything.

I have heard there is a part of the film where Patty is seen moving right to left.. Has anyone else this...

In one of the analyses, the film was viewed in reverse, for some reason. Krantz mentions this. Perhaps that's where that comes from. At no time does she move that way.

I have heard there is a clip where she is seen standing still , and then steps off, to begin her famous walk..

Gimlin says on A&E she was standing by the stream when they first saw her, but that's not on the film that I can see.

It seems obvious that the owner of the film could stand to gain a great deal by putting it in the right hands, whether it is a hoax or not.. The fact that they don't is suspicious in itself..

That would be Patricia Patterson, Roger's widow. She owns the copyright. If she finally has a chance to make a little money off it, I don't begrudge her that. I have no idea what her plans are. Some of the people on BFF know her. Perhaps something's been posted about that. I'll do a search when I get caught up here (if ever).

Oh, and did I mention there is nothing funny or unusual about the walk ?

Did you mention you're an expert in biomechanics and primate locomotion? I didn't know that.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 08:19 AM

Lu, I am no longer sure it's worth anything to look at LMS given the enhancements made to the P/G film.

If the focal and motion blur had not been removed, would you still see muscle movement? Would that shoulder motion look as good to you?

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I can't give you a time, but it apparently has all 953 frames, from the time Roger started trying to get the camera on her to when she is no longer visible behind trees. You are being obtuse again.. I think we can rule out intentional now..

Most DVD players have a running time display...

Or try this..

Que the movie.. Find a clock/watch with a 2nd hand or seconds display.. Start the clip and count how many seconds it runs..

Does this sound too difficult for you ?

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 09:04 AM

http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2004outwest/Trip%20Photos/Elk%2001.JPG

A picture of elk laying down. They appear to be resting on their side and their feet do not appear to be directly under them as someone keeps claiming they would be.

They appear to have sunk straight down as far as their legs will allow, and then rolled over on their side.

It looks to me like these elk would roll back towards the side their feet are on and then stand up.

So, it appears they would not necessarily mar their body imprint with hoofprints when they got up.

I see excellent possibilities for "bigfoot's heel" here as well with the front legs folded.

You'd have to imagine them in mud, of course. :D

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 09:23 AM

quote:

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

Quote: ( Lu)

It is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'ts NOT Lu ...

It is however many seconds, of two rolls of film, that the makers of the DVD chose to include ...

The fact that you are satisfied with it, has no bearing on it's completeness or accuracy..

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, I just dismiss Beckjord outright and don't bother to listen after the first few sentences.

I dismiss all Bigfoot believers outright. It's too late to really claim Bigfoot to be a reality. This myth game has been going on for centuries and intensively for about 40 years.

I don't count Beckjord against the rational folks who genuinely believe in sasquatch.

Rational folks may believe in Bigfoot, but the belief in Bigfoot is irrational itself.

They do need to weed those folks out of their conferences and symposiums though.

They didn't at a recent conference. Check out Kewaunee Lapseritis at the Bellingham Sasquatch Research Conference in May. Conference Reviews (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11338&view=findpost&p=230669)

If I decided to attend one to learn about bigfoot and the state of bigfoot research, and had to listen to any of those lunatics, I would be mighty upset. If I had paid any money, I would demand it back.

It would seem that 'anything goes' in Bigfoot research since there is no type specimen to create any kind of naturalistic standard for the creature. If you claim that Bigfoot is a visiting extraterrestrial... who the hell is going to prove that it isn't?

Demand a refund? Would that be like paying to go through a Halloween spook house in order to be scared, then asking for your money back because the guy in there with the bloody chainsaw really isn't a murderer?

LAL

12th August 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by bruto
I don't know what sort of camera was rented for the occasion, but if it was a reasonably good quality 16 mm. camera of the era, it would likely have had three prime lenses on a turret, rather than a zoom; if so a sudden change of focal length would not be in and of itself an anomaly. You'd expect them to change lenses from time to time as the subject changed distance, and these changes would have been abrupt.

It was a Cine-Kodak K-100.

What is still a problem for me is the fact that nobody, apparently, except for some distant "experts" has seen the other footage.

What other footage are we refferring to here? Do you mean the rest of roll 2? Ten feet were removed and given to Dahinden (the part with the footprints) and used in documentaries. The actual roll is missing. See Murphy.

For all her dancing around the subject, LAL cannot really explain why a party intending to shoot a bigfoot documentary woud have blown the majority of their film on scenery, leaving none at the end with which to document the tracks of the bigfoot they filmed, and why, if this is the case, the extra footage is now nowhere to be found.

Evidently they shot some scenery on the way (I'm still checking this out). The roll ran out as she walked into the forest. Tracks were filmed at the beginning of the second roll. If they had reallly expected to encounter a Sasquatch, do you think they would have been shooting scenery? They wanted to film some tracks for the documentary. They had plenty of film for that.

If the extra footage has been destroyed or lost or hidden, skeptics are entitled to be suspicious of its contents. The alternative explanation, which is that the people who made the film were careless and not very competent, is a kindness.
The second roll wasn't returned to Patterson. How does that make him careless and not very competant?

LAL

12th August 2005, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
quote:

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

Quote: ( Lu)

It is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'ts NOT Lu ...

It is however many seconds, of two rolls of film, that the makers of the DVD chose to include ...

The fact that you are satisfied with it, has no bearing on it's completeness or accuracy..

Let me rephrase: It's the whole sequence of the footage with the creature, including the jumpy, smeary beginning, which often is edited out. It's not just the clip where she turns. That can be seen in close-up in the extras. There's nothing from the second roll, which is missing, but Murphy has a shot from it on pg. 48. Laverty's photos were better.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 09:37 AM

The second roll wasn't returned to Patterson. How does that make him careless and not very competant?

Returned to Patterson from who/where?

Did Patterson raise a big stink about not getting the film back? If not, why not? I would have.

They had plenty of film for that.

I disagree. They hardly had any film at all in total, imo, and should not have used up 3/4 of the roll and then rode around with a nearly empty camera.

The P/G film we have seen is supposedly 1/4 of a roll. So, a roll was about 4 minutes worth. So, they apparently had a total of 8 minutes worth of film with them.

Thurkon

12th August 2005, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Drs. Meldrum and Nelson. See LMS.

The film speed was 18 fps. That rules out human even according to Grieve. Krantz found some flaws in Grieve's analysis. I'm still reading about this.

I didn't think anyone knew the exact film speed?

I know some have attempted to guess...but no one really knows, do they?

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
From the same story....

Jones first saw a sasquatch while on a hunting trip as a teenager in 1967. "I watched him for almost 40 minutes through a nine-power rifle scope, so I knew it wasn't a bear or any other known creature," he recalls," A herd of elk passed by this animal, which had squatted down in the grass to be unobserved, and the elk never sensed his presence. Then a couple of hunters came on the scene, and they, too, walked within feet of him. After they passed, he moved away so quickly and stealthily that it was hard to believe what I'd seen." Fearing ridicule, Jones told no one about his encounter, not even his father, but the image has remained vivid in his memory. When he discovered the BFRO web site, he decided to share his experienceâ€”and to dedicate much of his spare time to the pursuit of Bigfoot. "I went down to New Mexico last year to verify some information from a Jicarilla Apache who had reported a close encounter that he'd had almost two years earlier," says Jones. "We'd gone out to the location to reenact the circumstances he described, and as we were walking back to our car, one of our party spotted a huge creature just yards from her in the brush. I went right in, chasing it up the side of the mountain almost 350 yards. When I finally stopped on a saddle where I could see, he was about 75 feet away, peeking around a tree, staring at me. We looked at each other, eye to eye, for almost a minute, and then he snapped a branch, turned, and disappeared. Since it was getting dark, and I couldn't get anyone to go back in there with me, I waited until the next day and went down with another guide to check for prints. There was nothing good enough to cast, but we could see where he'd scrambled up a 60-foot cliff, tearing away the moss as he climbed."

What's wrong with this story ? I mean really wrong...

I've got a $1.00 off coupon for RightGuard, for the correct ansewer.. ( this really should be in the Puzzles forum ) Thanks for playing... There will be a consolation prize of a casting kit, with an autographed picture of Koko ..

Here we have a Bigfoot hunter of 40+ years who travelled to New Mexico to check out a report.. The creature shows up, and SURPRISE ! SURPRISE !

He apparently doesn't have a camera with him !!

( Waiting for lame excuse, about how he DID have his camera but got flustered or something and couldn't manage to use it ... )

LAL

12th August 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2004outwest/Trip%20Photos/Elk%2001.JPG

A picture of elk laying down. They appear to be resting on their side and their feet do not appear to be directly under them as someone keeps claiming they would be.

Who was that? The imprint doesn't look like the side of an elk. I've never said they can't lay on their sides. They roll too.

How, pray tell, do they manage to get up without having their legs under them? Or down, for that matter? Even rolling over, the imprints of legs and hooves would have to be very close to the imprint of the side. There is nothing like that in the photo.

They appear to have sunk straight down as far as their legs will allow, and then rolled over on their side.

It looks to me like these elk would roll back towards the side their feet are on and then stand up.

So, it appears they would not necessarily mar their body imprint with hoofprints when they got up.

See an elk. They scramble quite a bit. The front legs tend to splay as they finally make it to their feet. If you can't see a real elk, a horse is a good approximation.

I see excellent possibilities for "bigfoot's heel" here as well with the front legs folded.

You'd have to imagine them in mud, of course. :D

Since you seem to have shown this conclusively (to your own satisfaction, anyway), I suggest you e-mail Meldrum (the email is on his web page at Idaho State) and, with his permission, post his reply. I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 09:57 AM

A herd of elk and 2 hunters walked right by this bigfoot crouching in the grass (with it's godawful stench) and didn't notice it?

A big old stinky dark brown sasquatch?

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 10:01 AM

Lu, maybe my memory is faulty, but I believe you and Noll claimed that there would have to be hoof prints in the body print if the skookum print was made by an elk.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 10:07 AM

"An elk will gather their feet under them when they get up," he said. "But there are no elk hoofprints in the center of the cast."

That was Noll. He is clearly saying there should be hoof prints in the body print.

I would say he is mistaken. The hoof prints would not be in the center of the cast at all.

Hitch

12th August 2005, 10:16 AM

Okay, the things bothering me today:

Someone (Lu quoted them) said the film speed was 18fps. I find this unlikely since apparently the camera didn't have a setting for 18fps. The closest were 16fps and 24 fps. One of the settings may have been somewhat out of tolerance, but the claim an absolute 18fps seems unlikely.

"All of the footage" includes the other 190 feet of film Patterson took into the woods with him, not just the 10 feet with Patty. Apparently he had 2 100 foot rolls. Some of us want to see everything that was shot, even if the Bigfoot enthusiasts consider it unimportant. There might not be anything there, but at least we'll no nothing is being hidden.

According to Lu again, Gimlin claimed Patty was standing in the stream when they first saw her, then she walked into the woods. Why don't her feet or legs look wet? Wet fur should be noticable. Especially given the details some people see, like muscles rippling, the overlap between the body and leg pieces of the suit, ruptured thigh muscles, etc.

I have to admit that and elk lying in the mud to eat apples without leaving hoof marks on the body imprint is unlikely. But I don't consider it less likely than a Bigfoot doing the same thing without leaving footprints.

I'm not saying Bigfoot does not exist. I can never prove that. I feel it's unlikely, and the evidence I've seen is still far from convincing.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by LAL

If they had reallly expected to encounter a Sasquatch, do you think they would have been shooting scenery?
No, but it's a real good exuse for having only a few seconds of footage of your primary objective...

Do you really think that someone who is planning on making a professional quality documentary, is going to be armed with only 2 rolls of film, and use it filming scenery and tracks?

Every indication is that P&G set out with every expectation of filming the creature..

I'll dig up the sources if you insist...

LAL

12th August 2005, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I have seen references to single lens K-100's and 3 lens K-100's.

As far as I know, Patterson had the single lens variety.

7' 3.5" and 2,000lbs.

Wow! :D

How come these days it's 6' 2" and 350lbs?

Read Krantz. 6'5"-6'7" and 500 lbs.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 10:32 AM

Read Krantz.

No, thank you.

The part about standing in the stream was probably to explain Patty's white feet.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
No, thank you.

The part about standing in the stream was probably to explain Patty's white feet. I thought the stream bed was dry ?

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Read Krantz. 6'5"-6'7" and 500 lbs. Yep.. Fits the tracks better.. Had to dump the NASI report ( 2,000 lbs ) ...

What's wrong with this picture?

Get distinguished forensic scientist to investigate film. Findings don't match other evidence. Disregard findings.
NASI and expert is never called upon for further investigation.

LAL

12th August 2005, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
You are being obtuse again.. I think we can rule out intentional now..

Most DVD players have a running time display...

Or try this..

Que the movie.. Find a clock/watch with a 2nd hand or seconds display.. Start the clip and count how many seconds it runs..

Does this sound too difficult for you ?

I already timed it with my watch before I read this post. I was refering to an official time given in a book and was reading Murphy to see if he gives one. I'm trying to weed, cut back Kudzu and burn old papers while I'm posting. While I'm doing my best to spend every waking moment on this board, I do have other things to do on my days off.

Why would I think you'd believe me if I gave you a time off the DVD?

LAL

12th August 2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
No, thank you.

The part about standing in the stream was probably to explain Patty's white feet.

Why not? Too technical for you? I read Dennett, Daegling and Long.

Roger first saw her squatting by the stream. Her feet could have been in it. She may have walked through damp sand at some point.

LAL

12th August 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Yep.. Fits the tracks better.. Had to dump the NASI report ( 2,000 lbs ) ...

What's wrong with this picture?

Get distinguished forensic scientist to investigate film. Findings don't match other evidence. Disregard findings.
NASI and expert is never called upon for further investigation.

According to Murphy, Glickman has apparently stood firm on his figure. He has never revised it.

That's the main criticism voiced by other researchers. This is kind of like peer review, isn't it? One expert gives an opinion and others try to tear it apart. That's how science works.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 11:16 AM

I thought the stream bed was dry ?

Dry, wet, whatever....

Who can tell anymore? :D

Maybe it's on the lost footage?

Why not? Too technical for you?

Yeah, my little pea brain can only take so much.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I already timed it with my watch before I read this post. I was refering to an official time given in a book and was reading Murphy to see if he gives one. I'm trying to weed, cut back Kudzu and burn old papers while I'm posting. While I'm doing my best to spend every waking moment on this board, I do have other things to do on my days off.

Why would I think you'd believe me if I gave you a time off the DVD? Can you explain the problem of giving the running time of the clip on the DVD ?

Why would I not believe you ? I would consider such information an actual fact. Something that is real scarce in these parts..

I'm not trying to nail you on anything.. I'm just curious about what the DVD provides, when it claims it is the ' complete ' footage...

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 11:39 AM

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by LAL
According to Murphy, Glickman has apparently stood firm on his figure. He has never revised it.

That's the main criticism voiced by other researchers. This is kind of like peer review, isn't it? One expert gives an opinion and others try to tear it apart. That's how science works.

Peer review of what kind of peers? There is no Bigfoot science, only an enthusiastic subculture. That subculture thrives on internally coherent debates or 'peer review' by other subculturalists. In the bigger picture, this is pseudoscience.

The argument over whether the PGF thing is 500 lbs or 2000 lbs is a red herring. Because that argument makes a complete end-run around the primary question of whether Bigfoot exists in the very first place.

Nearly all of the Bigfoot 'research' and 'peer review' is composed of subculturalists arguing with other subculturalists. For the most part, these people already accept that Bigfoot is a real creature. They ignore and obfuscate any sort of evidence or argument that reveals that the entire field of 'research' is a wild goose chase.

This is not peer reviewed science questioning the weight range of the Hairy-nosed Wombat. This is 'peer review' of the length of Unicorn horns.

Until it is shown that Bigfoot is not a myth, you are talking about a Unicorn.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 11:45 AM

Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It references testimony by many in the movie industry that we have a man in a suit..

We ( well some of us ) are well aware of how scientists can be fooled by ' magic ', while ' magicians ' have no problem spotting trickery.. I suggest this may apply very well in other arenas also.

( I'm going to post this in the PGF thread also, in case anyone wants a repast from long load times )

LAL

12th August 2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Hitch
Okay, the things bothering me today:

Someone (Lu quoted them) said the film speed was 18fps. I find this unlikely since apparently the camera didn't have a setting for 18fps. The closest were 16fps and 24 fps. One of the settings may have been somewhat out of tolerance, but the claim an absolute 18fps seems unlikely.

I've been trying to get back to that and correct it for over five hours. I got sidetracked trying to answer older posts. I'm only on page 31 and I have dial-up.

The jiggle analysis narrowed it down to 16 or 18. Patterson said the speed was shifted, possibly when he pulled the camera from the saddlebag. He normally kept it at 24, but it was on 16 when he checked.

On pg. 96 of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence Krantz states:

" Bourtsev reports that sprinters manage five steps per second. If the filming speed was 24 frames, Patterson was running at six steps per second, and this is clearly impossible. At 18 frames per second he was running at 4.5 steps per second, and at 16 frames he did four steps per second. Either of these last two are possible, though four steps seems more reasonable for most men who are not practicing athletes. On the other hand, Patterson stood only a little over five feet tall (160 cm), so his running pace would be notably faster than for an average man."

All of the footage" includes the other 190 feet of film Patterson took into the woods with him, not just the 10 feet with Patty. Apparently he had 2 100 foot rolls. Some of us want to see everything that was shot, even if the Bigfoot enthusiasts consider it unimportant. There might not be anything there, but at least we'll no nothing is being hidden.

On pg. 42 of Meet the Sasquatch, it says he took 24' / 7.3 meters of film of the creature.

On page 41 it says "he wished to find and film fresh footprints as evidence of the creature's existence."

On the same page it says he "used 76- feet/23.2m of his first film roll for general filming, including shots of himself, Gimlin and the horses."

Part of the second roll was used for filming tracks and Roger's experiments jumping off a log to see how far his tracks would sink in. He also filmed the horses' tracks alongside the creature's prints and Gimlin filmed Roger making casts. A shot from this is shown on pg. 43 of Roger holding them. This was after they tried to pursue her (Gimlin first on horseback) and turned back.

According to Lu again, Gimlin claimed Patty was standing in the stream when they first saw her,

No, he didn't and I didn't say that. He says on A&E's Bigfoot in the Ancient Mysteries series they first saw her standing by the stream, not in it.

She apparently went into the stream, but that was after they filmed her. They found a wet print on a rock.

then she walked into the woods. Why don't her feet or legs look wet? Wet fur should be noticable.

He said she was standing by the stream, not in it. She may have sand stuck to her feet.

Especially given the details some people see, like muscles rippling, the overlap between the body and leg pieces of the suit,

Would that be Chris Walas? That didn't hold up well. See the thread on BFF.

ruptured thigh muscles, etc.

You forgot "bell-shaped object".

I have to admit that and elk lying in the mud to eat apples without leaving hoof marks on the body imprint is unlikely. But I don't consider it less likely than a Bigfoot doing the same thing without leaving footprints.

Haven't we been through this before?

I'm not saying Bigfoot does not exist. I can never prove that. I feel it's unlikely, and the evidence I've seen is still far from convincing.

Exactly what evidence have you seen?

RayG

12th August 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Thurkon
What I donâ€™t understand is when those same individuals allow nonsense like the BFRO website to go unchallenged. I mean, where are your standards? Is this some kind of indication of the lack of scientific understanding within the Bigfoot community in general? Thatâ€™s all I can imagine when this garbage is on a website of one of the more â€œreputableâ€ Bigfoot sites on the net.

