Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel - Page 9

AtomicMysteryMonster · 8th July 2010, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

What's that straight line just right of the fakefoot track?

If its something left by the bark covering it, then it was a hell of a straight piece of bark. And a very heavy one, unless whatever made that fakefoot print was not as heavy as footer lore says it was...

Quote:

Maybe these are the marks of a ruler, pressed on the soil when measurements were taken.

What means the soil was muddy and soft, as I suspect it is from the texture seen at the pictures. This (if true, of course) throws in to the gutter the "heavy Patty" claims.

Excellent points! They also raise the question of how the prints in the soft soil weren't destroyed by the heavy rain.

AtomicMysteryMonster · 8th July 2010, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

1) Do you absolutely believe this creature exists? (and perhaps What convinced you they exist? or what would it take to convince you they exist?)

From all the evidence I've examined, I am confident one such creature existed at Bluff Creek in 1967. Whether this was a single anomaly of nature (derived from some other primate species known to exist), or a part of a larger population of a species of as yet unclassified primate species, I honestly don't know, as both alternatives seem highly improbable.

Quote:

I was thinking of a mutation of one species that might produce an individual of that species which was far from the norm in appearance and/or behavior, Oliver the chimp, being an example, (because I worked with him back in 1980-81) and his walk is remarkably upright in a bipedal fashion, unlike normal chimps.

So a mutation just happens to look exactly like a drawing that the filmmaker copied from another source years before said mutation was filmed?

Quote:

Humans with hypertrichosis are another example (which are extaordinarily rare, I grant you, but documented to exist).

Didn't you once say something to the effect of "I don't know what it is, but it's not human" in regards to Patty?

Oh, and you forgot to answer the question of what convinced you that Bigfoot exists.

Quote:

6) What would convince you that they do not exist?

Describing something which defies the laws of physics would be the strongest argument that something does not exist,

I wonder if the depth of tracks and/or stride length would fall into that category? Perhaps even the timeline issues would fall into that category, given the distance and weight of their vehicle vs. the time they had to get the film mailed.

Quote:

but as "they" are considered simply a large primate, I doubt there will ever be a solid proof they don't exist, because large primates can exist now and have before.

That's actually really bad logic. It's akin to saying you'll never be convinced that the "Oklahoma Octopus" doesn't exist since it's considered simply a large Cephalopod and those do exist now and have before.

I also seem to recall you once saying something to the effect that you couldn't consider Bigfoot not being real due to the sheer number of sightings throughout history and that they all couldn't be hoaxes/mistakes/etc. However, you never responded when I offered to show you confirmed examples of such things happening. Have you changed your mind since then?

Quote:

No one has seen all the evidence yet, including myself, and there may be some definitive evidence out there which actually settles this matter. I wish there were, because I'd sure like to have more answers to what is in that film.

You do? Wonderful! Okay, there's a little something I like to call the "Kunstler Klone"...

Just Reading · 8th July 2010, 11:31 PM

So I have a question of kitazaze....so you were turned down by Ohio? Did that prevent you from going to the meeting? Did you not feel it relevant to go to Tacoma where Meldrum and Gimlin where talking to get an interview? Did you not feel it was worth your time to go to Eugene where both Gimlin, Meldrum and countless others were talking to get your interviews?? What? What are you waiting for? All expense paid vacation?

LTC8K6 · 9th July 2010, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Maybe these are the marks of a ruler, pressed on the soil when measurements were taken.

What means the soil was muddy and soft, as I suspect it is from the texture seen at the pictures. This (if true, of course) throws in to the gutter the "heavy Patty" claims.

Correa Neto · 9th July 2010, 04:37 AM

Not sure what to make of those. The resolution is not that good. The last one, however, looks like what one would expect from someone sticking a (real or fake) foot in soft mud and pulling it out, given the size of the dirt mound around the footprint.

LTC8K6 · 9th July 2010, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Not sure what to make of those. The resolution is not that good. The last one, however, looks like what one would expect from someone sticking a (real or fake) foot in soft mud and pulling it out, given the size of the dirt mound around the footprint.

The second pic is the same cast in the same place you see it in the first pic, which is supposedly from the PGF "second reel". It is an enlargement of that section of the second reel strip.

That is, it's supposedly Patty's track as cast by Roger at the time.

However, it looks for all the world like a dug out foot print with a plaster cast stuck into it afterwards.