Visit the BFF and you'll see lots of negative comments about the BFRO, especially about their claim of being a 'scientific' organization. I have always grimaced at them calling themselves 'scientific'. The BFF however, has no control over what the BFRO put up as webpages. In many cases, BFRO claims and pronouncements HAVE been picked apart by those of us with an interest in bigfoot, and in some instances I believe their webpages have been modified based on comments made at the BFF.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11294&hl=bfro
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11755&hl=bfro
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12115&hl=bfro
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9158&hl=bfro

Here's part of an exchange between LAL and I on the BFF about skeptics and evidence.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876

RayG

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 12:48 PM

At about 1:30 p.m. that day, Friday, October 20, 1967, Patterson and Gimlin spotted a female Bigfoot down on a Bluff Creek gravel sandbar. Patterson estimated the creature to be about six feet tall, maybe taller, and weighing about 400 pounds. Patterson's horse reared in alarm at the sight of the creature, bringing both horse and rider to the ground, Patterson pinned below. Gimlin's horse and the pack horse, being led by Gimlin, also reacted. The pack horse panicked and Gimlin released its lead in order to control the horse he was riding. Patterson, being an experienced horseman, quickly disengaged himself and grabbed his camera. He ran towards the creature, stopping within about 80-feet and filmed the creature in the distance. While then running, stumbling, stationary, and later walking, Patterson took 24-feet of color film footage which expired the film roll in the camera. During this time, the creature crossed the creek and walked along the opposite sandbar heading upstream. At one point, the creature turned and looked towards Patterson. The creature then hastened its pace somewhat as it continued its passage into a sparsely wooded area directly ahead. In the meantime, Gimlin, on horseback, rode slowly towards the creature. Gimlin crossed the creek and dismounted. He then observed the whole scene, rifle in hand, in case his friend was attacked by the creature. The men had previously agreed that under no circumstances would they shoot a Bigfoot unless to protect themselves or each other. The footage taken by Patterson shows the creature as it disappeared and reappeared between trees in the distance.

Patty appears to have crossed the creek on camera.

LAL

12th August 2005, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It references testimony by many in the movie industry that we have a man in a suit..

We ( well some of us ) are well aware of how scientists can be fooled by ' magic ', while ' magicians ' have no problem spotting trickery.. I suggest this may apply very well in other arenas also.

( I'm going to post this in the PGF thread also, in case anyone wants a repast from long load times )

Never mind Chambers denied any involvement. Mark Chorvinsky does little but repeat rumors people say they heard. Haven't we been over this before?

Is the PGF thread in this forum or do you mean one of the many, many threads on the PGF on BFF, where you would be torn to shreds (figuratively speaking)?

Post this too:

"Over the years, there has been claims that the film may be a hoax. However, all such claims were fully investigated by Bigfoot researchers and found to be totally without substance. One major claim involving John Chambers, the noted Hollywood make-up artist, was definitely proven to be unfounded. Chambers was personally interviewed by Bobbie Short, a registered nurse and Bigfoot investigator, in February 1997. In this interview, Chambers denied any involvement with the Patterson-Gimlin film. He also stated that in his opinion, not he nor anyone else could have fabricated the creature seen in the film. Chambers went on to state that he was good, but not that good. Chambers admitted he was aware of rumors concerning his involvement in the film. He never took steps to set the record straight because it was good for business. One final note â€” Chambers had never met or heard of Patterson or Gimlin prior to October 20, 1967. He has never heard of Al De Atley."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

Just before my last WAOL error, I was reading an article where Beck ( I think) of Universal said they might be able to do it for a million dollars. Ken Peterson, the senior executive at Disney Studios John Green interviewed in 1969, sems to have given a bargain price, even though they didn't do it.

This is Schlock, BTW:

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Patty appears to have crossed the creek on camera.

... then walked on the creekbank before entering the forest and going out of sight.

But then she exits the forest and gets onto the logging road. Gimlin says he saw her walking on the road about 300 yards away (did this road allow a 300 yard vista?). She rounds a bend in the road and that is the last sight of her. P&G then track her on horseback up the mountain wilderness for 3.5 miles.

RayG

12th August 2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by LAL
Read Krantz. 6'5"-6'7" and 500 lbs.

Originally posted by Diogenes
Yep.. Fits the tracks better..

Actually, Krantz wasn't certain of the height/weight, nor apparently, is anyone else. Patterson himself thought the film subject was 7'4" and somewhere between 300 and 800 pounds, though he settled on 500, as did Krantz. Gimlin, on the other hand (or should I say horse), thought the subject was 6'1" or 6'2" and 350 pounds.

The 6'5" - 6'7" DOESN'T actually fit the tracks better. Krantz found ten frames "where the full length of the foot can be seen in a vertical position... measurement...shows that in these ten frames the average is just five of its foot lengths to its height. Five times the foot length is only 6 feet and that must be the actual walking height of the subject."

Krantz claims that the standing height of the creature is 6" taller, caused by the bend in the knees/waist and allowing an extra inch for the subject's footprints sinking into the ground.

Source: Krantz, Grover. Big Footprints. 1992. Johnson Books. page 97
RayG

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 01:06 PM

Gimlin went on to say that he and Roger were riding up Bluff Creek, on the right-hand side. â€œWe came around a downed tree, the creek had re-routed around the tree. As we came around the tree, the horses reacted... to the presence of the creature. Roger's horse reared onto its rear, un-saddling Rogerâ€ Patterson it seems was not "thrown to the ground" as has been reported by many people â€“ in fact, Gimlin went on to explain that Roger had practiced getting the camera out of the saddlebag over and over again, and when he realized why the pony was rearing, grabbed the camera dismounted and ran across the creek and up the sandbar.

Hmmmm.....now Patterson was not thrown at all. He grabbed the camera and dismounted.

Quite a variation from being pinned under a mad bronco and having a bent stirrup to show for it....

Patterson was practicing getting the camera out over and over again to film tracks for a documentary? Nope. It had to be to film bigfoot. You don't need to get your camera out in a hurry to film tracks and scenery and stump jumps.....

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 01:23 PM

You see LTC, the story by Patterson & Gimlin of what went on during and immediately after the 'Patty' filming is a complete fabrication. They filmed a hoax. Nobody tracked anything anywhere. They needed to create a dramatic story of the event as if it actually happened with a real Bigfoot. It didn't.

It's too bad that that there isn't a detailed graphic map showing the creek surrounds at the film site, the entirety of the logging road, the location of the '3.5 mile tracking' and the fern sofa overlooking the site that 'Patty' parked herself in.

Once again, skeptics are deprived of information that could immediately show this to be a fabrication.

LAL

12th August 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by RayG

Here's part of an exchange between LAL and I on the BFF about skeptics and evidence.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876

RayG

And my experiments on the bed. I haven't gone so far as to put mud all over it.

I forgot to mention unicorns (usually pink). My bad.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 01:29 PM

However, all such claims were fully investigated by Bigfoot researchers and found to be totally without substance.

Do telll...:rolleyes:

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 01:30 PM

Yeah and with Matt Crowley's rather devastating demonstration that Jimmy Chilcutt is wrong, linked to in my other thread, bigfoot is on it's last leg with me.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 01:42 PM

Is the PGF thread in this forum or do you mean one of the many, many threads on the PGF on BFF, where you would be torn to shreds (figuratively speaking)? That will be your assignment for today.. To find the PGF thread..

Why don't you invite some of your BFF friends over.. They're quite welcome to tear away.. Can't imagine them doing a better job than you have....

LAL

12th August 2005, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Hmmmm.....now Patterson was not thrown at all. He grabbed the camera and dismounted.

Nope.

"Roger's horse reared onto its rear, un-saddling Roger."

Roger said the horse was on his foot.

Quite a variation from being pinned under a mad bronco and having a bent stirrup to show for it....

Who said that?

Patterson was practicing getting the camera out over and over again to film tracks for a documentary? Nope. It had to be to film bigfoot. You don't need to get your camera out in a hurry to film tracks and scenery and stump jumps.....

Why would he have had to have the camera out in a hurry if all they were going to film was Bob Heironimus?

With tracks of three in the area, yeah, there was a chance they'd see one and get to film it. They had rifles and an agreement not to shoot unless absolutely necessary. They were in the St. Helens area (another hot spot) when Roger's wife let him know about tracks being found at Bluff Creek.

Glad you read the article I posted.

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you really think that someone who is planning on making a professional quality documentary, is going to be armed with only 2 rolls of film, and use it filming scenery and tracks?

Every indication is that P&G set out with every expectation of filming the creature..

Speaking of 'being fully prepared for Bigfoot'.... ask LAL how many pounds of plaster did Rick Noll drag up to remote Skookum Meadows before casting the sneaky reclining apple-eating Bigfoot. Ask the weight of the Skookum Cast.

Yes folks, were bringing ridiculous amounts of plaster because we just know that Bigfoot is gonna munch on these delicious apples in the middle of the night. We are going to need gobs of plaster to cast this scene which will happen. You betcha!

RayG

12th August 2005, 02:04 PM

John Green, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, Hancock House, page 116:

They reared and Roger's horse fell on its side. He had to scramble celar and then get around to the saddle bag on the opposite side to get the movie camera.

Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, Johnson Books, page 87:

Immediately upon the mutual sighting, Patterson's horse reared and fell over backward on top of him. He quickly extricated himself and retrieved his 16mm movie camera.

Both of these accounts differ from the horse only rearing up and sitting on its rear like a dog begging for table scraps.

RayG

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 02:09 PM

Lu, this has got to be willful ignorance on your part.

Asking me who said they had gotten a bent stirrup was the last straw.

This has been covered 11 dozen times and numerous links have been posted.

Patterson was pinned under his fallen horse, his foot was stuck in a flattened stirrup.

Well, that was the early version, anyway. The new version is completely different.

This multi-versioned history is tiring. Was it 1:30 or 3:30, for instance?

It's 1:30 in the Times Standard as below, but 3:30 in Argosy.

IT WAS about 1:30 p.m., the daylight was good, when he and Gimlin were riding their horses over a sand bar where they had been just two days before. They had both just come around a bend when "I guess we both saw it at the same time."
"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.
"My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."

I note that the Argosy Feb 68 article says they also had a still camera with them. I wonder if they ever used it?

LAL

12th August 2005, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Yeah and with Matt Crowley's rather devastating demonstration that Jimmy Chilcutt is wrong, linked to in my other thread, bigfoot is on it's last leg with me.

Matt Crowley and I have had an interesting correspondence (he PM'd me), mostly regarding whether or not Jimmy Chilcutt was already aware of this possibility. I found an article that seemed to indicate it was no surprise to Chilcutt; he stated how this happens. Matt is referring to the Onion Mountain cast (I asked for clarification on another thread. Did you see that? There's a close- up of what he's talking about.) This in no way affects findings of whorls, dyplasia, scars, sweat pores, or the characteristic flow. Matt hasn't made any claims about Chilcutt being wrong to my knowlege. Meldrum praised his work (to his great surprise). Crowley plans to speak with Chilcutt at the next conference.

Re an earlier post where you explained why you called me obtuse, I'd recently been through a similar debate on a Creationism vs. Evolution board where a poster explained to me in detail how to climb a fence, as though I'd never seen one. Both sets of grandparents had farms and there's barbed wire.....'scuse me, bobwire.....fence running along one side of my drive, now overgrown with rosa multiflora aster and honeysuckle. I can still get over it. Did you think you were telling me something new?

There was no evidence of the fence being climbed, but even without the fence, the stride, the deformity, the snow being compressed by a warm, living foot rather than spattered by a fake all point to their authenticity. You never did explain how the same object could have appeared 1088 more times. Krantz had reports of the same kind of tracks in the area twenty years earlier and again after the incident.

The Bossburg tracks are still some of the best evidence.

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by LAL
Nope.

"Roger's horse reared onto its rear, un-saddling Roger."

Roger said the horse was on his foot.

Who said that?

Roger Patterson said that. You are not good at researching this film at all. Patterson said that the horse fell directly on top of him and even bent the stirrup. He goes on to say that it injured him to a degree that he had trouble ambling towards Patty to film her. Patterson talks about how he was hurting through the time after the incident. He says these things because he claims his horse fell directly onto his body.

You demand that skeptics 'research' Bigfoot things. Yet your own reserach is pathetic.

Why would he have had to have the camera out in a hurry if all they were going to film was Bob Heironimus?

Patterson didn't have to pull his camera out of the saddlebag to film Heironimus in the suit. The shaking camera is another part of the hoax. Patterson was never on a horse when the filming of Bob H began. Roger just shook the camera so that he could create the lie that he was first thrown from a horse before filming Bigfoot. Bob H says that Roger wasn't thrown from a horse... the implication being that the wildly shaking camera at the beginning was all part of the hoax.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 02:21 PM

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

P/G interview.

Patterson was under the horse.

P and G differ on Patty's arm length.
P says above the knees G says way below.

Gimlin again says she stood still for a moment.

RayG

12th August 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
It's too bad that that there isn't a detailed graphic map showing the creek surrounds at the film site, the entirety of the logging road, the location of the '3.5 mile tracking' and the fern sofa overlooking the site that 'Patty' parked herself in.

That is rather puzzling. I don't recall reading about the tracking for 3.5 miles, but I do know both Green (page 121) and Krantz (page 91) write about Titmus finding evidence where the film subject sat down to observe the two men. How can that be possible if they dashed off in hot pursuit and tracked it for 3.5 miles?

RayG

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 02:25 PM

You never did explain how the same object could have appeared 1088 more times.

Care to back up the 1088 claim with evidence?

Chilcutt said the dermal ridges couldn't be human because they went up and down the sides of the foot. This is precisely what Crowley shows in his demo. This eliminates those supposedly unique dermal ridge claims, imo.

Any other dermal ridges could easily be human ones magnified by the latex enlargement technique.

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by RayG
That is rather puzzling. I don't recall reading about the tracking for 3.5 miles, but I do know both Green (page 121) and Krantz (page 91) write about Titmus finding evidence where the film subject sat down to observe the two men. How can that be possible if they dashed off in hot pursuit and tracked it for 3.5 miles?

Tracking Patty for 3.5 miles away from Bluff Creek is mentioned in more than one interview. Here is the first one I grabbed.

Bob Gimlin said...

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks.

From Argosy Magazine February 1968 (http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/argosy68.htm)

Ray, you and LAL need to do research on the PGF.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 02:45 PM

RayG, the 3.5 mile tracking claim is in the Argosy Feb 68 article.

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off-running, I mean â€” because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three-and-a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks.

Fooey! Beaten again...

Well, here is John Green's interview with Gimlin.

With yet another version of the story.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

LAL

12th August 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, this has got to be willful ignorance on your part.

Asking me who said they had gotten a bent stirrup was the last straw.

I didn't ask that. I was asking about the mad bronco bit.

I'm still trying to get through page 31. If I'm not being quite clear (I thought I was), I apologize, but I'm beginning to lose my patience, especially with some of the remarks. I've spent all day on this again and have barely touched some of the more idiotic arguments.

Things get changed in the retelling. The Humboldt Times-Standard article was written about eight hours after the event. In it Roger said:

"My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

My foot hurt, but I couldn't think about it because I was jumpimg up trying to grab the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."

The time is given as 1:30 PM.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by LAL

Things get changed in the retelling.
Yes they do, but it doesn't seem acceptable for skeptics to tell different versions of a story..

The Humboldt Times-Standard article was written about eight hours after the event. In it Roger said:

"My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

snip ....................

The time is given as 1:30 PM. Uhhhh.. LTC8K6 just told us that .. You seemed to disagree.. What version do you prefer, and why ?

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 03:05 PM

By then we decided it wasnâ€™t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!

That was quite a lot of rain and quite a creek rise. Just how close was Patty to the creek and how close did she walk along it?

However did those tracks of Patty survive? Covering them with bark, in light of Gimlin's testimony about the heavy rain, seems like it would not work at all.

From the Green/Gimlin interview.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 03:21 PM

Why would he have had to have the camera out in a hurry if all they were going to film was Bob Heironimus?

That's a good question, Lu.

One idea:

It had to look like a spontaneous encounter. Patterson also had to have a limited amount of film to keep the encounter on film to a minimum. Filming any longer might have revealed clues to the hoax. Therefore Patterson has only one minute to get it all done.

BH has to get out of dodge fairly quickly or it will not be believable. Patterson has to do the shaky bit first, but still leave enough time and film to get BH on there pretty good.

Also, actually acting the scene out, even if you don't need to, allows you to tell the story with a straight face.

This is assuming that P actually practiced at all, of course. With G's changing story, there is no telling.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 03:26 PM

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 03:31 PM

Diogenes, the part about the rain is from the John Green interview with Gimlin, as is the quote below about other rolls of film Patterson shot and the mystery about where the heck they went. The film of the tracks sure would be useful in light of Gimlin's statement about the creek rise. It started pouring around 5:30AM the next day according to Gimlin.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

Green: That movie that you took, comparing the depths of the tracks, that would be the one that you showed at the University of British Columbia?

Gimlin: Yes. That is the one shown in British Columbia.

Green: Are you aware that movie has been missing almost ever since?

Gimlin: Yes I am aware of that. I asked before Roger passed away and his reply was that Al de Atley had that somewhere. He didnâ€™t tell me exactly where. He [Roger] said that Al has the film in his possession somewhere. Of course I asked Al de Atley about it and he denied having it and denied it ever existed. That seems strange to me because I knew it existed and Roger knew it existed!

Green: ...and so did all the people at the University of British Columbia!

Gimlin: Exactly. See....so why the film disappeared, Iâ€™ll never know and probably never find out....

Green: ...sounds almost as if Al lost it....

Gimlin: ...or sold it. Who knows what happened to it?

Green: ..well youâ€™d think if it had been sold it would have shown up sometime...

Gimlin: Well you know Al and Roger toured with that film afterwards and itâ€™s hard telling what went on in those days and of course Roger made some deal with American National which I never did know...

I never was allowed to know the exact depth of it or what exactly happened there.

Green: But you know RenÃ© Dahinden and I were the first people to make a deal for the use of the film itself. Al brought to Seattle the film of the creature and a great deal of footage that Roger had taken of the waterfalls and trees and various thing like that. The footprint film was supposed to be there but it wasnâ€™t.

Gimlin: Was it suppose to be on the same role of film?

Green: Oh no!

Gimlin: It was just a different role of film then?

Green: Well, I donâ€™t remember now if he brought a lot of little boxes or whether this film had already been splicedâ€¦.

Gimlin: Yeah, seeâ€¦

Green: But anyway, we showed it expecting to find the footprint film but it wasnâ€™t there.

Gimlin: Yes, being as I didnâ€™t know much about movie cameras or splicing film or any of that sort of thing, anybody could have shown me the film and I wouldnâ€™t have been able to detect a splice except I knew what was taken [filmed] - -we all saw it, you know? Course the film footage of the creature wasnâ€™t that good but the other film footage was plain. It was taken during sun light hours and I thought it was a good film. I donâ€™t know what you guys thought about it, but I thought it was a pretty good film.

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 03:32 PM

Does anyone know if Orleans, CA is close to the PGF site?

LAL

12th August 2005, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Care to back up the 1088 claim with evidence?

You posted the photo with the object you thought caused the distortion, didn't you? Evidently you were unaware at the time there were another 1088 tracks counted in that trackway. More were found later across the river. More were found earlier near the dump.