LTC8K6 · 9th July 2010, 05:42 AM

It's quite similar to the cast we see Roger kneeling over. Note the similar mound of dirt around the casting.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...ReelStills.jpg

Drewbot · 9th July 2010, 05:55 AM

Is there a picture of that deep track on the lower left, taken afterwards, when titmus or any others stopped by the site? I'd like to see what the rain shower did to that print. It would have filled up with water and washed out quickly considering the sharp edges of the imprint.

GT/CS · 9th July 2010, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The second pic is the same cast in the same place you see it in the first pic, which is supposedly from the PGF "second reel". It is an enlargement of that section of the second reel strip.

That is, it's supposedly Patty's track as cast by Roger at the time.

However, it looks for all the world like a dug out foot print with a plaster cast stuck into it afterwards.

Excellent observation. How can poured plaster leave this large of a gap between the plaster and the soil?

Blackdog · 9th July 2010, 08:05 AM

Shrinkage.

"I was in the pool! I WAS IN THE POOL!"

GT/CS · 9th July 2010, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Blackdog

Shrinkage.

"I was in the pool! I WAS IN THE POOL!"

In only one localized place? Shouldn't it be more even throughout the cast?

LuvGodzilla · 9th July 2010, 08:42 AM

When I see that track it looks like a deer track where the toes are supposed to be.

Has anyone posted the cast from that track?

GT/CS · 9th July 2010, 08:45 AM

And note how the left and right prints are in line with each other.

Drewbot · 9th July 2010, 09:03 AM

Whatever that is in the right hand circle could have made that impression in the left-hand circle. Is that a toe-indenter?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

LTC8K6 · 9th July 2010, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Excellent observation. How can poured plaster leave this large of a gap between the plaster and the soil?

It wouldn't, and that gap is visible even in the film clip.

Blackdog · 9th July 2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

In only one localized place? Shouldn't it be more even throughout the cast?

It was a Seinfeld reference, I was trying to make a funny.

GrouchoMarxist · 9th July 2010, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Blackdog

It was a Seinfeld reference, I was trying to make a funny.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

GT/CS · 9th July 2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Blackdog

It was a Seinfeld reference, I was trying to make a funny.

I realized that but I figured you were being serious with the shrinkage issue and was making it humorous, which it was

.

Blackdog · 9th July 2010, 12:03 PM

I don't know that we can say for sure if there is a gap all the way around the cast or not, I don't think the camera angle is quite right to be certain. I don't know much about plaster of paris (which is what I assume is what was used to cast the track) so I don't know if it would shrink that much during the curing process, but I doubt it.

Wouldn't it be funny if that was a picture of the device that made the tracks at Bluff Creek?

Bitter Monk · 9th July 2010, 12:10 PM

A couple of photos of "shrinkage" in a controlled environment for comparison.

Shrinkage 1

Shrinkage 2

ETA - Cast shrinkage. Not that other thing.

LTC8K6 · 9th July 2010, 12:29 PM

It just looks very odd. Particularly the dirt mounded around the cast.

It really doesn't look like what you'd get if a heavy biped stepped there.

It really doesn't look like it's from digging out the cast, either.

It looks like it's from digging out the footprint to me.

Of course there has always been a question whether this film is from the day of the PGF. There was always the possibility that this film is Roger's practice casting session mentioned to Krantz.

GT/CS · 9th July 2010, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

It just looks very odd. Particularly the dirt mounded around the cast.

It really doesn't look like what you'd get if a heavy biped stepped there.

It really doesn't look like it's from digging out the cast, either.

It looks like it's from digging out the footprint to me.

Of course there has always been a question whether this film is from the day of the PGF. There was always the possibility that this film is Roger's practice casting session mentioned to Krantz.

Agreed. It looks like the print was dug out and the hardened plaster cast was set into the impression. All the loose dirt around the cast just looks like digging spoils, and that gap doesn't look like it's from shrinkage.

Skeptical Greg · 9th July 2010, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Blackdog

...
Wouldn't it be funny if that was a picture of the device that made the tracks at Bluff Creek?

Here is a rare picture of Roger posing with the devices that made the tracks at Bluff Creek ..

William Parcher · 12th July 2010, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze on BFF

HH has no idea what the dead read horse thing was. Did not even slightly register. It did not come from him.

Greg Long on Rense.com...