Chilcutt said the dermal ridges couldn't be human because they went up and down the sides of the foot. This is precisely what Crowley shows in his demo. This eliminates those supposedly unique dermal ridge claims, imo.

This is the thread:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?

Any other dermal ridges could easily be human ones magnified by the latex enlargement technique.

The latex argument has been experimentally debunked by Krantz and by Meldrum in his lab, and evidently by Sarmiento on the NG special, if I understood correctly what was shown there (I can't get the channel). Noll too, I think. He said the resulting product is too fragile to be of any use.

The characteristic flow is not on the sides of the foot. It's along the bottom near the outside edge and across the ball. The same ridges would not be showing up from casting artifacts except in similar substrates. The Onion Mountain cast was unique in that respect.

Chilcutt points out the rich texture on LMS and it can be seen on the Elkins Creek cast. Chilcutt caught an artifact apparently caused by the person making the casting. He's noted the casting artifact ridges are flat whereas the dermal ridges are rounded.

Also:

" QUOTE (billkirbywofb @ Jul 18 2005, 02:35 PM)

Tube,
I have a couple of questions. First, could the "dermal ridges" be a result of a Layered Cake effect, as a result of many layers of plaster being layed down. With each layer having a brief moment to set up before the next layer being put down. Second, has any cast that you have made been cut in half down the center of the cast lengthwise. To see if the "ridges" pass thru the cast (my layered cake effect). Or to prove that they are surface effects only. Third, does this osmosis effect (for the lack of a better term) apply to splash casting technique. Thank you very much for your time.

Regarding the "layered cake" effect, the honest answer is, I don't know. I seem to remember Jimmy Chilcutt addressing this possibility in the Willow Creek conference DVD but I would have to double check this. The direct answer is that this proposed mechanism is probably not relevant to the world of Bigfootery, as no one pours plaster like that. Before Rick Noll popularized splash casting everyone simply poured the slurry into the track in "one fell swoop", as my mother used to say. There would be no good reason for anyone to pour slurry in multiple layers and as far as I know, no one ever has.

I have never sectioned a cast intentionally. Inevitably, if you work with cement casts, one will be dropped and broken. Same with me. Cement casts are solid inside. Casting artifacts are surface effects only.

Regarding splash casting, that is a very good question. Neither Rick Noll nor I think splash casting would do this but neither of us have yet tested it. Rick is big on documenting everything so I'm waiting until we both have time off in order to test this and perhaps videotape it.

More importantly, why do neither of us think splash casting would do this? Since the first cement to be applied to the substrate is "splashed" on, very little slurry is actually making contact with the substrate. This means that very little total water can flow from the cement to the substrate. The tests I have done suggest, but do not prove, that a significant amount of water is required to flow from the slurry to the substrate for the casting artifact effect to occur.

Some of the cement "coupons" I sent to Jimmy Chilcutt were only about 6mm thick. These contained casting artifacts, but not of the same kind I posted photographs of earlier on this thread. You will note that the test cast adjacent to the Onion Mountain cast is of a similar thickness, perhaps 2cm thick. This plaster of Paris test cast was made after I began to slowly realize that TOTAL SLURRY VOLUME may be a significant condition in determining the size and shape of the resulting casting artifact ridges.

A 2cm test cast is also more representative of the thickness of a real Sasquatch footprint cast. So my answer is: I believe, but do not know, that splash casting would be much less likely to produce casting artifacts due to the very small amount of slurry initially applied. As this "eggshell" layer begins to set up, water from cement slurry applied afterwards will not be able to flow into the substrate. At least this is my theory!

Something else should also be addressed. Anyone sophisticated enough to be engaging in splash casting in the first place would probably know enough to use a barrier spray if the cast was being made in a fine, dry, powder substrate. The most famous Sasquatch cast made using splash casting is, of course, the Skookum cast. As far as I know, the substrate involved was not quite mud but was very damp. That would eliminate the possibility of these kind of surface artifacts right there. As far as I know, Rick Noll did not use any kind of barrier spray on this impression simply because he did not need to, as the substrate was quite moist. Obviously he would be the person to address this, not me. I have also studied the male and female copies of this cast at the Seattle Sasquatch symposium and I am satisfied that the surface textures seen on the cast are NOT casting artifacts."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11363&hl=onion mountain cast&st=60

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
That was quite a lot of rain and quite a creek rise. Just how close was Patty to the creek and how close did she walk along it?

However did those tracks of Patty survive? Covering them with bark, in light of Gimlin's testimony about the heavy rain, seems like it would not work at all.

LTC, those tracks survived the rain perfectly. :D

Here are Lyle Laverty's photos of the Patty tracks. These photos were taken the day after the filming. You are seeing the condition of the tracks after enduring a torrential rain... that is, until Gimlin rode his horse the 2 miles in darkness in a driving rain at 5:30am in order to cover them with pieces of bark he found.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/member_images/pg_tracks_002.jpg

The second from the top is the classic PGF footprint. It has the famous cannot-be imagined-by-a-hoaxer and unhoaxable 'mid-tarsal break'. It also has a fascinating 'crispness' (look at the crack) for having buckets of rain upon it before being covered with bark.

The PGF is a hoax. P&G's story of the PGF is a hoax. The PGF tracks are a hoax.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 03:45 PM

The effect could also be used to make a fake bigfoot foot with Jimmy Chilcutt's "dermal ridges". That foot could then be used to make tracks in the mud.

The dermal ridges are clearly no longer the holy grail of bigfoot tracks, if any sceptics ever believed they were.

Several possible methods have now been demonstrated for creating them, let alone the suspicious circumstances surrounding some of the dermal ridge castings.

Lu, I am aware that people claim there were 1088 of these tracks. I did not ask for repetitions of the claims.

LAL

12th August 2005, 03:46 PM

Here's this:

"Crowley sent samples of his casts to Jimmy Chilcutt, who noticed, unlike Greenâ€™s cast, which had rounded ridges, Crowleyâ€™s casts had ridges with flat tops.

Crowley noticed larger ridges then the photographs showed in the casts. Chilcutt said, â€œThis is what happens when the cement sets up before casting.â€
Further experimentation, lead Crowley to believe small ridges in the track would produce flat ridges in a cast, while larger ridges would result in rounder ridges.
A small, arched furrow in the center of the Green cast can be seen, but Crowley it shows up better in Jeff Meldrumâ€™s â€œfingerprintâ€ plot of that cast.
The implications of these findings are
â€“ they usually happen in very dry soil, although Crowley admits some ridging has occurred in casts from wet soil.
he believes the Onion Mountain cast, and perhaps other casts, contain ridges which are the result of artifacts
Dr. Jeff Meldrum commented, â€œI believe Matt Crowley is too tentative in his conclusions. It is a slam-dunk that Matt is right. Excellent work!â€
Matt closed by advising the audience to always take lots of pictures of tracks before casting.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/bellingham05.htm

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 03:57 PM

Hello !

Does anyone have a map that shows the approx location of the PGF site ?

I'm trying to find the relation to Orleans, CA..

What was the nearest town ?

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, I am aware that people claim there were 1088 of these tracks. I did not ask for repetitions of the claims.

Shame on you! Don't you understand that when Bigfoot sychophants repeat the claims of other Bigfoot psychophants and so on... that the resultant worthless rat's nest is called 'scientific research' or 'peer review'.

Don't you understand the fuel of the myth engine?

See the photos of the Patty Rainfoot above your posting.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 04:01 PM

IIRC, the skookum imprint was drying out and cracking when they cast it.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 04:09 PM

Diogenes, I can find several references that Bluff Creek and Orleans are near each other, but no definite distance.

"Bluff Creek, near Orleans, California" for example.

LAL

12th August 2005, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
The effect could also be used to make a fake bigfoot foot with Jimmy Chilcutt's "dermal ridges". That foot could then be used to make tracks in the mud.

Oh, good grief. The fake feet could then be sent to Georgia and handed down from father to son to get the proper spread of decades and miles.

You need to look at the photos in Krantz' book. No reading required.

He had his casts examined by several fingerprint experts. He names them and gives their credentials. Chilcutt's certainly not the only expert to see the ridges. He's the only expert on primate fingerprints.

The dermal ridges are clearly no longer the holy grail of bigfoot tracks, if any sceptics ever believed they were.

I really don't know what sceptics believe or how they can believe it. The dermal ridge evidence is still compelling. Some casts may have to be reexamined to see if they have any casting artifacts, that's all.

Several possible methods have now been demonstrated for creating them, let alone the suspicious circumstances surrounding some of the dermal ridge castings.

Suspicious? Oh, Freeman, again. One of the Forest Service trackers announced they were fake before he even looked at them.

Isn't it stange that the only fake feet that have come to light were carved from wood?

Lu, I am aware that people claim there were 1088 of these tracks. I did not ask for repetitions of the claims.

You evidently didn't when you posted the photo. And there were 1089 (Dahinden's count). Should I look up your post on the other thread? You were trying to claim an object was the cause of the deformity, as I recall.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 04:34 PM

Looks like it's about 15 miles as the crow flies, Diogenes.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 04:45 PM

Lu, you are ridiculous.

The dermal ridges are dead to any but the most obstinate. The argument has been that they couldn't possibly be anything but real.

Now we know for sure they could indeed be other than real.

I merely suggested another possible way the effect could be used. Most of the ridges are likely casting artifacts and human ridges.

Something your dermal ridge expert never considered.

Besides, if bigfoot has these ridges, then they should be common in tracks cast in mud. They are not.

Ironically, I was researching hydrocal casting defects the other day.

Remember when I suddenly said I thought Chilcutt was wrong while posting on another topic? I was on the trail of possible casting defects at the time, but never finished up.

I have only ever seen one recognizable cripplefoot track, and it did indeed have an object near the "deformity".

I have seen no cast that matches the cripplefoot track, and Krantz's skeleton isn't even close.

This revisionist history on your part will do you no good.

From this thread, folks would likely gather that you have done less BF research than several of us sceptics. This is likely from constant preaching from BF choir to BF choir with little outside input considered.

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 04:51 PM

There also doesn't seem to be any marks in the sand associated with the photos posted above to suggest that pieces of bark were placed to cover these tracks. I might expect a 'halo' surrounding each track representing the effect of torrential rain running off the bark and indenting the sand surrounding the tracks. Further, the area around the tracks ought to show extensive 'dimpling' from the raindrops while the bark-protected area would look different.

Hey, wanna hear what a Bigfoot sounds like? Here is an alledged recording of Bigfoot doing a bit of vocalizing. It's faint because the big hairy ape is a long way from the microphone. Ha ha ha!

The Sound Of A Primate That Has Not Yet Been Described By Science (http://cinemaenema.net/BIGGIE.wav)

LAL

12th August 2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
LTC, those tracks survived the rain perfectly. :D

Here are Lyle Laverty's photos of the Patty tracks. These photos were taken the day after the filming. You are seeing the condition of the tracks after enduring a torrential rain... that is, until Gimlin rode his horse the 2 miles in darkness in a driving rain at 5:30am in order to cover them with pieces of bark he found.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/member_images/pg_tracks_002.jpg

The second from the top is the classic PGF footprint. It has the famous cannot-be imagined-by-a-hoaxer and unhoaxable 'mid-tarsal break'. It also has a fascinating 'crispness' (look at the crack) for having buckets of rain upon it before being covered with bark.

The trackway was in good enough condition nine days later for Bob Titmus to cast some tracks and track the creature to where she hunkered and watched them.

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that? The photo you posted was scanned from Murphy's book. It's the page I've been referring to regarding the shots from the second roll. It seems you've visited BFF. If this is the case, try reading some of Roger Knights posts on this. He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF. He's thorough.

The PGF is a hoax. P&G's story of the PGF is a hoax. The PGF tracks are a hoax.

Blah, blah, blah. Maybe I won't bother to try to catch up on the rest of your posts if they're all like the ones I've already seen.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 05:05 PM

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that?

It sounds like Lu is trying to do her research on the fly, and she can't keep up. She keeps asking about things that were recently posted as if she never heard of them.

Odd.

BTW, we are getting it from Bob Gimlin.

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 05:08 PM

He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF.

Oh, well I give up then. :D

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by RayG
That is rather puzzling. I don't recall reading about the tracking for 3.5 miles, but I do know both Green (page 121) and Krantz (page 91) write about Titmus finding evidence where the film subject sat down to observe the two men. How can that be possible if they dashed off in hot pursuit and tracked it for 3.5 miles?

Again, if Gimlin and Titmus are telling the truth then P&G tracked Patty for 3.5 miles after the filming and then she returned to the film site to watch the boys cast her tracks. Of course, the boys had to go 2 miles beyond the film site to get the plaster to start casting the tracks.

Add up the miles (roundtrip). Add up the time needed to track a Bigfoot for 3.5 miles on horseback in wilderness.

RayG, where was the sun through this prolonged ordeal?

LTC8K6

12th August 2005, 05:17 PM

Lu, you can post proof of the 1088 claim any time you like.

I've got the popcorn on.

Yes it's 1088. Your claim was that there were 1088 more tracks.

I have seen one track, so I'll spot you that one. :D

Your evidence seems to be that a dairy farmer counted them.

William Parcher

12th August 2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by LAL
The trackway was in good enough condition nine days later for Bob Titmus to cast some tracks and track the creature to where she hunkered and watched them.

The tracks should not have been in good condition because it rained like a mofo and the creek rose:

Bob Gimlin said:

"By then we decided it wasnâ€™t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!"

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that?

Maybe you hate Bob Gimlin. Because you don't seem to acknowledge anything he says after the PGF incident. He was supposed to be there you know? Do I have to use the word 'pathetic' again concerning your PGF research?

If this is the case, try reading some of Roger Knights posts on this. He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF. He's thorough.

Who is Roger Knight? Where is Bigfoot? Did Roger Knight show that Patty is unquestionably a Bigfoot while I was sleeping in my bed last knight?

LAL

12th August 2005, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, you are ridiculous.

No, Bill. You're ridiculous. You've set up the most implausible hoax scenarios, pitted yourself against experts in dermatoglyphics, primate anatomy, anthropology, and primate locomotion with no apparent credentials in anything and generally come off like the class clown.

You haven't bothered to view films, read books, examine casts or generally do anything but pick at a few shreds you think bolster your sagging case.

The dermal ridges are dead to any but the most obstinate. The argument has been that they couldn't possibly be anything but real.

Now we know for sure they could indeed be other than real.

And you obviously don't even seem to know where they are.

I merely suggested another possible way the effect could be used. Most of the ridges are likely casting artifacts and human ridges.

You know this how? Chilcutt's already identified casting artifacts and contamination by human prints. I've posted some of his comments on this.

Something your dermal ridge expert never considered.

Nonsense. We'll see what he has to say at the Texas conference when Matt speaks with him. Did you know Matt read much of this thread?

Besides, if bigfoot has these ridges, then they should be common in tracks cast in mud. They are not.

Wet mud tends to fill them in. There are indeed ridges on casts from dryer mud. The casting artifact spoken of evidently doesn't occur where there's no wicking, as Matt explained on the thread.

There are other characteristics of living feet. The dermal ridges are by no means the whole case to begin with.

Ironically, I was researching hydrocal casting defects the other day.

Remember when I suddenly said I thought Chilcutt was wrong while posting on another topic? I was on the trail of possible casting defects at the time, but never finished up.

There was a discussion on air bubbles. I used to use plaster in casting. Anyone who does is aware of the vagaries of the medium. Chilcutt's testimony puts people in jail. He is so well respected in his profession he can pursue this line of inquiry. And you think he's so stupid he wouldn't think of artifacts? Do you think he only looked at the Onion Mountain Cast?

I have only ever seen one recognizable cripplefoot track, and it did indeed have an object near the "deformity".

It's one closeup from the trackway that had 1089 prints. The trackway was filmed. I ask again, if the object caused the "deformity", in your opinion, did the same or similar object show up on the rest of the tracks? Actually, it would only need to be found on half, 544 more, since the left foot wasn't affected.

I have seen no cast that matches the cripplefoot track, and Krantz's skeleton isn't even close.

You know this how? You're a specialist in anatomy? If you read his book you'll find a detailed explanation of how he reached his conclusions.

You've seen photos of the casts from the dump. There are photos of others. The crippled foot showed a high degree of flexibility. The photo from the trackway does match if you take into account the flexibility of the foot and the raised toe not always printing. Krantz did experiments with fake feet in snow. There's a clear spattering.

The Bossburg trackway is by no means the only trackway with hundreds to thousands of prints. It just got some publicity.

This revisionist history on your part will do you no good.

From this thread, folks would likely gather that you have done less BF research than several of us sceptics. This is likely from constant preaching from BF choir to BF choir with little outside input considered.

How many times do I have to tell you I read every book I could find prior to moving out of Washington? I read Dennett's articles when they were first published. I've read a great deal of stuff online, including articles from sceptics. I've read the books by Daegling and Long (well, most of Long). I lived in Sasquatch Country and knew people personally who were involved in investigations of events in the area.

I now own a three DVDs on the subject with one on the way, and two of the best books with more about to be ordered. I've ordered half a dozen from the library and read them all.

I've been a member on BFF for over a year, and the sceptical side there is far tougher than it is here.

I don't claim to do any research; I just read a lot, and view the people on DVD who've done the research. And read everything I can find by them.

I was complimented via PM on my "encyclopedic knowlege of Bigfoot minutae" after a researcher read some of this thread. (I had to respectfully disagree with him. I'm a novice.) I doubt he would agree with your assessment.

I see no indication of anyone on this board doing any research or even much reading. The serious researchers go so far as to make fake feet to see what sort of tracks they would leave. They don't just assume it could be done.

Talk about a choir! I see people parroting a few sceptical articles, stereotyping the pro side and doing a lot of hoo hahing. Diogenes mentioned something about critical thinking. It seems the lot of you (except for Ray, and sometimes Correo) have gotten as far as the critical part, but stopped there.

I don't know which sceptics you're referring to here (RayG, perhaps), but other than posting a few articles anyone can find online (I already had, in most cases) and some photos lifted even from BFF, I don't see that anyone's done much work. In some cases it looks as though the articles weren't read and the photos weren't looked at. Ray's read Krantz, but he's only showing his 10% here.

I'm now going to take a break and try to erase the image I have of you kids in a locker room slapping each other with towels before it gets to the soap.

bruto

12th August 2005, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by LAL

I said " If the extra footage has been destroyed or lost or hidden, skeptics are entitled to be suspicious of its contents. The alternative explanation, which is that the people who made the film were careless and not very competent, is a kindness."

LAL remarks:

Evidently they shot some scenery on the way (I'm still checking this out). The roll ran out as she walked into the forest. Tracks were filmed at the beginning of the second roll. If they had reallly expected to encounter a Sasquatch, do you think they would have been shooting scenery? They wanted to film some tracks for the documentary. They had plenty of film for that.

The second roll wasn't returned to Patterson. How does that make him careless and not very competant?

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the entire enterprise is marked by carelessness and incompetence unless, of course, it's fraudulent. These folks have supposedly just shot the most significant bigfoot footage in history, and they lost part of it. The exact mechanism whereby it has been lost or misplaced is irrelevant. They went out supposedly to shoot a documentary, are said to have wasted most of the film on extraneous stuff, shot an ambiguous and questionable minute of bigfoot that looks to anyone without a preconceived belief in bigfoot like a man in a fursuit that doesn't fit terribly well, and then for whatever reason and in whatever way, the original film, and any trace of the "non-bigfoot" portion disappeared, their stories about how they made the film disagree, and circumstances surrounding the film and the personnel cast a shadow on its authenticity. If they were not frauds, it must be conceded that they did not do a very good job of presenting, preserving and authenticating their evidence. They were, in fact, careless and less than competent. If they had not been, and if the film had been genuine, we would not be having this discussion now.