Quote:

A careful reader will find the answer on page 345 of my book. Roger Patterson told Howard Heironimus that he (Roger) had made the suit from the hide of a dead horse. Howard told Bob Heironimus this: that Roger had told Howard Heironimus that he, Roger, had made the suit from a dead horse.

The dead red horse story didn't fall out of the sky. Howard never said that to his brother Bob?

kitakaze · 12th July 2010, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The dead red horse story didn't fall out of the sky. Howard never said that to his brother Bob?

That's correct. Either Bob picked it up from someone else, or simply mistook something. Howard spoke to me about Roger's skill with leather and a pair of leather workhorse collars he made that had mirrors on them, but he explicitly told me he had never heard of Roger making any suit at all using horsehide or even hair from a horse.

William Parcher · 12th July 2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I'm ready now. Go ahead with the questions. BTW, WP, I'll post a response to your other question tonight. I started composing a response last night, but I am trying to set up a precise timeline, which I will post tonight.

I'm getting confused as to what BH says about when RP filmed him.

kitakaze · 12th July 2010, 04:06 PM

WP, I hope I haven't caused that confusion. What could really help is if you could point specifically to something BH said, or something I reported BH telling me, that is causing your confusion, and that way I can directly address what was said to me personally, what I read, and what I surmised.

Bob has never said he was in Bluff Creek in the third week. He has always said it was earlier - first or second week of October. I have tried to reconcile it with the eight days RP and BG had Chico, when his mother saw Gimlin's green truck bringing Chico back, the Highway 96 banner, and many other things. I have tried fitting it in the third week to see if it works, but it leaves important details out. Sometimes it is hard to keep track of every bit of minutiae.

William Parcher · 12th July 2010, 04:19 PM

I thought I saw on BFF where you were saying that BH was filmed at Bluff Creek on Oct 17th (Tues) or 18th (Weds). Parnassus seems to be going with that as well as I think he also saw you saying that on BFF.

Let me get this straight with you. You suggest that Patterson went to Bluff Creek on at least 3 different occasions in 1967?:

1) In the summer and probably faked some tracks.
2) First or second week of October to film BH then returns to Yakima w/Chico.
3) Third week of October to pretend that he had filmed Patty on Oct 20.

Is that correct?

kitakaze · 12th July 2010, 04:24 PM

Yes, I think that's what we're looking at. And I think Roger was there before '67 . I wonder if it was correspondence with Ray Wallace or some other connection to him that first brought him there. I almost get tempted to wonder if they had a little powwow on faking tracks, but then I would be getting ahead of myself.

William Parcher · 12th July 2010, 04:28 PM

When RP and BG return for visit #3 they do not have Chico with them, right?

kitakaze · 12th July 2010, 04:36 PM

Yes, and I think they had other horses (not all new) that came and were supplied by Floyd Paxton, the Yakima businessman and owner of Kwik Lok. June Swanson, wife of Chinook Press' Bob Swanson said Floyd Paxton supplied horses and saddles for Patterson.

HarryHenderson · 12th July 2010, 11:16 PM

To continue with the questions KK: So the RP 3 trip scenario is what's come about due to specific things people you've been talking to have said...as opposed to say a theory that attempts to encompass as many aspects as possible?

I'd say either way it seems to make a lot of sense. RP makes those 3 trips and there's no need for some 'never fully explained' DeltaDash™ film developing, no insufficient time frames, no need for any serious 'rushing around' pre-hoaxing prints or evidence or for anything even. It also accounts for BH's varied recollections of the precise details of everything once they were in CA (compared to RP/BG's story).

Another question: Has BH ever said what the time frame was from when RP brought the film out publicly compared to when he (BH) remembers being in CA doing the filming? I assume he has, but yet again I missed it.

William Parcher · 13th July 2010, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Yes, and I think they had other horses (not all new) that came and were supplied by Floyd Paxton, the Yakima businessman and owner of Kwik Lok. June Swanson, wife of Chinook Press' Bob Swanson said Floyd Paxton supplied horses and saddles for Patterson.

I am reposting a collage I did earlier. It shows filmed scenes with possible dates. Maybe it shows visit #2 and #3. BH said that there was no packhorse when he was at Bluff Creek. This means that the scenes showing a white packhorse shouldn't be visit #2 according to BH. We also should not see Chico with a packhorse according to BH.