I'm not as disinclined as some to doubt at least the possibility of there being a bigfoot. I think it unlikely, but possible. I would be happy to see it proved. But what astonishes me about people like you is your readiness to accept the most miserable excuses for failure and spoiled evidence. The best thing any bigfoot researcher could do under the present circumstances would be to discard everything that passes for evidence, shun all the so-called experts, and start from scratch with some new ideas reasonably diligent exercise of common sense and observation, combined perhaps with a little bit of useful equipment, such as a camera that works. If there really is a bigfoot, I'm betting that it will not be found by the clowns who are searching now unless one of them, while watching an expert at work, dies laughing. Even then, the expert will probably go home for the weekend and look for the body the following monday.

edited for typo

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
The tracks should not have been in good condition because it rained like a mofo and the creek rose:

Bob Gimlin said:

"By then we decided it wasnâ€™t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!"

Maybe you hate Bob Gimlin.

You say that to me after what you said about him?

Because you don't seem to acknowledge anything he says after the PGF incident.

Non sequitur.

I just read the interview with Green.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

He says "hard", but not "buckets" or "torrential" or even :mofo". Where did you get that? You wouldn't be exaggerating to try to make your point would you?

He was supposed to be there you know? Do I have to use the word 'pathetic' again concerning your PGF research?

Do I have to call you on your atrocious manners again? If you don't respect women, at least try to have a little respect for your elders. I don't mind debating with you, but I don't like your attitude.

There are marks of drops in some of the photos. If you know mountains at all, you know most of the rain falls at higher elevations when the clouds are forced up. The creek could have swollen from rain higher up. Trees protect the ground from hard rain. I lived in Southern California, not Northern, but I don't remember driving rain there. Seems to me it was slow and steady, as was much of the rain in Washington and Oregon. It was nothing like the storms we have in North Carolina. Those can be torrential.

I haven't read much of what Gimlin has said actually (until now), except about Heironmus, or rather, what he didn't say about Heironimus. I've read quite a bit about them though, including Long's characterizations.

My interest has been more in the film itself and the biomechanics. This gets pretty technical. One error Krantz found in Grieve's work was that he measured from the leading edge instead of the axes as he said. I know Napier made a similar error on the stride, and I'm hoping Krantz covers this since I'm not finding my source on that. I've read all this before, I know, but I've forgotten so much it's like reading it for the first time.

Who is Roger Knight? Where is Bigfoot? Did Roger Knight show that Patty is unquestionably a Bigfoot while I was sleeping in my bed last knight?

Read his posts. He's an excellent writer and a thorough researcher. I dare you to take him on on BFF. He would take your cherry-picking arguments to the canners.

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, you can post proof of the 1088 claim any time you like.

I've got the popcorn on.

Yes it's 1088. Your claim was that there were 1088 more tracks.

I have seen one track, so I'll spot you that one. :D

Your evidence seems to be that a dairy farmer counted them.

1088+1=1089. The question was, was there an object on each of the right footprints to make it look like a deformity?

Next question is, how did an object make the deformity appear consistant with a case of metatarsus adductus?

What dairy farmer? Dahinden worked for one in the 50's. That doesn't make him one. I posted the link to the video clip of part of the trackway. Did you miss it?

Popcorn sounds good. I think I'll have some too.

LAL

12th August 2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Thurkon
Nightwingâ€™s post is so unscientifically desperate it hurts my brain.

He says the torso lengths differ. First, he starts Bob Hâ€™s top measurement lower on the neck. Very scientific, nightwing. Secondâ€¦of course the torso length is different at the bottomâ€¦because in the second picture Bob H isnâ€™t wearing a giant fur diaper.

Morris has already stated that he consulted with Patterson on how to lengthen the arms through a prosthesis. Is that what weâ€™re seeing?

Nah, must be an elusive, undiscovered, giant, hairy-breasted primate.

Are you Erectus from BFF or did you just cop his avatar?

If you want scientific, read Krantz. He goes into detail on what sort of prosthetic devices would be required. They simply wouldn't produce the fluid movement seen in the film.

It should be clear to anyone the proportions are not even close.

What's your source on Morris' statement and what evidence has he presented that he ever spoke with Patterson?

I'm beginning to see how Long could sell books. He could start a lucrative bridge and gold brick sideline. As Barnum said........

LAL

12th August 2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Thurkon

This is deceptive, or outright false. Morris and Bob H presented a pretty convincing costume, despite what Footers want to tell themselves. Bob H did demonstrate how it was done, regardless of whether you want to believe him or not. To claim no one has attempted is patently false.

Did it occur to you that was written before their inept attempt?

And why didn't these people come forward 38 years ago to prevent this dishonesty from being perpetrated on an innocent world?

They've shown nothing except and ability to bilk money out of people who have some sort of an emotional need to believe them.
Did you see the link with the clip of Heironimus "doing the walk"?

BFROâ€™s site is peppered with this kind of garbage. It profits them to distort the truth.

Bob Heironimus ain't the truth.

This Bigfoot stuff ainâ€™t rocket science, honey. You can become educated on the best â€œevidenceâ€ for Bigfoot in about 16 minutes.

You apparently didn't even do that. And don't call me "honey".

Do a search on anything Bigfoot related and you get the exact same articles cut and pasted into 20 different websitesâ€¦all with the same erroneous information like the â€œinhumanâ€ gait of Patty, inhuman proportions, and the â€œfactâ€ that no expert has as of yet pronounced Patty a hoax (they have).

Then how did I get circa 300 different articles saved in My Favorites?

Pronouncing it a hoax and proving it a hoax are two different things.

"From Loren Coleman
lcoleman@maine.rr.com
5-3-4

This is my review of the Greg Long book, as published in the current issue of the US edition of FATE Magazine.

FATE May 2004 Book Reviews Page 82-83

The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story
By Greg Long
New York: Prometheus Books (New York),
2004, 475 pages; $25

Greg Long's book is not so much about Bigfoot as it is a well-orchestrated character assassination of Roger Patterson, the man holding the camera at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967, who allegedly filmed Bigfoot. (Patterson died in 1972.) At 475 pages, it is badly in need of more editing and less about when Greg Long eats chocolate doughnuts (p. 354). Two-thirds of this book is mostly flowery prose that you will have to endure to locate the kernel of the story. That core turns out to be a "he said/he said" tale viewed through Greg Long's biased sunglasses.

The psychological warfare this book engages in is in evidence from one end of the text to the other. For example, Long wastes no opportunity to frame Roger Patterson using the phrase "little man," 14 times in the first nine pages of chapter one. (Some of the characterizations are extremely harsh, e.g. "the puny little man on his little white horse," p. 22.)

Long has also filled the book full of "innocent" mistakes and interpretations; including these examples:

- Getting the chronology wrong about when Sasquatch researcher John Green got into the field, saying he began with the 1958 Bluff Creek finds (p. 34).

- Projecting psychological feelings on people (e.g. Long writes on p. 452 of a London conference's preview of the "man-in-the-suit" confession, "much to Coleman's embarrassment," which, of course, is ridiculous).

- Misidentifying Ivan T. Sanderson, the well-known Scottish zoologist who lived in America, as a "botanist" (p. 163)

- Talking of court records that show that plywood was found in Bob Gimlin's garage and Gimlin was charged with receiving stolen property. Long reports that the charges were later dismissed (pp. 169-170). What Long forgets to tell his readers, which the Gimlin family shared with me, is that Bob Gimlin was working for the city at the time and the person that told him to store the plywood was his boss, the Chief of Police. Greg Long has chosen what he wants to place in his book in the making of his case.

By the time you get to the "confession" of Bob Heironimus (pp. 336ff), the alleged "guy-in-the-suit," you don't know what or whom to believe. Heironimus started shopping around his story in 1998, according to media reports not mentioned in this book, to try to get some financial rewards from the tabloid The Sun. Then Heironimus hooked up with Greg Long.

Heironimus's story is as full of holes as the elusive Bigfoot suit surely must be, if it ever existed and could be found again in 2004. Several questions remain open thanks to Long's narrative. Most are technical ones, but a few that obviously leap out include:

- When and where did Heironimus met Patterson and Gimlin?

- Was it a three- or six-piece suit? The book gives both stories.

- Was the alleged Bigfoot suit created from a hide of a red horse skinned by Patterson or an artificial gorilla suit from a guy in North Carolina? The book details both origins.

- Did the Carolina suit maker get paid by Patterson or not? He has said one thing in the book and another to a reporter recently.

- Was Heironimus first approached by Gimlin as noted in the book, or by Patterson, as mentioned on a publicity appearance on MSNBC?

- How did the hair-covered breasts (seen in the October 20, 1967 footage) get on the front of the supposed three- or six-piece "gorilla" suit - despite Long's "thought" that maybe they were "attached black balloons filled with sand"?

Of course, there's more to the filming of Bigfoot than meets the eye. An open-mind about all aspects of this melodrama is helpful, but after you wade through this torturous book, you will walk away unsatisfied. I look forward to future examinations of the film. In the meantime, the Patterson-Gimlin footage remains worthy of our time as possible evidence of a filmed furry cryptid primate. And evidence of Bigfoot exists beyond the legacy of Roger Patterson and Greg Long. - Loren Coleman"

http://www.rense.com/general52/lon.htm

LAL

12th August 2005, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is one of my favorite examples of the silly crap over at BFRO..

Lu, is this really the circle you want to be associated with ?

What makes you think I'm associated with them? Two of my favorite posters are. A few more were.

Did you bother to read how Fahrenbach arrived at these conclusions?

" The description given here is derived from a compilation of thousands of eye witness reports from the entire continent, some of astounding length, detail, and corroborative evidence; the Patterson movie, taken in 1967, and a recent computer-based image analysis of it; and statistical analysis of a large database accumulated over the last fifty years, primarily by John Green."

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=584

I know ( hope ) you realize there is nothing to be debunked here; it is only to be held up to ridicule..

I think your lamp went out a while ago.

Have you looked into a study of critical thinking?

I'd ask you for a recommendation if I thought you would know of one.

I have heard that it's not nice to laugh at other people's beliefs, but it is also said " I'll stop laughing at what you believe, when you stop believing in funny stuff.. "

As Krantz said of the attitude of most scientists, "I'll see it when I believe it".

LAL

12th August 2005, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Neither is John Green, but he not only got to examine the cast, his conclusions were written up on the BFRO website.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/green_statement.asp

It would have been unthinkable to cut Green out. If there were honorary degrees in this he'd have about seven.

Noll participated in the discussion concerning Radford, though I don't remember his specific reason for the refusal to allow Radford access.

RayG

I'll look it up now that the barrage has slowed down. I only have two more pages to skim. Someone said I was doing research on the fly? Heck, I wasn't even home.

The cast was in Noll's mother-in-law's garage at one point. Maybe they were trying to limit the traffic. Radford could have seen copies at Bellingham, evidently. Did he try?

LAL

12th August 2005, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Why do you describe the event the way you do? You are leaving out so much. You need to do lots of reading and research on PGF before you can defend it. Your biased suckage might be at its crown moment here.

You're on the verge of getting reported. I've only recently purchased a book that has all the information on measurements, photos of the model, that sort of thing. I haven't had time to read it all yet. If you'll notice, I post more than anyone here and on a variety of related topics. The question (from Bill, which I still haven't been able to fully answer) was whether or not Patterson used another roll during the filming of Patty and the answer is "no".

Gimlin says that the last time he sees 'Patty' (after the filming), she is going up the logging road. He says he saw her 300 yards away on this road, then she goes around a bend and he loses sight. According to Gimlin, at that point they begin tracking her on horseback. They track her 3.5 miles up the mountain before they lose her trail. Then they backtrack the 3.5 miles to the film site then go another 2 miles back to their truck to get the plaster. Then they go the 2 miles back to the site to begin casting some tracks.

Gimlin started after her on horseback. Roger called him back because he wasn't mounted and didn't want to be alone (others were in the area, remember). Source that they followed her on horseback.

At what point has the sun set and they are in darkness on horseback? Then they still have to get back to the truck and drive into town to deliver the film (which would then be viewed about 35 hours later after a round-trip flight and developing in Seattle). Then they return to the camp (which is about 2 miles from the film site) that night. In the night a torrential rain starts. Gimlin decides to ride his horse through this rain in darkness to cover up the tracks which are 2 miles away. He covers some of them with pieces of bark then rides back to camp.

Hard rain. Not torrential. The cardboard boxes weren't suitable.

Lo and behold, 9 days later Bob Titmus shows up and views the footprint scene (after rains). He even claims to find a spot where 'Patty' sat down in ferns overlooking the film site. He suggests that she was watching the men cast her prints. So P&G tracked her 3.5 miles away from the film site, then she returns to the site to sit down and watch them.

??????????? She couldn't have watched while Gimlin was returning on horseback? Seems you don't have your information straight on this one. The sceptics have enough wrong information as it is; you don't have to give them more.

"Gimlin wanted to immediately continue pursuit on horseback and proceeded to do so. Patterson, however, did not have his horse or his rifle and did not want to be left alone. He therefore yelled at Gimlin to return, which he did. After Patterson's situation was rectified, the men then followed the path taken by the creature. They found scuff mark in the gravel and in the creek bed which may have indicated the creature ran when it was out of the mens' sight. They continued up the creek for a considerable distance and observed a rock with a wet half foot print on the surface. From that point the path led up into the mountains. The men then returned to the film site and examined the path the creature had taken along the sandbar. They observed and filmed (on the second film roll) the creature's footprints in the soil and later made plaster casts of the left and right foot. In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. The footprints measured 14.5-inches long by 6-inches wide. Gimlin jumped off a stump to see how far his footprints would sink into the soil in comparison with the creature's prints. The results were that the creature's foot prints were deeper. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment together with footage of horse prints alongside the creature's prints, and the mens' cast-making activities."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

But she can't watch them until they have returned from the truck with the plaster. Isn't it night by now?

????? Again, where are you getting this stuff? Nowhere have I read she returned.

I probably don't need to mention that Titmus was a Bigfoot believer before this incident. Skeptics ought to be catching on to that stuff by now.

Titmus had sightings himself during WW II from a ship in Alaskan waters. He was an expert tracker and taxidermist. He was an old friend of Jerry Crew and showed him how to cast when tracks started showing up in the Bluff Creek valley in 1958. Titmus did a huge ammount of work on this, got some of the best casts ever taken and never sought publicity or wrote a book.

This bit doesn't include other huge problems and insanities that were supposed to have gone on surrounding this film event. There is a whole box of nails to drive into the coffin of the PGF. You are depriving a skeptical audience of them. Shame on you!

School may be out for the children, but I'm a homeowner with a job and other responsibilities. You seem to be doing a good job of presenting discrepancies which do nothing whatsoever to debunk the film, even though you seem to be rather inaccurate. Keep it up. I shouldn't have to do everyone's homework.

And BTW, what's your source?

RayG

12th August 2005, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by LAL
It would have been unthinkable to cut Green out. If there were honorary degrees in this he'd have about seven.

But there are no degrees in cryptozoology. I've seen people argue that Benjamin Radford (of the Skeptical Inquirer) should NOT be allowed to examine the cast because he's not a scientist, yet they seem to have no problem with John Green examining the cast even though he's not a scientist either.

The cast was in Noll's mother-in-law's garage at one point. Maybe they were trying to limit the traffic. Radford could have seen copies at Bellingham, evidently. Did he try?

Noll himself said:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0&#entry54191
"I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford....Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized..."

I guess that answers the question of what reason Noll had for not allowing Radford access.

Radford posted this (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=20&#entry57901) on the BFF:
I was indeed refused access to the Skookum cast by the BFRO (Matt Moneymaker himself). I was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if I could see the cast while I was there. I had written briefly about it before, and followed some of the published accounts of it. I was even quoted in Loren Colemanâ€™s book as saying that it was potentially the biggest Bigfoot evidence find in the last few decades. Skeptics are often accused of not looking at the evidence, so I asked to see their evidence. He implied that I was not â€œqualifiedâ€ to see the cast, but I did not ask to do any analysis or even touch the cast; I was perfectly happy to hear the BFRO expertsâ€™ analysis. I am not an anatomist (neither is Moneymaker, I might add), but, like most people, I can listen to evidence and make a judgement for myself. After a few e-mail exchanges, Moneymaker finally refused and that was that. It was apparently my status as a skeptic that disqualified me from viewing the cast. Moneymakerâ€™s depiction of me as a blind and rabid debunker is unfair; I am open-minded (though skeptical) about Bigfoot and have never said that it does not exist.

and this (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=20&#entry57914) :

I made a genuine and sincere request to see their evidence. I don't know if I will find it convincing or not, but being denied access to it told me a lot about how the BFRO (or at least Moneymaker) operates.

and this too: (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=80&#entry58384)
I do not think Noll is a hoaxer or anything like it. My only statement was that Moneymaker (and hence the BFRO) refused me access to the cast; thatâ€™s all. I never said there was a conspiracy to keep it from me, or disparaged any Bigfoot proponents. My assumption, until proven wrong, is that Bigfoot researchers and witnesses are generally honest, intelligent people whoâ€”like all of us, including meâ€”can misinterpret things and be misled by themselves and others.

In fact, you will find that I probably have more respect for Bigfoot proponents than the general public. Many in the public think Bigfoot research is silly or a waste of time. I do not. I take it seriously, and have NEVER criticized anyone who searches for cryptids in earnest. I may question their evidence, but I do not engage in, nor am I interested in, name-calling and ad hominem attacks. I take the topic seriously, and that is more than most peopleâ€”and many skepticsâ€”do.

RayG

LAL

12th August 2005, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by RayG
And yet they don't prove anything.

Well, I don't want to get into definitions here (had enough of that with an M.I.T. grad over O.J.'s socks - I showed where he was wrong, anyway). "Prove" has a pretty specific meaning.

I think these thousands of tracks and trackways (and how many haven't been found?) point to something large and hominid making them and I don't mean big hoaxers.

I assumed you were talking about the Bossburg print. If not, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Is it actually new, or merely a new name for an old print?

They're from the Blue Mountains, 1984, Table Springs, Walla Walla River. They show extensive ridge detail over the plantar surface of the cast and there's a greater degree of supination in the right than in the left (Meldrum, 1999). See pg. 138-9, Meet the Sasquatch.

I can raise that 90% to 100% if we're talking about possibilities. If we're talking about absolute proof -- there isn't any. I've also said that IF bigfoot exists it's no more paranormal than my cat.

RayG

Absolute proof? Isn't that something found on whiskey bottles? In science, it's a high degree of probability. After all, they might be highly evolved squirrels. :D

How does paranormal keep getting into this? Paranormal big smelly apes? Really.

Did you know that if the robust Australopiths had followed the same size increase pattern Homo did they'd be 6' and 300 lbs.?

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 10:27 PM

Chilcutt's testimony puts people in jail. Not about dermal ridges on feet ( or plaster casts ), it don't ..

Skeptical Greg

12th August 2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Looks like it's about 15 miles as the crow flies, Diogenes. Thanks..

I was just trying to check out the precipitation in the area around 10/20/67 .. There is a National Weather Service station in Orleans.

There was over an inch on the 22nd, but other than that, virtually ' 0 ' ten days before the 22nd or ten days after..

Certainly doesn't jive with a ' downpour ' on the morning of the 21st..

This may not mean anything at all, since thunder showers can be scattered and localized, but none of the reporting stations in Northern CA, reported any precipitation of note witin a few days of the 20th, except for the 22nd..

Just seems to be another question in an already questionable timeline..

LAL

12th August 2005, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by RayG

Noll himself said:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0&#entry54191
"I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford....Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized..."

I guess that answers the question of what reason Noll had for not allowing Radford access.

"The only hand picking done was with getting the very best people who could help understand it, not just anybody. George Schaller because of his Gorilla work and ungulate studies, Daris Swindler because of his anatomy knowledge and skepticism, Esteban Sarimento for his current work in Africa on the Bili Ape and knowledge of just what museums might have in their basements. These are main stream scientists and naturalists, not magazine editors. We went with a magazine editor once and a major newspaper reporter another time, both at their request, and they didn't know diddly squat and their stories reflected it. Let them keep crying about it or making up stories concerning it, just remember that what ever they say, it is just their opinion and the only opinion they can offer is one coming from ignorance.

I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford. Cliff because he has an agenda to get his name into the news anyway he can and Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized (from his first story written about the cast and me). Editors and writers should learn to not burn bridges. The Skookum cast is not a side show attraction. It is being preserved for people who have knowledge of such things to see it in a prime condition both physically and without prejudice.

I brought it to the Willow Creek Symposium at the request of John Green because he thought it the perfect opportunity for Jane Goodall to see it. The only thing I would have done differently would have been to have displayed it at the school maybe instead of the museum, but I think everything is working out just fine the way it was. Radford has to write something, and probably something negative, that is about all he can write on the subject because he has been turned down in viewing it or taking pictures for his magazine articles. He wants to exploit the cast, in his own little way."

Context is everything.

Thanks for the links.

Any news on Sarmiento getting involved again?

LAL

12th August 2005, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Not about dermal ridges on feet ( or plaster casts ), it don't ..

He's a forensic fingerprint expert and, because his testimony puts people in jail, he has to be very careful. He applied that same thoroughness and care to his examinations of the casts.

I'm sorry you couldn't seem to grasp that.

LAL

12th August 2005, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Speaking of 'being fully prepared for Bigfoot'.... ask LAL how many pounds of plaster did Rick Noll drag up to remote Skookum Meadows before casting the sneaky reclining apple-eating Bigfoot. Ask the weight of the Skookum Cast.

Yes folks, were bringing ridiculous amounts of plaster because we just know that Bigfoot is gonna munch on these delicious apples in the middle of the night. We are going to need gobs of plaster to cast this scene which will happen. You betcha!

We've already been over all this. I'm not about to go through it again. If you don't know, read the field notes. They've been posted often on this thread. They were trying to get clear tracks and had ample Hydocal for that, but barely enough for the cast.

I've read at least two figures for the weight and I don't know how much the mud weighed before it was cleaned. Do you?

LAL

12th August 2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Thanks..

I was just trying to check out the precipitation in the area around 10/20/67 .. There is a National Weather Service station in Orleans.

There was over an inch on the 22nd, but other than that, virtually ' 0 ' ten days before the 22nd or ten days after..

Certainly doesn't jive with a ' downpour ' on the morning of the 21st..

This may not mean anything at all, since thunder showers can be scattered and localized, but none of the reporting stations in Northern CA, reported any precipitation of note witin a few days of the 20th, except for the 22nd..

Just seems to be another question in an already questionable timeline..

My favorite whether report was from Portland, Oregon, predicting a "chance of scattered snow showers in the Gorge today", when we had four inches on the ground and falling.

Even in the realtively tame mountains I live in now there's a huge difference in weather even between where I live and the nearest city. I've been blinded by rain en route to it and back while there was sunshine everywhere else in the area.

"Humboldt County, located in Northwest California, is the southern gateway to the Pacific Northwest. The County is bordered on the north by Del Norte County; on the east by Siskiyou and Trinity counties; on the south by Mendocino County and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. According to the county, Humboldt encompasses 2.3 million acres, 80 percent of which is forestlands, protected redwoods and recreation areas.

Humboldt County is home to ten State Parks and also home to the Redwood National and State Parks, which have been designated as a United Nations Biosphere Region and World Heritage Site. The World Wildlife Fund has identified the County as part of one of the most diverse eco-regions left on the planet and named it to its Global 200 list.

According to Humboldt County, land use is 74% forests, 10% agriculture, 6% public use, 4% residential, 3% water resources, 2% industrial and 1% commercial. The northern part of the County includes the City of Trinidad, Orick; Redwood National Park; Prairie Creek and Humboldt Lagoons State Parks; and several State Beaches. The eastern part of the County includes Willow Creek, Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, Orleans, and a great deal of Six Rivers National Forest land. Our expedition was to trek the forest service and uncharted logging roads between Orick and the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation.

According to Humboldt State University, "â€¦the northward migration of The Mendocino triple junction (where the Pacific, North American, and Gorda plates meet) has produced strong compression and rapid rates of uplift (up to 3 meters per 1,000 years) in Humboldt County. Seismic activity, still-growing Pleistocene folds, active faults, and flights of raised marine and fluvial terraces are products of this tectonism."

Humboldt County is an area of moderate temperatures and considerable precipitation. In most years, rainfall is experienced each month of the year. Seasonal totals average more than 40 inches in the driest area, and exceed 100 inches in the zones of heavy precipitation. Because of the moisture and moderate temperature the average relative humidity is high. Largely as a result of the proximity of the cool Pacific Ocean, the adjoining coastal area has one of the coolest, most stable temperature regimes to be found anywhere. With increasing distance from the ocean, the marine influence is less pronounced, and inland areas experience wider variations of temperature and lower humidities.

Temperatures along the coast vary only 10 degrees from summer to winter, although a greater range is found over inland areas. Temperatures of 32 degrees or lower are experienced nearly every winter throughout the area, and colder temperatures are common in the interior. Maximum readings for the year often do not exceed 80 on the coast, while 100 degree plus readings occur frequently in the mountain valleys.

Humboldt County offers a diverse and unique mix of natural resources ranging from the coastal coniferous forests to the sand beaches and dunes of the Pacific coastal plain, including 120 miles of coastline that border the Pacific Ocean. Good habitats support an abundance of wildlife in the County, including deer, elk, bear, mountain lion, salmon, bald eagles and the northern spotted owl, and perhaps Sasquatch."

http://www.bluenorth.com/Memorial-Day-2003-Expedition.htm

tube

12th August 2005, 11:28 PM

Hi, Matt "The Tube" Crowley here. I'm flattered that some of you consider that some of the tests I've done to be worthwhile enough to discuss. I'm interested in simply having everyone get the facts straight, so if anyone has questions, I'm willing to try and answer them.

I am not willing to go as far as other skeptics have and claim that my casting artifact tests "debunk" all dermal ridge evidence in purported Sasquatch casts. Why not? Well, the evidence suggests that casting artifacts (of the type I'm talking about) do not occur in muddy substrates. Of the 6 casts of Jeff Meldrum's that Chilcutt examined only one, the Onion Mountain cast, was made in fine DRY powdered soil. Two of the others were made in mud namely "Wrinkle Foot" and the Elkins cast in Georgia. The other three I believe were two of Paul Freeman's and one from Hyampom CA cast by Bob Titmus. Of the latter three I do not know the soil conditions in which these casts were made. I have only examined good copies of the Onion Mountain cast and "Wrinkle foot". I make no claims to knowledge about the nature of casts besides Onion Mountain other than to say the evidence suggests that casting artifacts do not occur in mud or even wet soils.

LAL

12th August 2005, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I recall that BH said he had some football shoulder pads on, so I am not sure why the "no padding" line is constantly repeated.

It doesn't matter a whit anyway, even if BH said there was no padding.

If the padding was built into the suit, then BH would indeed say he wore no padding. He would be telling the truth. He could indeed have worn a suit without putting any padding on.

Given the thigh bulge, the padding could indeed be part of the suit and the thigh padding may have come loose.

Lu, I will say it again, you seem never to have given any thought to what a hoaxer would do. None at all.

I've read the book and numerous reviews completely debunking it. Why should I waste any more time on it? There is no evidence of a hoax. None at all.

That's hard to believe. That is why I brought up "intentionally obtuse".

It seems odd that you wouldn't have thought of padding being part of the suit. It's such an obvious thing to consider.[/B][/QUOTE]
I read the book. Did you? Which suit are you referring to? 'Scuse me.....alleged suit. Suits. The one the "Planet of the Apes guy" made? The one "Roger made"? The cloth suit Morris said he made?

I don't like idle conjecture with nothing to back it up.

You can think of a horribly wrecked tendon though, and accept that. Even on a creature with such a cool smooth walk.
The tendon wasn't ruptured. Underlying muscles bulge though a separation in the quadriceps. I'll have to view that again to get the exact terminology. An old injury wouldn't necessarily hurt. Evidently she was part of a group. She may have been cared for early on if it was disabling for awhile.

Strange.

What's strange? I'm under no obligation to try to push, shove, distort and mangle the information to try to make it fit into an improbable hoax scenario. I know too much about it to be able to do that.

LAL

13th August 2005, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by tube
Hi, Matt "The Tube" Crowley here. I'm flattered that some of you consider that some of the tests I've done to be worthwhile enough to discuss. I'm interested in simply having everyone get the facts straight, so if anyone has questions, I'm willing to try and answer them.

I am not willing to go as far as other skeptics have and claim that my casting artifact tests "debunk" all dermal ridge evidence in purported Sasquatch casts. Why not? Well, the evidence suggests that casting artifacts (of the type I'm talking about) do not occur in muddy substrates. Of the 6 casts of Jeff Meldrum's that Chilcutt examined only one, the Onion Mountain cast, was made in fine DRY powdered soil. Two of the others were made in mud namely "Wrinkle Foot" and the Elkins cast in Georgia. The other three I believe were two of Paul Freeman's and one from Hyampom CA cast by Bob Titmus. Of the latter three I do not know the soil conditions in which these casts were made. I have only examined good copies of the Onion Mountain cast and "Wrinkle foot". I make no claims to knowledge about the nature of casts besides Onion Mountain other than to say the evidence suggests that casting artifacts do not occur in mud or even wet soils.

Wow. Hi. I hope you don't mind me talking about you. I'm really impressed with your work. This is how it's done. Test it. Check it. Check it again.

I'd lost track of the detailed thread and was glad to be able to read the rest of it. Invited to do papers? How cool is that?

I believe Chilcutt examined more than six (he discarded the first for contamination) but found six compelling. Thanks for letting us know which ones......almost. Would one of the Freeman tracks be from his first sighting? How could I find out which ones they were?
(Too late to win that debate, but I can still PM the poster.)

The Hyampom prints were found in wet mud, according to Murphy (pg. 138).

(Heh, heh. At least they know I wasn't lying when I said you'd read most of the thread. I didn't know you were still lurking. If it took hours to read it can you imagine how long it took to write it? Here I am at 2:20 AM EST again. Egad!)

LAL

13th August 2005, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
I dismiss all Bigfoot believers outright. It's too late to really claim Bigfoot to be a reality. This myth game has been going on for centuries and intensively for about 40 years.

Your bias is showing.

Rational folks may believe in Bigfoot, but the belief in Bigfoot is irrational itself.

And why is that? Be specific, and try not to hoot.

They didn't at a recent conference. Check out Kewaunee Lapseritis at the Bellingham Sasquatch Research Conference in May. Conference Reviews (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11338&view=findpost&p=230669)

Check out the criticism of that while you're at it.

It would seem that 'anything goes' in Bigfoot research since there is no type specimen to create any kind of naturalistic standard for the creature.

Read Krantz.

If you claim that Bigfoot is a visiting extraterrestrial... who the hell is going to prove that it isn't?

If I claim you're Kal Korff in drag who the hell is going to prove that you aren't?

Demand a refund? Would that be like paying to go through a Halloween spook house in order to be scared, then asking for your money back because the guy in there with the bloody chainsaw really isn't a murderer?

Is that really relevant to anything?

LAL

13th August 2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
I didn't think anyone knew the exact film speed?

I know some have attempted to guess...but no one really knows, do they?

It had to be 16 or 24. I apologize for not getting back to correct the error. I was trying to catch up on posts and someone caught it before I could get back to it. 24 was ruled out for reasons I've explained.

LAL

13th August 2005, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, maybe my memory is faulty, but I believe you and Noll claimed that there would have to be hoof prints in the body print if the skookum print was made by an elk.

You were claiming at one point it was the imprint of a chest. In that case the hoof prints would have to be in the imprint because they gather their legs under them to get up. This would have to be somewhere in the area even if an elk rolled. The elk prints were of a walking elk.

RayG

13th August 2005, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by LAL
The Skookum cast is not a side show attraction. It is being preserved for people who have knowledge of such things to see it in a prime condition both physically and without prejudice.

So journalist/author John Green can see it but journalist/author Benjamin Radford cannot? When he says "without prejudice", does he mean 'objectively' or 'unbiased'?

Copies of the cast were given to both Green and Rene Dahinden, neither of which could be called unbiased.

I'm in favor of having as many people look at it as possible, not just those who support the bigfoot hypothesis.

RayG

RayG

13th August 2005, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by LAL
It had to be 16 or 24.

Krantz believed it to be 18fps. (page 94 of Big Footprints.)

RayG

LAL

13th August 2005, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

P/G interview.

Patterson was under the horse.

P and G differ on Patty's arm length.
P says above the knees G says way below.

So? Patterson said Bob was a little excited there.

Gimlin may have been distracted for a moment controlling his own horse and not really seen exactly what was happening with Roger. Memory can play tricks over time. Gimlin's interview with Green was what, 30 years later? I'm not finding anything earlier on that.

Gimlin again says she stood still for a moment.

Before Patterson began filming. I've read she was squatting by the stream, then rose and started walking off. I have a vague memory of seeing this somewhere. I'm wondering if it could have been an animation or if I'm imagining it. In any event, she doesn't stop moving on the film on LMS.

There's a map (by Titmus) on page 42 of Meet the Sasquatch showing where she crossed the stream after the camera ran out of film and watched them from the hill. The logging road was parallel to the creek. Unfortunately, there's no scale.

I'm not finding anything on how far they followed her into the forest yet. Who has a source?

LAL

13th August 2005, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Krantz believed it to be 18fps. (page 94 of Big Footprints.)

RayG

I think that's where I got it. I've just been reading Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (same book with updates).
Seems I've read that from one of the Russians, as well, but if Murphy's right about the camera, there was no 18 fps setting. Patterson said it had been switched from 24 to 16 but he wasn't sure when.

LAL

13th August 2005, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by RayG
So journalist/author John Green can see it but journalist/author Benjamin Radford cannot? When he says "without prejudice", does he mean 'objectively' or 'unbiased'?

Copies of the cast were given to both Green and Rene Dahinden, neither of which could be called unbiased.

I'm in favor of having as many people look at it as possible, not just those who support the bigfoot hypothesis.

RayG

Dahinden died less than a year later. Just when were copies made? (I haven't had a chance to read everything on the BFF threads, so I apologize if the info is there. I'm still on page 35 on this thread.)

Maybe they made the policy after honoring two of the so-called Four Hoursemen (yeah, I know what Green had to say about that).

Radford's not banned, is he? He gets to see it when the rest of the public does.

tube

13th August 2005, 02:30 AM

I'm not as comfortable as LAL is discussing multiple topics simultainously in the same thread. As we can all see there is a great deal of detail in all this, probably a bit much for one thread. But something caught my eye which I feel I need to comment on. This is the notion that there was something funny about Rick Noll having large amounts of Hydrocal in his possession at the start of the "Skookum" expedition. I wondered about this myself some years ago, when I first heard about it. This backhanded intimation of hoaxing or fraud has come up in Bigfooter circles too and ought to be addressed. Frankly the answer is simple.

The cement used for the "Skookum cast" was not ordinary plaster of Paris, but a superior casting cement called Hydrocal B-11. This is made by U.S. Gypsum. You can verify on U.S.G's website that Hydrocal B-11 is supplied in 50 and 100 bags. The last 100 pound bag I bought at retail here in Seattle cost me about 28 dollars.

Rick is a tooling metrologist who uses Hydrocal B-11 in his work. They buy it by the pallet. Rick told me that his cost is about 14 dollars per one hundred pound bag. Rick also told me that he was delivering 200 pounds of the stuff to another "team" member, Leroy Fish I believe. I gather that USG's better casting cements like Hydrocal and Ultracal (which I favor) are hard to get in various parts of the country. I suspect, but do not know, that this is why Noll was delivering it to another Bigfooter. My point in all this is that for Noll to have 200 pounds of Hydrocal in the back of his pick up truck is NO BIG DEAL.

I have unresolved questions about the "Skookum cast" myself, and I'm an acquaintance of Rick Noll. The mass of Hydrocal B-11 in his possession at the time is NOT one of them.

RayG

13th August 2005, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I think that's where I got it. I've just been reading Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (same book with updates).
Seems I've read that from one of the Russians, as well, but if Murphy's right about the camera, there was no 18 fps setting. Patterson said it had been switched from 24 to 16 but he wasn't sure when.

If there IS no 18 fps setting, that would call into question the scientific investigation by Krantz, who said (page 94): "Patterson normally had his camera set on 24 frames per second. Some time after the filming he noticed it was set on 18 frames."

You'd think a complete investigation would have included the equipment used to obtain the film, and Krantz would have noticed if there was no 18 fps setting.

Krantz includes a chart on page 95 that shows his estimated height ranges of the film subject according to frame speeds of the camera.

24 fps = 3'3" - 4'2" tall
18 fps = 5'9.3" - 7'4.6" tall
16 fps = 7'4" - 9'8" tall

At the bottom of the chart he states: "It would appear, without reasonable doubt, that it was filmed at 18 frames per second."

Using the footprints found at the scene, and measuring them against the height of the subject in the film, only the 18 fps settings match.

RayG

RayG

13th August 2005, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Dahinden died less than a year later.

Irrelevant. He was given a copy, he was no scientist, and he certainly wasn't unbiased.

Just when were copies made?

I've no idea, nor does it change anything I've written or commented on.

Radford's not banned, is he? He gets to see it when the rest of the public does.

I've shown FOUR links where both Noll and Radford state he was denied/refused access. Radford was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if he could see the cast while he was there. He was denied/refused access. The reasons for refusing access seem rather childish.

RayG

RayG

13th August 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by tube
I have unresolved questions about the "Skookum cast" myself...

Hi Matt, care to elaborate?

RayG

LAL

13th August 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Irrelevant. He was given a copy, he was no scientist, and he certainly wasn't unbiased.

Wasn't Green working with Noll on making copies?

I've no idea, nor does it change anything I've written or commented on.

What's your source on them being given copies? Is it in those threads somewhere? I hate to plead no time again, but I am short of time right now, and this is new to me.

I've shown FOUR links where both Noll and Radford state he was denied/refused access. Radford was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if he could see the cast while he was there. He was denied/refused access. The reasons for refusing access seem rather childish.

RayG

For a private showing. He was denied by MM at first. RN gives him conditional permission (below). As I recall, without reading the rest of the threads right now (I can't even get caught up on the posts here), it was said could see it with the rest of the public. I did read this far:

" Mr. Radford,

Please check your first uninformed article containing comments on the Skookum Cast and Richard Noll in the note section Vol 26, No. 2 Skeptical Inquirer, Evaluating 50 years of Bigfoot Evidence. You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition into believing the impression found was that of a Bigfoot, much as some come to see faces and winged animals in cloud formations. You have never seen the cast, met or talked with Richard Noll, or any of the other members of the expedition except Matt Moneymaker, but came to a very strange explanation for the events documented. Maybe the BFRO as a whole considers this a type of "bridge burning".