Bill Munns has examined a PGF filmstrip belonging to Pat Patterson. It shows a visit #3 (horseback with packhorse) scene right before a visit #2 scene (Patty). Bill says there is no evidence of cut/splice (editing). The Bob Heironimus story requires a film edit at that point.

Or... there were more than 3 visits. Or there was a packhorse switcheroo at visit #2. Or BH is wrong about a key situation. Or BH isn't telling the truth. Or Munns is wrong about the edit.

You need to get this worked out quite nicely or your critics will eat you and Heironimus for lunch.

William Parcher · 13th July 2010, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

WP, I hope I haven't caused that confusion. What could really help is if you could point specifically to something BH said, or something I reported BH telling me, that is causing your confusion, and that way I can directly address what was said to me personally, what I read, and what I surmised.

Go to post #107...

Originally Posted by kitakaze on BFF

It is consistent with things that happened in 1966 and 1967 in Yakima. Tracks appearing, then Roger appearing, then posters all over town. And the time that Roger was a Bluff Creek he specified right then and there to the newspaper. One week - arrived last Saturday. That is just like what Bob Heironimus told me. Roger left around the previous Friday or Saturday and then he followed on a Tuesday or Wednesday. And think about Jerry Merritt saying Roger showed up at 4 in the morning the day they left trying to get him to go.

You are mixing info about visit #2 with visit #3. BH talks about dates for visit #2, but RP talks to the newspaper reporter about dates for visit #3.

Quote:

That is just like what Bob Heironimus told me.

No. BH ought not be able to give you details about visit #3. He wasn't there and he ought not know when RP left Yakima for visit #3 and when he arrived at Bluff Creek.

What I find interesting and odd is that BH hasn't (to my knowledge) directly talked about visit #3 in the same terms that we would. I have never heard BH say something like this...

"Roger and Bob must have driven back down to Bluff Creek right before October 20th so they could pretend that they had just filmed the Bigfoot which was actually me."

Drewbot · 13th July 2010, 09:20 AM

Is it possible that there was no visit three?

The general store story could have been part of the gig, Roger could have called the newspaper from Yakima (there was no caller id), they could have made the casts anywhere.

In fact, did they ever stop and show the General store owner the casts that they had made? or the newspaper reporter? did any of the visitors to the site photograph prints with plaster still in them or around them?

William Parcher · 13th July 2010, 09:57 AM

If P&G really weren't at Bluff Creek on October 20th then a number of other people are lying. Al Hodgeson and Jim McClarin will tell you that they spoke to Patterson in person that day and there were others present too. I think that Roger did not show the plaster casts but he did show the bent stirrup. He may have bent that on a jig back home in Yakima between visit #2 and 3.

parnassus · 17th July 2010, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Yes, I think that's what we're looking at. And I think Roger was there before '67.

Patterson visited Bluff Creek in 1964 or 65 according to Al Hodgson. Patterson was in bad shape from his cancer/treatment at that time. If memory serves he was on his way to LA to promote his hula hoop ideas.

parnassus · 17th July 2010, 11:50 AM

If you bought a costume in July or August and worked like hell to make it look right, and in July or August got a guy to wear the suit, and you also had a stolen camera to film the guy in the suit and knew the law was coming down on you, how in the $%^& do you get lucky enough that around Labor Day Al Hodgson calls and says "come and get it!"

Hmmm. Patterson had told DeAtley and McCoy that he wanted to be called if more tracks appeared. I wonder when Patterson made that request. Who wants to bet it was July or August? And who wants to bet it wasn't Patterson who made the tracks around Labor Day. Why didn't Patterson race down to see them, when Hodgson called him? Why in the H. would you wait 6 weeks if you thought the tracks were real?

WGBH · 17th July 2010, 12:46 PM

HarryHenderson · 17th July 2010, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

Patterson visited Bluff Creek in 1964 or 65 according to Al Hodgson. Patterson was in bad shape from his cancer/treatment at that time. If memory serves he was on his way to LA to promote his hula hoop ideas.

I can't say I know much of anything about Patterson's cancer except that it's supposedly what killed him in 1972. How long did he actually have it? Apparently it was more of a chronic type than an acute one? In fact I don't think I've ever 'known' if he had it or not when he produced the PGF. Any enlightenment is appreciated.