There were two PHDs on the expedition, one a clinical psychologist and chemist (as well as a non-believer), the other a wildlife biologist and co-discoverer (who wanted to look into the problem before he couldn't). What makes you think, given the chance to see the cast and talk with Mr. Noll in person, he wouldn't hypnotize you as well?

Both Daris Swindler and George Schaller have impeccable reputations. Both have examined the Skookum cast. Neither claimed to be believers in Bigfoot but neither have they turned their eyes away from the evidence. George has studied more than just Gorillas and is very familiar with ungulates and their sign. Daris is probably the world's leading primate anatomist.

Daris Swindler denounced the subject of Bigfoot even after he met face to face and interviewed Albert Otsman. He had his own copy of the P/G film, watching it over and over but still came up with "it's a hoax conclusion"... yet after four examinations of the Skookum cast, came to a completely different conclusion. Seems he found something, corroborating evidence he'd seen before and that he understood quite well.

To the best of my knowledge, Richard Noll is not trying to convince anybody of anything. He has and is continuing to collect what he feels is evidence for the animals existence. Then he presents it as such. Nothing more. He even stated in front of 200+ interested parties, believers and others that he was not 100%convinced that the impression was made by a Bigfoot since he didn't see it make it. He qualified that immediately through another question asked in that he didn't know what else it could be either.

I think that Richard respects what you are attempting to do in your articles, i.e. apply common sense, bootstrap, home grown, over the counter investigative skills and techniques to look into extraordinary claims... something even a loving mother should be able to do. Your articles can sometimes be quite humbling in their no-nonsense approach.

I am sure that the next time you decide to do an article on the subject and you contact Richard about it, that he would consider having you examine the cast and all the other evidence he has as well as speak with some of his hypnotized subjects, like Daris, to decide for yourself... as long as you write nothing more about what you know not."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40

That article seems to be the source of some of the nonsense I'm seeing on this board. If I were Richard, I'd demand a retraction as well.

Skeptical Greg

13th August 2005, 10:57 AM

That article seems to be the source of some of the nonsense I'm seeing on this board. If I were Richard, I'd demand a retraction as well. Maybe the BFRO could go first, and print a retraction of all the nonsense on their site...

Oh, and Knoll is free to refute anything he finds in The Skeptical Enquirer.. A great opportunity to put those nasty ol' skeptics in their place.

RayG

13th August 2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Wasn't Green working with Noll on making copies?

Which would seem to indicate Green isn't unbiased. Do you agree or disagree that Green and Dahinden are/were not scientists and are/were far from unbiased? What makes Green and Dahinden MORE qualified to view the Skookum cast?

What's your source on them being given copies? Is it in those threads somewhere? I hate to plead no time again, but I am short of time right now, and this is new to me.

The following scientists/non-scientists were given cast copies of the heel according to Richard Noll:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=60&#entry58348

John Green
Rene Dahinden
Esteban Sarmientoi
George Schaller
Daris Swindler
Richard Greenwall
Doug Hajicek
Zack Clothier
Derek Randles
LeRoy Fish
Alton Higgins
Jeff Meldrum
Jimmy Chillcut
Sue Lindley

Dahinden and Fish are both now deceased.

For a private showing. He was denied by MM at first. RN gives him conditional permission (below).

Ah yes, it's always easier for someone living on the east coast to arrange for the cast viewing at the convenience of the person on the opposite coast who has the cast stored in their garage. That was addressed already. If Noll is truly concerned about allowing access, he seems to go about it in a rather inflexible manner. I also find it strange that Noll keeps referring to himself in the third person. Keep in mind Richard Noll himself wrote the following:

You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition...What makes you think, given the chance to see the cast and talk with Mr. Noll in person, he wouldn't hypnotize you...To the best of my knowledge, Richard Noll is not trying to convince anybody of anything. He has and is continuing to collect what he feels is evidence for the animals existence. Then he presents it as such. Nothing more. He even stated in front of 200+ interested parties, believers and others that he was not 100%convinced that the impression was made by a Bigfoot since he didn't see it make it. He qualified that immediately through another question asked in that he didn't know what else it could be either...I think that Richard respects...that he would consider having you examine the cast and all the other evidence he has...

The whole things reads like he's talking about someone else, a third party. That seems, at the very least, rather misleading or deceptive. When Radford showed up at the BFF, he immediately identified himself. I don't recall Richard identifying himself during the course of the debate with Radford on the BFF. Other members are aware that damndirtyape and Richard Noll are one and the same, but I don't know if Radford knew that during his discussion.

That article seems to be the source of some of the nonsense I'm seeing on this board. If I were Richard, I'd demand a retraction as well.

If Richard can come forward with something besides an opinion, then maybe he can demand a retraction. Not allowing a difference of opinion isn't very scientific.

RayG

LAL

13th August 2005, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by RayG
If there IS no 18 fps setting, that would call into question the scientific investigation by Krantz, who said (page 94): "Patterson normally had his camera set on 24 frames per second. Some time after the filming he noticed it was set on 18 frames."

You'd think a complete investigation would have included the equipment used to obtain the film, and Krantz would have noticed if there was no 18 fps setting.

Krantz includes a chart on page 95 that shows his estimated height ranges of the film subject according to frame speeds of the camera.

24 fps = 3'3" - 4'2" tall
18 fps = 5'9.3" - 7'4.6" tall
16 fps = 7'4" - 9'8" tall

At the bottom of the chart he states: "It would appear, without reasonable doubt, that it was filmed at 18 frames per second."

Using the footprints found at the scene, and measuring them against the height of the subject in the film, only the 18 fps settings match.

RayG

None of the heights match his final estimate. He calculated that from foot length, didn't he? I found a source recently while checking this out again where Roger reportedly said 24fps and 16fps. Grieves said either 16 or 18 would be out of human range.

Murphy seems to have done his homework. I'm wondering why this wasn't caught earlier.

I saw it as soon as I read the description of the camera in his book. I thought my memory was wrong, but now I'm wondering if my sources were.

"The second question arises from the movement of the image. Bourne finds it "very much of a human type gait." Donskoy agrees with Bourne "in principle," and then goes on to enumerate differences, which lead him to the conclusion that the walk of the image is "absolutely non-typical of man." Grieve detects a similarity between the gait of the image and that of man only if the film were taken at 24 fps or some higher speed. Film speed does not, however, bear upon the appearance of the arm swing and the shoulder contours. Krantz limits himself to the observation that the apparent pivot point of the ankle differs from that of the average man.

The question of film speed has been debated at some length. Patterson's camera was capable of 16, 18, and 24 fps. Napier (1972:94) suggests 24 fps because it is best suited for television transmission, and Patterson acknowledged his desire to have his film broadcast on TV. Napier also reports that Patterson could not recollect at what speed the film was taken. Green (1973b:70) reports Patterson finding his camera set at 18 fps on checking it after the excitement of the moment had quieted, although it was his custom to set it at 24 fps."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/strasenburgh.htm

Could Murphy be wrong on the camera? What other Kodak could it have been?

tube

13th August 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Hi Matt, care to elaborate?

RayG

First off, I'm satisfied that whatever made the "Skookum" impression was made by an animal or animals. Why? Because I have examined a first generation female copy of the thing at the Seattle Sasquatch conference and one can clearly see the texture of hair and fur. Much has been made about how elk stand up, in that they need to get their legs directly under them and would have left hoof prints in the very center of the impression. But this argument goes both ways: If the impression was made by a reclining Sasquatch, how did it go down and how did it get up? Try it yourself; while it is physically possible to get up and go down without using one's hands or knees, the most natural way is to plant hands and knees onto the ground. Where are the knee or hand impressions? My guess is that the advocates will posit that the Sasquatch simply rolled onto harder ground before getting up, and that is certainly a possiblity. I make mention of this simply because I have not seen this particular question raised.
My other question has to do with the substrate in which it was made; it was clearly fine enough and fluid enough to capture the texture of fur, but was it fine enough to capture dermal ridges? I have not seen a soil sample, but I believe soil samples were taken. It would be an easy thing to test to see if this soil was capable of holding human dermal ridges. If it could hold human dermal ridges it is not an unreasonable inference that it could hold coarser dermal ridges, as Sasquatch dermal ridges are claimed to be. Again, this may have already been discussed somewhere, but I am not familiar with it. Maybe I should be asking Rick instead of simply posting this on the JREF forum!

RayG

13th August 2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by LAL
None of the heights match his final estimate.

You mean his height estimate? Sure, the 5'9" - 7'4" falls in the range that Krantz (and everyone else) estimates.

Krantz - walking height = 6', standing height = 6'6"
Patterson - 7'4"
Gimlin - 6'1" or 6'2"
Byrne, Green, and Grieve - all estimate between 6'5" and about 6'7"

He calculated that from foot length, didn't he?

That was one method, but he also mentions the film comparison done by John Green, and the estimates by the other film investigators.

I found a source recently while checking this out again where Roger reportedly said 24fps and 16fps. Grieves said either 16 or 18 would be out of human range.

Seems like all we have is lots of speculation. There's disagreement over whether it was filmed at 16, 18, or 24fps. I'm not even certain that particular camera has those three specific settings.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15431
"The Camera, according to most sources and stories, was a dual speed type. 24 frames per second, or a slower 16 fps."

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/article.php?id=56
"He passed around the camera [Cine-Kodak K-100] (lenses were missing) so people could look at the settings, 24 frames per sec. being the normal setting for TV reporting, but Roger told John Green it was set at 18, and he didnâ€™t know when the change was made. Daniel
thinks that Roger made a mistake when he reported it was 18. The slower the film, the more it blurs, and Daniel thinks it was set at 16 frames per sec. "

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"Regarding the camera speed: Glickman reports that, according to the Kodak Archives, the speed tolerance of the film carrier subassembly in Patterson's camera was plus or minus 10%. If it was set at 16 fps, then the actual speed could have been anywhere between 14.4 fps and 17.6 fps."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"I heard on a Bigfoot documentary awhile back that they discovered the camera that Patterson filmed Patty with never even had a 24 frames per second speed. Only 16 and 18. The documentary was made before the late Dr. Grover Krantz past away and he pointed this out himself."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry198472
"I did some researching and found in Krantzs book Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence that the settings on the Kodak k-100 had a setting og 16 and 24. Nothing in between. All the confusion on the speed Krantz said could of been that the 16 speed on the camera could of been smudged really bad and it looked like it said 18 instead of 16."

If there IS no 18fps, that would seem to be quite damaging to the height estimates given by Krantz in his chart on page 95.

The question of film speed has been debated at some length. Patterson's camera was capable of 16, 18, and 24 fps.

Are you certain of that? Others seem to think there were only two settings, 16 and 24.

Napier (1972:94) suggests 24 fps because it is best suited for television transmission, and Patterson acknowledged his desire to have his film broadcast on TV. Napier also reports that Patterson could not recollect at what speed the film was taken. Green (1973b:70) reports Patterson finding his camera set at 18 fps on checking it after the excitement of the moment had quieted, although it was his custom to set it at 24 fps."

Yup, like I said, lots of speculation.

Could Murphy be wrong on the camera? What other Kodak could it have been?

I guess that's a possibility, but it doesn't give us any answers.

RayG

RayG

13th August 2005, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by tube
If the impression was made by a reclining Sasquatch, how did it go down and how did it get up? Try it yourself; while it is physically possible to get up and go down without using one's hands or knees, the most natural way is to plant hands and knees onto the ground. Where are the knee or hand impressions? My guess is that the advocates will posit that the Sasquatch simply rolled onto harder ground before getting up, and that is certainly a possiblity. I make mention of this simply because I have not seen this particular question raised.

Actually, it's something I've raised both here on the JREF, and on the BFF.

March 2, 2005
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10057&st=0&#entry200476
" I'd like to see how the gorilla/human would leave an imprint of its achilles tendon without leaving an imprint of its foot. I'm always left wondering how the Skookum critter was able to sit in the mud, yet leave no footprint or handprint. Try it yerself. Sit down on the floor/ground and try to get to yer feet again WITHOUT using yer hands and/or feet for leverage."

again on May 30, 2005
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11294&st=80&#entry231178
"How did the sasquatch leave an imprint of its achilles tendon WITHOUT leaving an imprint of its foot?

How was it able to get to its feet WITHOUT using its hands and/or feet for leverage?"

once again on June 22, 2005
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876
"I've never had anyone give me an explanation for those two questions.

How did the sasquatch leave an imprint of its achilles tendon WITHOUT leaving an imprint of its foot?

How was it able to get to its feet WITHOUT using its hands and/or feet for leverage?"

My other question has to do with the substrate in which it was made; it was clearly fine enough and fluid enough to capture the texture of fur, but was it fine enough to capture dermal ridges?

Very good point, and one I don't recall being addressed.

RayG

LAL

13th August 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Maybe the BFRO could go first, and print a retraction of all the nonsense on their site...

Oh, and Knoll is free to refute anything he finds in The Skeptical Enquirer.. A great opportunity to put those nasty ol' skeptics in their place.

It's "Noll". I wish he would. I believe Green's response to Korff and Kocis made it to Letters to the Editor, but would they publish an article by him?

LAL

13th August 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Which would seem to indicate Green isn't unbiased. Do you agree or disagree that Green and Dahinden are/were not scientists and are/were far from unbiased? What makes Green and Dahinden MORE qualified to view the Skookum cast?

Experience.

The following scientists/non-scientists were given cast copies of the heel according to Richard Noll:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=60&#entry58348

John Green
Rene Dahinden
Esteban Sarmientoi
George Schaller
Daris Swindler
Richard Greenwall
Doug Hajicek
Zack Clothier
Derek Randles
LeRoy Fish
Alton Higgins
Jeff Meldrum
Jimmy Chillcut
Sue Lindley

Dahinden and Fish are both now deceased.

Okay, just the heel. I didn't think he was handing out copies of the whole thing, especially with an estimated cost of $2500 a pop.

Ah yes, it's always easier for someone living on the east coast to arrange for the cast viewing at the convenience of the person on the opposite coast who has the cast stored in their garage. That was addressed already. If Noll is truly concerned about allowing access, he seems to go about it in a rather inflexible manner. I also find it strange that Noll keeps referring to himself in the third person. Keep in mind Richard Noll himself wrote the following:
[/B][/QUOTE]

The condition was that Radford stop writing about things he knows nothing about. I think that's a great idea.

The whole things reads like he's talking about someone else, a third party. That seems, at the very least, rather misleading or deceptive. When Radford showed up at the BFF, he immediately identified himself. I don't recall Richard identifying himself during the course of the debate with Radford on the BFF. Other members are aware that damndirtyape and Richard Noll are one and the same, but I don't know if Radford knew that during his discussion.

When I first joined a year ago I was informed by another poster Noll wished to remain anonymous on the board. Perhaps he was still trying to do that, but at times he's signed his posts.

His anonimity is blown for sure now.

If Richard can come forward with something besides an opinion, then maybe he can demand a retraction. Not allowing a difference of opinion isn't very scientific.

RayG

Saying he "hypnotized" people in print is something beyond mere opinion, IMO, and certainly isn't scientific, but then Radford's no scientist, is he?. I can see why Richard might not want to give him the time of day.

Skeptical Greg

13th August 2005, 05:37 PM

Saying he "hypnotized" people in print is something beyond mere opinion, IMO, and certainly isn't scientific, but then Radford's no scientist, is he?. I can see why Richard might not want to give him the time of day. Do you have a source that shows Radford says anyone was ' hypnotized '?

I don't see it in the referenced article...

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

RayG

13th August 2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by LAL
Experience.

In what regard? Did either Green or Dahinden have a sighting? Have either of them successfully bagged a squatch? I don't think you've shown why one writer/journalist (Green) with an interest in bigfoot is more qualified than another writer/jounalist (Radford) with an interest in bigfoot.

The condition was that Radford stop writing about things he knows nothing about. I think that's a great idea.

What does anyone REALLY know about squatch?

Saying he "hypnotized" people in print is something beyond mere opinion, IMO, and certainly isn't scientific, but then Radford's no scientist, is he?.

Radford never said it, Noll did. Three times in all:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40&#entry58072

"You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition into believing the impression found was that of a Bigfoot, much as some come to see faces and winged animals in cloud formations...What makes you think, given the chance to see the cast and talk with Mr. Noll in person, he wouldn't hypnotize you as well...that he would consider having you examine the cast and all the other evidence he has as well as speak with some of his hypnotized subjects..."

To which Radford replied:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40&#entry58151

"As for â€œYou implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition into believing the impression found was that of a Bigfoot, much as some come to see faces and winged animals in cloud formations,â€ I simply gave one possibility for what might have happened, based not upon wild conjecture but upon the BFROâ€™s own report and my background in psychology. I did not suggest anyone was â€œhypnotizedâ€ at all; the imprint is an ambiguous shape in mud. That is a fact. People have a psychological tendency to read meaning into ambiguous shapes. That also is a fact. I did not say that was conclusively what happened, but, based upon the BFROâ€™s own report, I simply suggested it was a possibility."

RayG

LTC8K6

14th August 2005, 12:26 AM

The idea of sasquatch experts is hilarious.

The idea of a sasquatch dermal ridge expert is over the top.

What's next, a sasquatch surgeon?

LAL

14th August 2005, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you have a source that shows Radford says anyone was ' hypnotized '?

I don't see it in the referenced article...

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

I don't see the word, but that seems to be the implication here (influenced, at least):

"The way in which the track was discovered raises questions as well. The expedition log gives an account of how "[Team member Richard] Noll notices an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the wallow and suddenly figures out what caused it. [Team members] Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face and come over to have another look at what he's examining. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple core nearby. The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal was laying on its side at the edge of the mud, reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit" (BFRO 2000). So what you have is a case where a group of people are looking for evidence of a Bigfoot. One observer believes he sees a pattern fitting what he's looking for in ambiguous stimuli (shapes in mud). Once the pattern is pointed out to others, they also agree that the pattern could match up to parts of a hominid form in a particular contortion. The rest of the group, who might never have decided on their own that the pattern fits a Bigfoot, then validate the initial observer's (possibly unwarranted) conclusion. This happens all the time, for example when a person recognizes a face or an image in clouds or stains or tortillas. As psychologists know, observers' expectations frequently color their interpretations."

BTW, the weird track shown was alligator. To show the photo as something anyone still thinks was associated with a sighting is dishonest, IMO, as is most of the rest of the article.

LAL

14th August 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by RayG
You mean his height estimate? Sure, the 5'9" - 7'4" falls in the range that Krantz (and everyone else) estimates.

Krantz - walking height = 6', standing height = 6'6"
Patterson - 7'4"
Gimlin - 6'1" or 6'2"
Byrne, Green, and Grieve - all estimate between 6'5" and about 6'7"

That was one method, but he also mentions the film comparison done by John Green, and the estimates by the other film investigators.

Seems like all we have is lots of speculation. There's disagreement over whether it was filmed at 16, 18, or 24fps. I'm not even certain that particular camera has those three specific settings.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15431
"The Camera, according to most sources and stories, was a dual speed type. 24 frames per second, or a slower 16 fps."

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/article.php?id=56
"He passed around the camera [Cine-Kodak K-100] (lenses were missing) so people could look at the settings, 24 frames per sec. being the normal setting for TV reporting, but Roger told John Green it was set at 18, and he didnâ€™t know when the change was made. Daniel
thinks that Roger made a mistake when he reported it was 18. The slower the film, the more it blurs, and Daniel thinks it was set at 16 frames per sec. "

<snip>

I guess that's a possibility, but it doesn't give us any answers.

RayG

Krantz, on pg. 306 (in the Addendum) of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence gives a reasonable explanation. Patterson evidently didn't know the camera couldn't be set on 18 fps. The figure may have been smudged so he read it as 18 instead of 16.

Kodak's literature stated the actual speed could be within 10% of that stated on the control setting. Paul Appleby of the BBC obtained a Kodak K-100 and timed it electronically. It was running at 19 fps when set on 16 fps.

Seems the sceptics have already had their field day with this. Krantz stood by his figure. The jiggle analysis showed 18 fps, too, as I recall.

I'm so behind the times <sobs>

RayG

14th August 2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Krantz, on pg. 306 (in the Addendum) of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence gives a reasonable explanation. Patterson evidently didn't know the camera couldn't be set on 18 fps. The figure may have been smudged so he read it as 18 instead of 16.

I already addressed that here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry198472
"I did some researching and found in Krantzs book Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence that the settings on the Kodak k-100 had a setting og 16 and 24. Nothing in between. All the confusion on the speed Krantz said could of been that the 16 speed on the camera could of been smudged really bad and it looked like it said 18 instead of 16."

Kodak's literature stated the actual speed could be within 10% of that stated on the control setting. Paul Appleby of the BBC obtained a Kodak K-100 and timed it electronically. It was running at 19 fps when set on 16 fps.

I already touched on that as well:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"Regarding the camera speed: Glickman reports that, according to the Kodak Archives, the speed tolerance of the film carrier subassembly in Patterson's camera was plus or minus 10%. If it was set at 16 fps, then the actual speed could have been anywhere between 14.4 fps and 17.6 fps."

Seems the sceptics have already had their field day with this. Krantz stood by his figure. The jiggle analysis showed 18 fps, too, as I recall.

Skeptics like to deal with facts whenever possible. To my knowledge, the specific camera used by Patterson that day has never been tested for 'jiggle analysis', or anything else for that matter.

RayG

Skeptical Greg

14th August 2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I don't see the word, but that seems to be the implication here (influenced, at least):

.......................

So ' implying ' is a big no - no ?

You don't think Noll wishes to influence others, regarding Bigfoot ?

Do you ? ( want to influence people about Bigfoot )

Again, what does that say about all the crap at the BFRO website ?

Pot, meet kettle.....

RayG

14th August 2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by LAL
BTW, the weird track shown was alligator. To show the photo as something anyone still thinks was associated with a sighting is dishonest, IMO, as is most of the rest of the article.

Nothing dishonest about it. Similar tracks can still be found on the net, supposedly belonging to a bipedal creature dubbed 'Swamp Bigfoot'.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/web-eye-witness-tracks.jpg

or...the Honey Island Swamp Monster...

http://ucmmuseum.com/honeyislandswampmonster.htm
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/i-files.html
http://honeyisland.americanmonsters.com/legend.html
http://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/

RayG

LTC8K6

14th August 2005, 10:35 PM

Chilcutt said the dermal ridges couldn't be human because they went up and down the sides of the foot.

My error, Chilcutt said the ridges went up and down the length of the foot, of course.

Not the sides.

That strikes me as useless for dermal ridges, though.

Alphaba

15th August 2005, 05:22 AM

This topic is completely new for me (Western Europe apparently is not very hospitable for Bigfoot and its modern lore: Father Christmas, ogres, Nessie, and werewolves clearly don't qualify). I have thus taken the colossal amount of time needed to read this thread in its entirety, plus the parallel one about the P-G film, plus related webpages.

Apparently sasquatch researchers face two vexing major issues since decades: lack of bodies or remains, and lack of feces.

Reasons for this absence of evidence are obvious:
If no one has found a body or a skeleton it is evidently because, like one living and one extinct other species of primate (genus homo), sasquatches do bury their dead. Furthermore their considerable strentgh allow them to cover each tomb, individual or collective, with a big rock. As they manifestly lack tools to cut or carve stone, these rocks look like ordinary rocks.

Lack of feces certainly has a roughly identical cause: they dig pit-toilets, covered with a rock. Alternatively, they may defecate only in rivers, a habit that could also jeopardize an easy finding of feces. But the digging skill they manifest in burying their dead tend to favor the first hypothesis.

Conclusion: in the search for hard evidences of Bigfoot's existence, no rock must be left unturned.

Thurkon

15th August 2005, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by bruto
I would have thought it pretty obvious that the entire enterprise is marked by carelessness and incompetence unless, of course, it's fraudulent. These folks have supposedly just shot the most significant bigfoot footage in history, and they lost part of it. The exact mechanism whereby it has been lost or misplaced is irrelevant. They went out supposedly to shoot a documentary, are said to have wasted most of the film on extraneous stuff, shot an ambiguous and questionable minute of bigfoot that looks to anyone without a preconceived belief in bigfoot like a man in a fursuit that doesn't fit terribly well, and then for whatever reason and in whatever way, the original film, and any trace of the "non-bigfoot" portion disappeared, their stories about how they made the film disagree, and circumstances surrounding the film and the personnel cast a shadow on its authenticity. If they were not frauds, it must be conceded that they did not do a very good job of presenting, preserving and authenticating their evidence. They were, in fact, careless and less than competent. If they had not been, and if the film had been genuine, we would not be having this discussion now.

I'm not as disinclined as some to doubt at least the possibility of there being a bigfoot. I think it unlikely, but possible. I would be happy to see it proved. But what astonishes me about people like you is your readiness to accept the most miserable excuses for failure and spoiled evidence. The best thing any bigfoot researcher could do under the present circumstances would be to discard everything that passes for evidence, shun all the so-called experts, and start from scratch with some new ideas reasonably diligent exercise of common sense and observation, combined perhaps with a little bit of useful equipment, such as a camera that works. If there really is a bigfoot, I'm betting that it will not be found by the clowns who are searching now unless one of them, while watching an expert at work, dies laughing. Even then, the expert will probably go home for the weekend and look for the body the following monday.

edited for typo

The most damning evidence that this was a hoax has yet to be discussed:

Was there ever an attempt to make a real documentary out of this?

Patterson goes out to shoot a documentary and ostensibly doesnâ€™t expect to get much more than tracksâ€¦due to the waste of footage on scenery. He gets lots of scenery, and then manages to film a Bigfoot, and film lots of tracks and casting.

Wouldnâ€™t Patterson then proceed with his plan? Or was there never a plan to film a documentary to begin with?

Correa Neto

15th August 2005, 09:25 AM

Not to mention that it seems, at least to me, a little fishy that the best avaliable footage of a bigfoot was obtained decades ago by people who went to the field specifically to shoot a documentary on the issue.

Why no one else got lucky later?

Sheer chance?
Bigfeet are extinct?
Bigfeet became smarter?
Skeptical influence, just as alleged on the countless psi experiments?
It was a hoax?

Thurkon

15th August 2005, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Are you Erectus from BFF or did you just cop his avatar?

No idea what youâ€™re talking about. I got the picture online. I liked his disco Sasquatch bell-bottom look. Heâ€™s also looking mean, like heâ€™s ready to throw down some serious stinky justice on some Bigfoot non-believers. His Squatch chick is backinâ€™ him up, too.

Originally posted by LAL

If you want scientific, read Krantz. He goes into detail on what sort of prosthetic devices would be required. They simply wouldn't produce the fluid movement seen in the film.

Yeah, okay. See, if this was his takeâ€¦he doesnâ€™t realize how unscientific heâ€™s really being. To state an informed opinion is one thing, but for a serious scientist to definitively state that thereâ€™s no way a prosthesis could produce this effect after viewing a sixty second grainy film is absolutely ludicrous.

Originally posted by LAL
It should be clear to anyone the proportions are not even close.

Again, they look pretty close to me. Am I blind? Theyâ€™re not identical, but they wouldnâ€™t be if Bob H. is wearing a suit in one picture. Especially when said suits are designed to exaggerate proportions, as Chris Walas has told us.

Originally posted by LAL
What's your source on Morris' statement and what evidence has he presented that he ever spoke with Patterson?

Morris himself, as quoted in Longâ€™s book. Patterson phoned him several times regarding the modification of the suit.

Originally posted by LAL
I'm beginning to see how Long could sell books. He could start a lucrative bridge and gold brick sideline. As Barnum said........

You seem overly eager to denounce everything Long researched as lies. Why is that, when you evidently havenâ€™t read the bookâ€¦or if you did, you werenâ€™t paying attention? Why is Long a liar? You seem to be implying money is his motivation, but remember Patterson didnâ€™t exactly donate his film for the benefit of science.

And by the way, Barnum never did say it:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

You sure do like to propagate mythsâ€¦

Hellbound

15th August 2005, 10:08 AM

They simply wouldn't produce the fluid movement seen in the film.

Just curious, how does this extreme "fluidity of motion" compare with the supposed "compliant gait" claimed to be observed which proves a "torn thigh muscle".

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by LAL
The trackway was in good enough condition nine days later for Bob Titmus to cast some tracks and track the creature to where she hunkered and watched them.

It's just amazing that Bob Titmus was able to track Patty through the forest after rains and nine days! He made castings as well for Pete's sake.

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that?

I'm not the only one that used that word.

Casts were made of both the left and right feet. At this time the men rushed the film out to Roger's brother-in-law for processing and phoned the B.C. (British Columbia, Canada) museum to try to get some scientists and a tracking dog sent to the location. The two men then returned to Bluff Creek at which time a torrential downpour began. They returned home and were lucky to get out before a mud slide blocked the road.

Bigfoot/Sasquatch FAQ (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/faq.html#q7) See Question #7.

It seems you've visited BFF. If this is the case, try reading some of Roger Knights posts on this. He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF. He's thorough.

If you are talking about RogerKni he is thorough. Thoroughly nutty. Strong supporter of sea monsters and other assorted monster thingies that nobody can find.

I looked at some of his postings. He lays out his biased supportive supportive arguments in a coherent and organized fashion. But look what he is arguing for. The guy is savantlike in his credulity. If he focused on the ridiculous circumstances that P&G want us to believe, instead of Long & Heironimus... it would be very interesting. He avoids that just like you do.

Thurkon

15th August 2005, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by LAL

Did it occur to you that was written before their inept attempt?

And why didn't these people come forward 38 years ago to prevent this dishonesty from being perpetrated on an innocent world?

They've shown nothing except and ability to bilk money out of people who have some sort of an emotional need to believe them.

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe I have some kind of emotional need in believing Bigfoot is a myth? I have no emotional connection to this at all. As I stated earlier, I would prefer it if Bigfoot were real.

But keep pretending that you have an objective stake in this. Take the review of Longâ€™s book. What the heck was that? The review is a silly nitpick of items that can be easily explained with a little thought. Two suits? Patterson modified the original. How many times do we have to toss this red herring around?

Not only that, but you apply criteria to Longâ€™s account that you refuse to apply to Patterson. Hieronimousâ€™ account has inconsistencies? OK, maybe heâ€™s lyingâ€¦but it isnâ€™t as if Pattersonâ€™s account doesnâ€™t have as many, if not more, inconsistencies. Why donâ€™t you apply this rigorous criteria to all involved with this filmâ€¦instead of just the guys you want to believe?

And discounting a negative story about Gimlin because Gimlinâ€™s family vouches for him? Yeah, thatâ€™s really good investigative journalism there, Lu.

LTC8K6

15th August 2005, 11:58 AM

Okay.....

10. How do I know if some Sasquatches are around?

There are huge barefoot human-like tracks.

Every creature in the forest becomes utterly silent.

The call of a nightbird is heard during the day, or the call of a daytime bird at night.

A powerful, indescribable animal smell is present.

A roaring scream, a screaming roar, louder and unlike any other animal, is heard.

Trees 4" thick are being snapped in half by a very strong creature that is apparently just out of your sight.

A large creature is hitting large sticks against large trees, again apparently out of your sight.

Animals are found hung in trees, heavier and higher than a cougar/mountain lion could carry them.

Strange pits or rock-cairns are found in remote places.

Trees 4" thick are found broken off, ten feet above the ground.

Stumps are found in remote places, ripped out of the ground.

One apparently speaks to you in your native language.

One helps you when you break your leg in the remote wilderness.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/faq.html#q10

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 12:28 PM

LAL said that Patterson died broke. That may be true.

I read an article that said something like, after Patterson was paid by Argosy for the PGF he had a suitcase full of cash in a hotel room and was tossing it around. Now I can't find that citation.

Patterson was affiliated with "American National (something)" after the PGF to equip him to find another Bigfoot. Does anyone know if he was paid a salary during the subsequent fruitless search for another?

What might be any other ways he had income after the PGF? How was he paying any bills?

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 01:46 PM

Hog-killing Bigfoot in Texas. It was a wise choice for the BFRO scientific organization to include this 'Class A' sighting account of Bigfoot. What an incredible animal we have here!

Bigfoot Brings Home the Bacon (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8547)

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 02:14 PM

Those of you who think the PGF is a hoax presumably also think that the tracks 'made by Patty' are hoaxed. What are your thoughts on those who were associated with these tracks afterwards?

Lyle Laverty photographed these tracks on what was supposed to be the day after the filming (P&G weren't there when he was). Bob Titmus was there 9 days later and cast some of these tracks and even tracked Patty for some distance.

Both of these guys already believed in Bigfoot. Do you think they were simply hoaxed by P&G? Do you think their stories involve biased complicity in a grand charade? Or what?

Skeptical Greg

15th August 2005, 02:21 PM

Regarding the recent discussion of the Skookum cast, I seemed to have remembered that I had seen a telling of the story that wasn't exactly what you can easily find at BFRO today.....

Well I found an old link I had...

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

And the discovery of the Skookum impression reads as follows...

On their way out, Randles, Noll, and Fish decided to stop and check the roadside mud pool that Randles and Dr. Fish had placed fruit at the night before. Some of the fruit, but not all, had been taken. Three of the original six apples were missing. Some of the melons showed evidence of having been pecked at by birds. They noted elk, deer, coyote and bear tracks in the mud pool. The three noticed a large impression at the eastern edge of the mud pool. It took several minutes of studying the impression before they finally deduced that it was possibly made by a sasquatch sitting down at the edge of the pool, and leaning over to grasp the fruit in the center. The three immediately returned to camp to inform the others.

Upon returning to camp, the trio related the details of their find to the group. Everyone gathered up all photographic equipment and casting materials and drove out to the impression site. Noll, Randles and Fish described the scene for the others. Noll went so far as to lay down on the ground and assume the position they believed the animal had to have been in to leave such an impression.

Here is the report you will now find at BFRO

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

Noll, Randles, and Fish notice an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the muddy pool area. The three trackers discuss the strange imprint, then suddenly it dawns what animal caused it. Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face. Each tracker comes closer to have another look, discussions follow for 2-3 minutes. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint.

The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal sat down at the edge of the mud, then leaned down on its left forearm and reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit with its right hand a distance of about three feet.

If one reads the first account, one might get the iimpression that some members of the group might have needed a little help seeing what was so obvious to Noll..

The second account suggests it was obvious to everyone, with no coaching at all..

Influence by Noll ? Of course not... :rolleyes:

LTC8K6

15th August 2005, 02:30 PM

Wow, an 800lb stealthy bigfoot, jumping and leaping around silently and without leaving footprints.

What an amazing creature! :D

Bigfoot should clearly be the dominant predator wherever it makes it's home. It's population should be nearly out of control with no competition whatsoever for food or territory or shelter. It can apparently eat anything, and it has nothing to fear from any other animal it runs across, including humans.

I find it odd that we have these hunters who claim that they had one in their sights, but they just could not shoot it because it's face looked so human.

Then we have the P/G film, which shows something that hunters should have had no qualms about shooting since it looks nothing like a human being in the face.

Correa Neto

15th August 2005, 02:40 PM

Female bigfeet eating bacon, LMAO.

This class A report is amazing. It must be, it has to be true.

Fits perfectly with LALÂ´s informations.

The animal was in Texas at a swampy area; the hunter was close to a road, etc.

At least the tits were not flacid as PattyÂ´s:D :p :D

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
...jumping and leaping around...

Dude, next time you write those words, please capitalize them.

The attack leaps: distance was about thirty yards. Fifteen yards per leap. This was on all fours.

Lady Bigfoot jumped 45 feet from a four-point crouch to get that pork!

What does the BFRO call this? They call it data. :D

LTC8K6

15th August 2005, 02:46 PM

Precisely, Diogenes.

First they are told what they will see when they get out to the muddy wallow. Then what they see is described to them. Then finally, what they see is demonstrated to them.

How could they see anything but a bigfoot imprint? :D

Not only that, two of the guys who made the find that morning had been out there at 3:00 am by themselves! Just hours before the discovery.....

LTC8K6

15th August 2005, 02:52 PM

Well, that hunter was excited, William.

It was probably only 30 feet.... :D

With Patty's strong legs, she'd do a somersault if she launched herself from all fours! :D

I bet that'd leave a good butt print......

Skeptical Greg

15th August 2005, 03:03 PM

You should read some of the news reports that appeared close to the incident..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/newart.asp

Scan down to Sept. 2000

They mostly seem to be quoting what they were fed by the expedition leaders...

The imprint appears to be a hair-covered body lying down on its side, reaching over to get some fruit, the researchers said. Thermal imaging confirmed that the body print was only hours old.

Huh? That's the first I've read about thermal imaging of the Skookum imprint?

Starrman

15th August 2005, 03:28 PM

You posted the photo with the object you thought caused the distortion, didn't you? Evidently you were unaware at the time there were another 1088 tracks counted in that trackway.

LAL

I would argue that 1088 tracks actually hurts the case for Bigfoot existing.

Think about it - you claim that Bigfoot leaves miles of footprints that people find, there are thousands of eye witnesses who have seen the animal clearly enough to be SURE he exists, and he can be baited with an APPLE.

Yet only ONE person in 40 years got a decent (debatable) film or video of the thing and not a single body has turned up! The more sighting, tracks, butt-prints and hair samples that come about without a specimen make it even more ridiculous that one has not been filmed (in decent quality), captured or found dead.

What would you expect if prints were hoaxed or misidentified? No actual bigfoot specimen.

And what do we find after we find prints or any other 'evidence'? NO ACTUAL BIGFOOT SPECIMEN.

Give me a reason why that is not devestating to the case for Bigfoot - this is not an animal that we just started looking for last Thursday.

LAL - I am admittedly not well-schooled in Bigfoot research, let me know what I need to know to overcome this obstacle.

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 04:13 PM

Starrman, Bigfoot is a social phenomenon of myth perpetuation.

There must be about 10,000 words written by believers for ever single word written by skeptics. This can have the outward appearance of an established and robust database of evidence and testimony by believers as compared to any 'debunking'. There are multitudes of pro-Bigfoot websites and organizations and not a single anti-Bigfoot establishment.

The mythmongers will perpetually try to reverse the burden of proof. LAL is doing this constantly. She always wants skeptics to prove that such-and-such evidence or testimony is false or hoaxed.

They CANNOT produce a Bigfoot. So instead, they demand that the rest of the world try to show that this is all a myth. The believers are desperate for a respected moment under the sun. It cannot be convincingly created by themselves, so they attempt to invent it by deconstructing any skepticism.

Neither 'side' has a silver bullet that can be used to stop the other side from further debate. The only possible end to this myth is the production of a Bigfoot or Bigfoot part (which would confirm the animal). I cannot forsee any time-based end to this myth that would favor non-existence. The skeptic is not battling any evidence, per se. The skeptic battles the personality, credulity, tactics and persistence of multitudes of believers.