8th July 2010, 10:29 PM	#321
AtomicMysteryMonster Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,144	Originally Posted by Correa Neto What's that straight line just right of the fakefoot track? If its something left by the bark covering it, then it was a hell of a straight piece of bark. And a very heavy one, unless whatever made that fakefoot print was not as heavy as footer lore says it was... Quote: Maybe these are the marks of a ruler, pressed on the soil when measurements were taken. What means the soil was muddy and soft, as I suspect it is from the texture seen at the pictures. This (if true, of course) throws in to the gutter the "heavy Patty" claims. Excellent points! They also raise the question of how the prints in the soft soil weren't destroyed by the heavy rain.
	__________________ Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

8th July 2010, 11:08 PM	#322
AtomicMysteryMonster Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,144	Originally Posted by Bill Munns 1) Do you absolutely believe this creature exists? (and perhaps What convinced you they exist? or what would it take to convince you they exist?) From all the evidence I've examined, I am confident one such creature existed at Bluff Creek in 1967. Whether this was a single anomaly of nature (derived from some other primate species known to exist), or a part of a larger population of a species of as yet unclassified primate species, I honestly don't know, as both alternatives seem highly improbable. Quote: I was thinking of a mutation of one species that might produce an individual of that species which was far from the norm in appearance and/or behavior, Oliver the chimp, being an example, (because I worked with him back in 1980-81) and his walk is remarkably upright in a bipedal fashion, unlike normal chimps. So a mutation just happens to look exactly like a drawing that the filmmaker copied from another source years before said mutation was filmed? Quote: Humans with hypertrichosis are another example (which are extaordinarily rare, I grant you, but documented to exist). Didn't you once say something to the effect of "I don't know what it is, but it's not human" in regards to Patty? Oh, and you forgot to answer the question of what convinced you that Bigfoot exists. Quote: 6) What would convince you that they do not exist? Describing something which defies the laws of physics would be the strongest argument that something does not exist, I wonder if the depth of tracks and/or stride length would fall into that category? Perhaps even the timeline issues would fall into that category, given the distance and weight of their vehicle vs. the time they had to get the film mailed. Quote: but as "they" are considered simply a large primate, I doubt there will ever be a solid proof they don't exist, because large primates can exist now and have before. That's actually really bad logic. It's akin to saying you'll never be convinced that the "Oklahoma Octopus" doesn't exist since it's considered simply a large Cephalopod and those do exist now and have before. I also seem to recall you once saying something to the effect that you couldn't consider Bigfoot not being real due to the sheer number of sightings throughout history and that they all couldn't be hoaxes/mistakes/etc. However, you never responded when I offered to show you confirmed examples of such things happening. Have you changed your mind since then? Quote: No one has seen all the evidence yet, including myself, and there may be some definitive evidence out there which actually settles this matter. I wish there were, because I'd sure like to have more answers to what is in that film. You do? Wonderful! Okay, there's a little something I like to call the "Kunstler Klone"...
	__________________ Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

8th July 2010, 11:31 PM	#323
Just Reading New Blood Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 21	So I have a question of kitazaze....so you were turned down by Ohio? Did that prevent you from going to the meeting? Did you not feel it relevant to go to Tacoma where Meldrum and Gimlin where talking to get an interview? Did you not feel it was worth your time to go to Eugene where both Gimlin, Meldrum and countless others were talking to get your interviews?? What? What are you waiting for? All expense paid vacation?
Just Reading New Blood Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 21

9th July 2010, 03:33 AM	#324
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	Originally Posted by Correa Neto Maybe these are the marks of a ruler, pressed on the soil when measurements were taken. What means the soil was muddy and soft, as I suspect it is from the texture seen at the pictures. This (if true, of course) throws in to the gutter the "heavy Patty" claims.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

9th July 2010, 04:37 AM	#325
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,172	Not sure what to make of those. The resolution is not that good. The last one, however, looks like what one would expect from someone sticking a (real or fake) foot in soft mud and pulling it out, given the size of the dirt mound around the footprint.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

9th July 2010, 05:35 AM	#326
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	Originally Posted by Correa Neto Not sure what to make of those. The resolution is not that good. The last one, however, looks like what one would expect from someone sticking a (real or fake) foot in soft mud and pulling it out, given the size of the dirt mound around the footprint. The second pic is the same cast in the same place you see it in the first pic, which is supposedly from the PGF "second reel". It is an enlargement of that section of the second reel strip. That is, it's supposedly Patty's track as cast by Roger at the time. However, it looks for all the world like a dug out foot print with a plaster cast stuck into it afterwards.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

9th July 2010, 05:42 AM	#327
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	It's quite similar to the cast we see Roger kneeling over. Note the similar mound of dirt around the casting. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...ReelStills.jpg
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? Last edited by LTC8K6; 9th July 2010 at 05:45 AM.

9th July 2010, 05:55 AM	#328
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Is there a picture of that deep track on the lower left, taken afterwards, when titmus or any others stopped by the site? I'd like to see what the rain shower did to that print. It would have filled up with water and washed out quickly considering the sharp edges of the imprint.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

9th July 2010, 08:05 AM	#330
Blackdog Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 470	Shrinkage. "I was in the pool! I WAS IN THE POOL!"
Blackdog Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 470

9th July 2010, 08:13 AM	#331
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	Originally Posted by Blackdog Shrinkage. "I was in the pool! I WAS IN THE POOL!" In only one localized place? Shouldn't it be more even throughout the cast?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986 Last edited by GT/CS; 9th July 2010 at 08:17 AM.

9th July 2010, 08:42 AM	#332
LuvGodzilla Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: PNW Posts: 147	When I see that track it looks like a deer track where the toes are supposed to be. Has anyone posted the cast from that track?
	__________________ History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man. BOC 1977. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP)

9th July 2010, 09:03 AM	#334
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Whatever that is in the right hand circle could have made that impression in the left-hand circle. Is that a toe-indenter? Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

9th July 2010, 09:18 AM	#335
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	Originally Posted by GT/CS Excellent observation. How can poured plaster leave this large of a gap between the plaster and the soil? It wouldn't, and that gap is visible even in the film clip.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

9th July 2010, 10:52 AM	#336
Blackdog Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 470	Originally Posted by GT/CS In only one localized place? Shouldn't it be more even throughout the cast? It was a Seinfeld reference, I was trying to make a funny.
Blackdog Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 470

9th July 2010, 11:14 AM	#337
GrouchoMarxist Cowardly insulter of Buddhism Join Date: May 2008 Location: Surly Bonds correctional facility Posts: 939	Originally Posted by Blackdog It was a Seinfeld reference, I was trying to make a funny. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
	__________________ I can't believe that having said what I said was interpreted as having been what I said when I said it, because I said it where I said it, when I said it, and who I said it to. Only in America!

9th July 2010, 11:51 AM	#338
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	Originally Posted by Blackdog It was a Seinfeld reference, I was trying to make a funny. I realized that but I figured you were being serious with the shrinkage issue and was making it humorous, which it was.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

9th July 2010, 12:03 PM	#339
Blackdog Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 470	I don't know that we can say for sure if there is a gap all the way around the cast or not, I don't think the camera angle is quite right to be certain. I don't know much about plaster of paris (which is what I assume is what was used to cast the track) so I don't know if it would shrink that much during the curing process, but I doubt it. Wouldn't it be funny if that was a picture of the device that made the tracks at Bluff Creek?
Blackdog Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 470

9th July 2010, 12:10 PM	#340
Bitter Monk Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sam's Town Posts: 208	A couple of photos of "shrinkage" in a controlled environment for comparison. Shrinkage 1 Shrinkage 2 ETA - Cast shrinkage. Not that other thing.
	__________________ "But why doesn't Bigfoot get habituated? Everything can be habituated. Give me a crate of Oreos and I could habituate you."-kitakaze ThePonderingPossum.com Last edited by Bitter Monk; 9th July 2010 at 12:10 PM. Reason: Clarity

9th July 2010, 12:29 PM	#341
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,629	It just looks very odd. Particularly the dirt mounded around the cast. It really doesn't look like what you'd get if a heavy biped stepped there. It really doesn't look like it's from digging out the cast, either. It looks like it's from digging out the footprint to me. Of course there has always been a question whether this film is from the day of the PGF. There was always the possibility that this film is Roger's practice casting session mentioned to Krantz.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

9th July 2010, 12:39 PM	#342
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 It just looks very odd. Particularly the dirt mounded around the cast. It really doesn't look like what you'd get if a heavy biped stepped there. It really doesn't look like it's from digging out the cast, either. It looks like it's from digging out the footprint to me. Of course there has always been a question whether this film is from the day of the PGF. There was always the possibility that this film is Roger's practice casting session mentioned to Krantz. Agreed. It looks like the print was dug out and the hardened plaster cast was set into the impression. All the loose dirt around the cast just looks like digging spoils, and that gap doesn't look like it's from shrinkage.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