Bigfoot itself is nowheres to be found.

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 04:38 PM

I would suspect that the number of Bigfoot believers has greatly increased since 1967 (the time of the PGF). This is not because any body or parts have been found. This is because of the influence of the Internet. From a computer chair, anyone can push their beliefs or agnosticism in one direction or another.

I also suspect that the gross percentage of populational beliefs has not changed much. Most people in America do not believe that Bigfoot is real. This must mean that they also do not think that the PGF is the real deal. This was also true in 1967 and in the years afterwards.

If one seeks information on Bigfoot on the Internet they are flooded with confirmation bias. Virtually anything that they find will support Bigfoot existence. All Bigfoot websites are pro-Bigfoot by nature. From my perspective, any skepticism given within them is token and mostly designed to not dismantle the myth.

mayday

15th August 2005, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Hog-killing Bigfoot in Texas. It was a wise choice for the BFRO scientific organization to include this 'Class A' sighting account of Bigfoot. What an incredible animal we have here!

Bigfoot Brings Home the Bacon (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8547)

You don't know this didn't happen just as the man said it did.
It's pretty scary.

William Parcher

15th August 2005, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by mayday
You don't know this didn't happen just as the man said it did.
It's pretty scary.

Your suggestion scares me more than Bigfoot ever could, because I know that you are real.

bruto

15th August 2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by mayday
You don't know this didn't happen just as the man said it did.
It's pretty scary.

We don't know it didn't, and as always, we don't know it did. Pity that, as always, he had no camera. I think if I were going out into wild country, and especially if I were a bigfoot believer, I'd make a point of having at least a small pocket camera of reasonable sharpness with me, just in case something interesting happened along.

Until someone gets a clear shot or a body, though, it's just another anecdote.

Starrman

16th August 2005, 05:54 AM

Mayday wrote:

You don't know this didn't happen just as the man said it did.

Bigfoot cut me off on the expressway this morning (bastard!). You don't know that this didn't happen just the way I said it did.

LTC8K6

16th August 2005, 06:03 AM

Why would he cut you off when he can leap clear over several lanes.......?

I think you are lying.

LTC8K6

16th August 2005, 07:04 AM

Link to my post regarding dermal ridges in the other thread, so I don't have to type it again. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871024022#post1871024022

Thurkon

16th August 2005, 08:49 AM

Okayâ€¦so Iâ€™m driving home from work with my head full of squatchiness and I pull into the local Blockbuster. With all this talk of Bigfoot, I need to desperately see a Squatch flick. Now, as much of a Bigfoot lover as I am, I am woefully ignorant of fictional Squatch cinema this side of the Patterson-Gimlin filmâ€¦so I feel a little helpless. I didnâ€™t want to sidle up to the high school kid at the counter and say, â€œIâ€™m looking for a Bigfoot movie. Please advise.â€ Of course, Harry and the Hendersons seems like an easy choice, so I use that as a backup as Iâ€™m perusing the horror section. Iâ€™ve heard of The Legend of Boggy Creek, but thatâ€™s no where in sight. Suddenly, right there in the midst of the brand spanking new releases, is Sasquatch Hunters! Thatâ€™s right, kiddiesâ€¦Sasquatch Hunters! Am I in for a night of entertainment.

Now, thereâ€™s no way my wife is watching a frigginâ€™ Bigfoot movieâ€¦ever. Ever. So, I have to resign to watching it on my PC. I have to say, it did not take away from my viewing pleasure. First of all, the cast was first rate. Headlining was the very famous Matt Lattimore, who you probably remember from In Your Face (aka Splat) and Firestorm Rising. His leading lady, the group anthropologist, was played by Amy Shelton-White (Slaughter Studios, anyone?). When she said â€œGigantalopithecusâ€ I must have giggled with delight. Anyway, the real star was, of course, Bigfoot himself. Or I should say, the stars of the film! There was a virtual army of Bigfeet rampaging throughout the forest! No wonder Moneymaker is having all these Bigfeet round-ups! There are Squatches galore in the PNW! Maybe they looked a bit too much like gorillas for my taste, but whatâ€™s a Bigfoot lover to do with the massive dearth of films in the Squatch genre?

Hereâ€™s a few screenshots to whet your appetite:

http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/4301efb5z85471878/mail/__sr_/4c54.jpg?phGcgADBr3S2K9y3
Is that Bob Hieronimous?

http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/4301efb5z85471878/mail/__sr_/b4c1.jpg?phGcgADBKG.ICjEe
The army of the forest! Squatches unite!

http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/4301efb5z85471878/mail/__sr_/7e99.jpg?phGcgADBFdQgagAR
Squatches like chicks!

http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/4301efb5z85471878/mail/__sr_/85bf.jpg?phuSgADBwspPpxB3
Squatch out!

I really canâ€™t say enough about this film. The only thing that would have made the film viewing experience better is if there was some kind of disclaimer that no Squatches were hurt during the filming. That was really my only major concern.

Skeptical Greg

16th August 2005, 08:54 AM

Your links don't work... Is it just me ?

I see from BB online that the film is rated R ...

What did they do to earn an R rating ?

LTC8K6

16th August 2005, 09:15 AM

Only the last link works for me.

Scary, man! :D

Thurkon

16th August 2005, 09:23 AM

Should be fixed now.

Hitch

16th August 2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Your suggestion scares me more than Bigfoot ever could, because I know that you are real.

From what I've seen around here, I'm pretty sure Mayday is a myth.

I did see Bigfoot the other day. Late at night, about 1 AM, someone knocked on my door. I answered it and Bigfoot was standing there. I said, "What the hell do you want, Bigfoot!"

He said, "I need about tree-fitty."

:p

Correa Neto

16th August 2005, 09:31 AM

Bah, its just evidence that PGF is the real deal.

See, no muscle movment, the proportions are clearly human, the walk is also clearly human, etc.

You all should stop wanting so desperately to belive that bigfeet are not real and surrender to the tons of solid evidence avaliable.

Skeptical Greg

16th August 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
Should be fixed now. Were those the highlights?

Did you watch it at 1x ?

What about the ' R ' stuff ? Did the Bigfeet surprise some nekid wimmin at the creek, or some such ?

Thurkon

16th August 2005, 09:53 AM

After last nightâ€™s viewing of Sasquatch Hunters, I am ready for any and all questions related to the furry devils. There was quite a wealth of information in that film, including:

Bigfeet do bury their dead. In fact, they all are buried in one mass graveyard, much like the fabled Elephantâ€™s Graveyard in Africa.

Also got confirmation that Bigfeet throw animal carcasses up into trees. After they shred them to pieces and eat them. Toss â€˜em right on up. Itâ€™s not like they have weekly garbage pick-up. Whatâ€™re they supposed to do?

Bigfeet seem to resemble giant carnivorous gorillas more than they do Patty, so I think we can chuck the PGF into the dumper. Also, no Bigfeet females. They like human chicks. A lot. They abduct them, or at least they try toâ€¦before Matt Lattimore shoots them. Not sure if this is the way they reproduce, or if theyâ€™re just really horny monkeys.

Bigfeet are mostly nocturnalâ€¦so I got confirmation on that, too. They will come out at day, especially if someone needs to be killed. Bigfeet seem to kill people whenever they can, which accounts for the lack of eyewitness testimony. Itâ€™s all coming together.

Should I submit all of this to the BFRO so they can update their database?

Thurkon

16th August 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Were those the highlights?

Did you watch it at 1x ?

What about the ' R ' stuff ? Did the Bigfeet surprise some nekid wimmin at the creek, or some such ?

Well, it turns out that paleontologists' assistants are extremely hot, and like to bathe in streams naked in the middle of the forestâ€¦while Bigfoot watches. Itâ€™s pretty commonly known, that.

Also, it turns out Bigfeet are bloodthirsty killersâ€¦so in reality Harry would have probably torn the Hendersons into Squatch jerky. They prefer to kill rednecks and really dumb rangers.

LTC8K6

16th August 2005, 10:16 AM

Sounds like a "Class A" report to me, Thurkon.

Skeptical Greg

16th August 2005, 10:45 AM

I just discovered there is a testicle print in the Scookum cast !! :eek: That must have hurt !!

Now we know what the screams were all about...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12192&st=240&#entry252689

I like the statement in the post immediately preceeding..

Maybe we are seeing a small change in the medias handling of B.F. Waiting for the facts to come out before blasting the phenomenon. That's like saying " We'll give the man a fair trial before we hang him .. " :D

dogguy

16th August 2005, 01:00 PM

So I leave for 17 days vacation on page 23. We are now at page 38 and still going around in the same small circles with no evidence provided for BF existence...and now I see Mayday has joined in. Truly, all the signs of a deceased thread are in place. Time for recipes?

edge

16th August 2005, 04:08 PM

I haven't read all this but I will.
Iâ€™m back in the gold fields and in big foot country.
Something is mutilating goats up here and seems to be leaving a mighty big foot print.
This county seems to be very active in the paranormal events

This is what I wrote in a another forum.
About the star charts.
Ask Betty Hill.
She drew them.
On to better stuff.
As soon as I wrote this my computer crashed.
The next night they â€œdark starâ€ shows up on the ridge across the way. The night after it was on the opposite side of the valley. Boy they are good at what they do.
Woo Woo your ass.
Iâ€™m going to try to come up with the money to up grade my system and film these guys.
This is definitely one hell of a hot spot for sightings, and I donâ€™t give a crap what you skeptics believe.
Seeing is knowing.
The dowsing thing is provable but I have to clear a spot that I can be tested on by the J.R.E.F. team and can only be done here after all the metals a extracted.
It can be done, I have tested the theory. I will have an area to do that at.
Dowsing for gold also picks up the other metals lying with it that is the revision....

;)

Spektator

16th August 2005, 05:11 PM

Edge, Betty Hill died some years back. If you could ask her about the star charts and get an answer, that might qualify for the challenge.

tube

16th August 2005, 06:01 PM

Since this is a Bigfoot thread, we need to see if there was any connection between Betty Hill and Bigfoot. Lo and behold, there is! In Kewaunee Lapseritis' book The Psychic Sasquatch Kewaunee reprints a letter he got from Betty Hill. Betty recounts how she heard from another woman about a UFO landing on a hilltop. The unnamed woman witnessed a Bigfoot type creature step out of the UFO, leave just one footprint, get back in the craft and depart. The woman made a plaster cast of this footprint, and advised Betty Hill of her adventure. Betty Hill then advised the woman that she should make another cast of the impression, this time using candle wax. According to Betty Hill, this was successful.

I'm sure most skeptics would dismiss this story out of hand as a "whopper" and I can understand why. But I dismiss this story for a different reason; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CAST A TRACK TWICE. A cement cast ALWAYS causes adhesion between the substrate and the cement. The track is always damaged, usually beyond recognition.

OK, I'm off the soapbox, now back to Bigfoot please...

Skeptical Greg

16th August 2005, 09:21 PM

I was really hoping the testicle print would give this thread some new life..

I'm trying to imagine how it was made, when this is supposed to be how the Skookum print was made..

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/images/pose6_mid.JPG

This must be one hung dude...

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 05:42 AM

Brass balls?

Tricky

17th August 2005, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by edge
I haven't read all this but I will.
Iâ€™m back in the gold fields and in big foot country.
Something is mutilating goats up here and seems to be leaving a mighty big foot print.
This county seems to be very active in the paranormal events.
Wherever you are, paranormal events seem to follow, Edge. Got any casts of that big footprint? Any evidence at all?

Originally posted by edge
This is what I wrote in a another forum.
About the star charts.
Ask Betty Hill.
She drew them.

Bring her into the forum. I'm sure there will be no lack of questions.

Originally posted by edge
As soon as I wrote this my computer crashed.
The next night they â€œdark starâ€ shows up on the ridge across the way. The night after it was on the opposite side of the valley. Boy they are good at what they do.
What is a "dark star"? How do you recognize when one "shows up"? Did everybody in the area experience computer crashes?

Originally posted by edge
Woo Woo your ass.
Iâ€™m going to try to come up with the money to up grade my system and film these guys.
This is definitely one hell of a hot spot for sightings, and I donâ€™t give a crap what you skeptics believe.
Well, winning the million might fund your film career. Or perhaps you can find a rich vein of gold with your dowsing abilities. With woowooism, anything is possible.

And yeah, we know you don't give a crap what we believe. Neither do you give a crap about evidence.

Originally posted by edge
Seeing is knowing.
No it's not. Both your eyes and your brain can be fooled. For some people, it is extremely easy to do so. Or perhaps you "know" that the magician was actually sawing the nice lady in half.

Originally posted by edge
The dowsing thing is provable but I have to clear a spot that I can be tested on by the J.R.E.F. team and can only be done here after all the metals a extracted.
LOL. All the metals? What are you going to do, dig to the mantle? If you can't find gold when it is mere inches under your dowsing rod and covered only in a thin layer of porceline, what in the world makes you think you can find it buried deeply, surrounded by many other metallic compounds?

We've heard your excuses for your first failure, Edge. You said your power was working fine, which it did in the baseline test (when you knew where the gold was). Then it mysteriously vanished as soon as your knowledge of where the gold was vanished. After the test (several weeks after the test) you told us you lied when you said your power was working in the baseline test.

You are never going to find anything if you cannot see the blindingly obvious things right in front of your face.

Originally posted by edge
[BIt can be done, I have tested the theory. I will have an area to do that at.
Dowsing for gold also picks up the other metals lying with it that is the revision.... [/B]
Uh huh. And where are you going to find an area that has just gold and no other metals?

Couldn't you just dowse any area first to get the background reading, then add the extra gold (hidden under cups) and see how the background reading has changed? You could if your talent worked. But alas, it doesn't. If it did, you would be rich now and you wouldn't have to worry about funds to upgrade your computer.

LAL

17th August 2005, 07:27 AM

I see I didn't miss anything important by taking a couple of days off from looking at this thread. I'm sure no one will mind if I ignore the nonsense. I don't know why people would waste their time posting it; I don't have to waste mine answering it.

LAL

17th August 2005, 07:34 AM

A lurking member sent me this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_re_us/secret_waterfall

If the forests in Northern California are dense enough to hide a 400' waterfall, why not a new species?

LAL

17th August 2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by RayG
I already addressed that here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry198472
"I did some researching and found in Krantzs book Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence that the settings on the Kodak k-100 had a setting og 16 and 24. Nothing in between. All the confusion on the speed Krantz said could of been that the 16 speed on the camera could of been smudged really bad and it looked like it said 18 instead of 16."

I already touched on that as well:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"Regarding the camera speed: Glickman reports that, according to the Kodak Archives, the speed tolerance of the film carrier subassembly in Patterson's camera was plus or minus 10%. If it was set at 16 fps, then the actual speed could have been anywhere between 14.4 fps and 17.6 fps."

Skeptics like to deal with facts whenever possible. To my knowledge, the specific camera used by Patterson that day has never been tested for 'jiggle analysis', or anything else for that matter.

RayG

You were way ahead of me.

The fact that he rented the camera explains some of it, I would think. If he'd owned it, it might have been available from the beginning.

LAL

17th August 2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
So ' implying ' is a big no - no ?

You don't think Noll wishes to influence others, regarding Bigfoot ?

Do you ? ( want to influence people about Bigfoot )

Again, what does that say about all the crap at the BFRO website ?

Pot, meet kettle.....

Demonstrating something is influencing? The other members of the team couldn't disagree? The scientists who examined the came to the same conclusions, independently of the team.

Who are you to judge what's on the website? By what criteria do you determine what's "crap"?

Most of the site has nothing to do with Noll anyway and Noll is no longer with the BFRO, so how does your question make any sense at all?

LAL

17th August 2005, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Nothing dishonest about it. Similar tracks can still be found on the net, supposedly belonging to a bipedal creature dubbed 'Swamp Bigfoot'.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/SwampMonster/web-eye-witness-tracks.jpg

or...the Honey Island Swamp Monster...

http://ucmmuseum.com/honeyislandswampmonster.htm
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/i-files.html
http://honeyisland.americanmonsters.com/legend.html
http://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/

RayG

The track photo was shown as a "typical" Bigfoot track. Alligator tracks aren't typical of Sasquatches. The Honey Island "monster" and swamp "monster" sound like Sasquatches with embellishments.

Skeptical Greg

17th August 2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Demonstrating something is influencing? The other members of the team couldn't disagree? The scientists who examined the came to the same conclusions, independently of the team.

They didn't see it until they were shown.. Don't you understand how that works ?

Who are you to judge what's on the website? By what criteria do you determine what's "crap"?

My criteria is reasonable and rational. Saying that bigfoot has been observed mating and birthing is crap ..

Most of the site has nothing to do with Noll anyway and Noll is no longer with the BFRO, so how does your question make any sense at all? The BFRO site is a primary source about the Skookum expedition, or didn't you notice?

If Noll doesn't want to be associated with BFRO, I'm sure he is free to do something about it..

So, how do you think the testicle print ended up in the Skookum cast?

I notice the illustration here doesn't include it..

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/images/clean_cast_guide7.jpg

Is the testicle print info a bonus in the book?

LAL

17th August 2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
My error, Chilcutt said the ridges went up and down the length of the foot, of course.

Not the sides.

That strikes me as useless for dermal ridges, though.

Friction ridges running the length of the sole wouldn't be useful in helping to prevent side slippage in rough, often wet, slick terrain? Not all adaptations have to have a use in the first place. They tend to spread though a population if they're neutral or confer some advantage. Dermal ridges in primates are likely a leftover arboreal adaptation persisting in primates that spend most of their time on the ground.

LAL

17th August 2005, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
The BFRO site is a primary source about the Skookum expedition, or didn't you notice?

And it's a small part of the total site, or didn't you notice? Did Noll have anything to do with reports of mating or birthing? Were these direct observations? By whom? Or is it a safe assumtion they mate and have young like any other mammal?

If Noll doesn't want to be associated with BFRO, I'm sure he is free to do something about it..

He left some time ago. The material concerning the cast is copyrighted by the BFRO, but he owns the cast.

LAL

17th August 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Alphaba
This topic is completely new for me (Western Europe apparently is not very hospitable for Bigfoot and its modern lore: Father Christmas, ogres, Nessie, and werewolves clearly don't qualify). I have thus taken the colossal amount of time needed to read this thread in its entirety, plus the parallel one about the P-G film, plus related webpages.

Apparently sasquatch researchers face two vexing major issues since decades: lack of bodies or remains, and lack of feces.

Reasons for this absence of evidence are obvious:
If no one has found a body or a skeleton it is evidently because, like one living and one extinct other species of primate (genus homo), sasquatches do bury their dead. Furthermore their considerable strentgh allow them to cover each tomb, individual or collective, with a big rock. As they manifestly lack tools to cut or carve stone, these rocks look like ordinary rocks.

Lack of feces certainly has a roughly identical cause: they dig pit-toilets, covered with a rock. Alternatively, they may defecate only in rivers, a habit that could also jeopardize an easy finding of feces. But the digging skill they manifest in burying their dead tend to favor the first hypothesis.

Conclusion: in the search for hard evidences of Bigfoot's existence, no rock must be left unturned.

Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.

Taking your post seriously for a moment, voluminous piles of scat have been found. Eveidently there's no effort made to conceal them.

Large non prey animals that died of natural causes are seldom if ever found. Sick and dying animals find secure places to hide in an "attempt" to recover. When they don't, scavengers make quick work of the remains.