12th July 2010, 02:06 PM	#344
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by kitakaze on BFF HH has no idea what the dead read horse thing was. Did not even slightly register. It did not come from him. Greg Long on Rense.com... Quote: A careful reader will find the answer on page 345 of my book. Roger Patterson told Howard Heironimus that he (Roger) had made the suit from the hide of a dead horse. Howard told Bob Heironimus this: that Roger had told Howard Heironimus that he, Roger, had made the suit from a dead horse. The dead red horse story didn't fall out of the sky. Howard never said that to his brother Bob?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

12th July 2010, 02:56 PM	#345
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by William Parcher The dead red horse story didn't fall out of the sky. Howard never said that to his brother Bob? That's correct. Either Bob picked it up from someone else, or simply mistook something. Howard spoke to me about Roger's skill with leather and a pair of leather workhorse collars he made that had mirrors on them, but he explicitly told me he had never heard of Roger making any suit at all using horsehide or even hair from a horse.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

12th July 2010, 03:49 PM	#346
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by kitakaze I'm ready now. Go ahead with the questions. BTW, WP, I'll post a response to your other question tonight. I started composing a response last night, but I am trying to set up a precise timeline, which I will post tonight. I'm getting confused as to what BH says about when RP filmed him.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

12th July 2010, 04:06 PM	#347
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	WP, I hope I haven't caused that confusion. What could really help is if you could point specifically to something BH said, or something I reported BH telling me, that is causing your confusion, and that way I can directly address what was said to me personally, what I read, and what I surmised. Bob has never said he was in Bluff Creek in the third week. He has always said it was earlier - first or second week of October. I have tried to reconcile it with the eight days RP and BG had Chico, when his mother saw Gimlin's green truck bringing Chico back, the Highway 96 banner, and many other things. I have tried fitting it in the third week to see if it works, but it leaves important details out. Sometimes it is hard to keep track of every bit of minutiae.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

12th July 2010, 04:19 PM	#348
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	I thought I saw on BFF where you were saying that BH was filmed at Bluff Creek on Oct 17th (Tues) or 18th (Weds). Parnassus seems to be going with that as well as I think he also saw you saying that on BFF. Let me get this straight with you. You suggest that Patterson went to Bluff Creek on at least 3 different occasions in 1967?: 1) In the summer and probably faked some tracks. 2) First or second week of October to film BH then returns to Yakima w/Chico. 3) Third week of October to pretend that he had filmed Patty on Oct 20. Is that correct?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

12th July 2010, 04:24 PM	#349
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Yes, I think that's what we're looking at. And I think Roger was there before '67 . I wonder if it was correspondence with Ray Wallace or some other connection to him that first brought him there. I almost get tempted to wonder if they had a little powwow on faking tracks, but then I would be getting ahead of myself.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

12th July 2010, 04:28 PM	#350
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	When RP and BG return for visit #3 they do not have Chico with them, right?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

12th July 2010, 04:36 PM	#351
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Yes, and I think they had other horses (not all new) that came and were supplied by Floyd Paxton, the Yakima businessman and owner of Kwik Lok. June Swanson, wife of Chinook Press' Bob Swanson said Floyd Paxton supplied horses and saddles for Patterson.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

12th July 2010, 11:16 PM	#352
HarryHenderson Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business Posts: 706	To continue with the questions KK: So the RP 3 trip scenario is what's come about due to specific things people you've been talking to have said...as opposed to say a theory that attempts to encompass as many aspects as possible? I'd say either way it seems to make a lot of sense. RP makes those 3 trips and there's no need for some 'never fully explained' DeltaDash™ film developing, no insufficient time frames, no need for any serious 'rushing around' pre-hoaxing prints or evidence or for anything even. It also accounts for BH's varied recollections of the precise details of everything once they were in CA (compared to RP/BG's story). Another question: Has BH ever said what the time frame was from when RP brought the film out publicly compared to when he (BH) remembers being in CA doing the filming? I assume he has, but yet again I missed it.
	__________________ "The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, you know I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin Last edited by HarryHenderson; 12th July 2010 at 11:19 PM.

13th July 2010, 07:29 AM	#353
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by kitakaze Yes, and I think they had other horses (not all new) that came and were supplied by Floyd Paxton, the Yakima businessman and owner of Kwik Lok. June Swanson, wife of Chinook Press' Bob Swanson said Floyd Paxton supplied horses and saddles for Patterson. I am reposting a collage I did earlier. It shows filmed scenes with possible dates. Maybe it shows visit #2 and #3. BH said that there was no packhorse when he was at Bluff Creek. This means that the scenes showing a white packhorse shouldn't be visit #2 according to BH. We also should not see Chico with a packhorse according to BH. Bill Munns has examined a PGF filmstrip belonging to Pat Patterson. It shows a visit #3 (horseback with packhorse) scene right before a visit #2 scene (Patty). Bill says there is no evidence of cut/splice (editing). The Bob Heironimus story requires a film edit at that point. Or... there were more than 3 visits. Or there was a packhorse switcheroo at visit #2. Or BH is wrong about a key situation. Or BH isn't telling the truth. Or Munns is wrong about the edit. You need to get this worked out quite nicely or your critics will eat you and Heironimus for lunch.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. Last edited by William Parcher; 13th July 2010 at 07:34 AM. Reason: Added part about Munns being wrong about edit.

13th July 2010, 08:56 AM	#354
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by kitakaze WP, I hope I haven't caused that confusion. What could really help is if you could point specifically to something BH said, or something I reported BH telling me, that is causing your confusion, and that way I can directly address what was said to me personally, what I read, and what I surmised. Go to post #107... Originally Posted by kitakaze on BFF It is consistent with things that happened in 1966 and 1967 in Yakima. Tracks appearing, then Roger appearing, then posters all over town. And the time that Roger was a Bluff Creek he specified right then and there to the newspaper. One week - arrived last Saturday. That is just like what Bob Heironimus told me. Roger left around the previous Friday or Saturday and then he followed on a Tuesday or Wednesday. And think about Jerry Merritt saying Roger showed up at 4 in the morning the day they left trying to get him to go. You are mixing info about visit #2 with visit #3. BH talks about dates for visit #2, but RP talks to the newspaper reporter about dates for visit #3. Quote: That is just like what Bob Heironimus told me. No. BH ought not be able to give you details about visit #3. He wasn't there and he ought not know when RP left Yakima for visit #3 and when he arrived at Bluff Creek. What I find interesting and odd is that BH hasn't (to my knowledge) directly talked about visit #3 in the same terms that we would. I have never heard BH say something like this... "Roger and Bob must have driven back down to Bluff Creek right before October 20th so they could pretend that they had just filmed the Bigfoot which was actually me."
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

13th July 2010, 09:20 AM	#355
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Is it possible that there was no visit three? The general store story could have been part of the gig, Roger could have called the newspaper from Yakima (there was no caller id), they could have made the casts anywhere. In fact, did they ever stop and show the General store owner the casts that they had made? or the newspaper reporter? did any of the visitors to the site photograph prints with plaster still in them or around them?
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

13th July 2010, 09:57 AM	#356
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	If P&G really weren't at Bluff Creek on October 20th then a number of other people are lying. Al Hodgeson and Jim McClarin will tell you that they spoke to Patterson in person that day and there were others present too. I think that Roger did not show the plaster casts but he did show the bent stirrup. He may have bent that on a jig back home in Yakima between visit #2 and 3.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

17th July 2010, 11:38 AM	#357
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Originally Posted by kitakaze Yes, I think that's what we're looking at. And I think Roger was there before '67. Patterson visited Bluff Creek in 1964 or 65 according to Al Hodgson. Patterson was in bad shape from his cancer/treatment at that time. If memory serves he was on his way to LA to promote his hula hoop ideas.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

17th July 2010, 11:50 AM	#358
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	If you bought a costume in July or August and worked like hell to make it look right, and in July or August got a guy to wear the suit, and you also had a stolen camera to film the guy in the suit and knew the law was coming down on you, how in the $%^& do you get lucky enough that around Labor Day Al Hodgson calls and says "come and get it!" Hmmm. Patterson had told DeAtley and McCoy that he wanted to be called if more tracks appeared. I wonder when Patterson made that request. Who wants to bet it was July or August? And who wants to bet it wasn't Patterson who made the tracks around Labor Day. Why didn't Patterson race down to see them, when Hodgson called him? Why in the H. would you wait 6 weeks if you thought the tracks were real?
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba