Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Well I hope its not Dfoot.. Unless Dfoot learns to photoshop better.

Why are you waiting for us to find this animal? Why dont you get out there and look yourself? --- ohhhhh thats right, computers dont work in the woods. LMAO

Oooooooooooooooooo ..., Melissa .. Such wit.

I just can't keep up with you ...

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Oooooooooooooooooo ..., Melissa .. Such wit.

I just can't keep up with you ...

Its a gift - dont try it yourself, you may hurt yourself.

Well - why dont you? Can you answer one question in the year I have known you? You are really good at asking and assuming - can you answer a direct question? Or does your computer not allow that kind of communication?

[LAL]

Why does that second cast from the OM trackway keep getting ignored?

And speaking of Dfoot, check this out:

"Saskwatcher: The black make-up around the eyes idea was added into the mix by Phillip Morris. He claims someone calling himself "Roger Patterson the cowboy" called him back for advice on how to hide the eyes in the mask.

Morris and Bob H. just keep adding to the story as new info is brought to their attention. Heironimus completely changes his story to make his suit become the Morris suit. Morris hears about the footprints and the perceived long arms and so he starts recalling that Roger phoned him for advice on how to create these effects using his gorilla suit.

I can only promise you that if this is a suit it is not the Morris suit. And the fact that these men can't tell the same story twice is a real problem. Gimlin, at least, sticks to one story regardless of whether there is any money or not for him and seems to shy away from publicity. As far as simply taking people at their word Gimlin comes in ahead of these guys.

Baboon Extra Head: Those are some of the suits that were out there at the time of the 1967 PG film. Patterson either ---

1) Had someone construct an expensive suit based on very specific directions regarding the muscles, etc... Could've been someone like a taxidermist or top fx man.

or

2) He just turned on a camera when he saw a Sasquatch looking for varmits in that pile of logs.

But it was not Morris and his DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER gorilla suit (which is the one he sold at the time).

I assumed that Morris would pull out all the stops and use every means to re-create the PG film by carefully studying the film. Based on the photo we've seen from that attempt he should've studied a bit harder.

- Dfoot"

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...7&#entry162887

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

3.5 miles out...3.5 miles back....2 miles to the truck....2 miles back to cast prints...than 2 more back to the truck.......that's 13 miles right?

Where I work (warehouse) we have a pick belt that is 1/4 mile long. We walk this belt with a pick sheet that is usually 8 pick sequences long...hmm that's a 2 mile walk right?

Now I can manage 4 of these in a 6 hour period...so what's that....8 miles? In 6 hours? Of course I'm not on horseback....and Bob and Roge didn't have to pick product and throw it on a belt either...but I would counter that by saying our pick belt isn't in the woods...and we didn't have to gather our horses up....or grab casting materials/mix them up/pour them into casts and wait for them to dry either.

So Bob G tracks her for 3.5 miles than schleps back to the creek...that's 7 miles right there...on foot (he was on foot right? If not I stand corrected)...in the woods. Let's be real nice and say Bobby G managed this in say 3 hours...that makes it nearly 5 pm when he get's back to the creek...than they go get the plaster right? That's 2 miles out and 2 back....4 more miles. What time would it be now? 630 pm or so maybe?

Than they have to cast feetprints and film them.....I guess Parcher says it get's dark around 330-4pm...so now how do we see Roge in the picture of him pouring casts....in sunlight again?

They than go back to the truck....2 more miles.......So now what time is it supposed to be?

So basically they leave the sight after the time they say they got to Hodgson's store? Am I way off here or what?

I used to have a friend who claimed he walked to the liquor store in 45 min.. That's 3.5 miles (and he's no longer my friend).

Gimlin started after her on horseback, but Roger called him back. He didn't want to be left alone (remember the larger one?). They collected the horses, then tracked her from horseback. They found where she'd crossed the stream. Could be they loped back on the road (it followed Bluff Creek), which would have saved considerable time.

Some horse speeds:

"Horses speed varies with their stride length, body build, and other factors, but here is a basic idea of how fast-- in miles per hour-- horses move at their various gaits:


Walk: Roughly 3-4 MPH. A pleasure show horse can go as slow as 2 mph. Gaited horses-- who do not trot-- can do a 'running walk' as fast as 15 mph.

Trot: The trot is roughly 8-10 MPH. Again, a shorter striding horse could trot slower, and a horse with a long stride could move faster.

Canter/Lope: 10-17 MPH.

Gallop: This depends on the horse's condition and athletic ability. Some horses are not built to run fast an may only do a fast canter at their best; however, the gallop is about 30 mph. Thoroughbreds, which are bred for running distance but not speed, have been clocked at over 40 MPH. Quarter horses, bred and raced for short distances at speed, can reach 50 MPH in short bursts according to the AQHA's website."

http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/info/horsespeedmph.htm

You stand corrected.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LAL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
With friends like these, you won't need enemies.

Watch your back, watch the shells closely as they're shuffled about, and remember there's no pea under any of them......................

Ah, the return of the King. Hi there, King. Or is it Sir Knight?

Nah...........I'm Joe Sixpack. Roger Knights is the Knight.

Quote:

BTW, I've been promoted. I'm no longer the Spam Queen, I'm the Queen of the Ad Homs. Isn't that wonderful?

Yeah. These guys are just great.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
With friends like these, you won't need enemies.

Watch your back, watch the shells closely as they're shuffled about, and remember there's no pea under any of them......................

HUNTSTER !!!! The king of the woods. How are you.

I'm doing great, Melissa!

Quote:

Ohh no worries.. You know me, I am always watching my back - as I bruise easily and I dont like to be sucker punched LMAO.

I think there was a little sarcasm in there too..

Nope. No sarcasm.

There really are monsters in these woods. This forum is one scary place.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Well, according to the Volcanologists and Geologists, and soil Scientists I have spoken with - a huge difference. And I was told within 2 years the entire chemical structure of Volcanic Ash can be changed - much faster if its on a hillside or mountain.

I do agree with you however on one point - I think the grain size is critical to whether or not dermals will be captured while casting. The finer the substrate the better the chances are for getting dermals.

Here's a brief summary of the changes. I will assume the material is of andesitic composition as most volcanics from the Cascades. The starting point is a bunch of minute fragments of volcanic glass. If the cooling is too fast (that's what will happen when small blobs of lava are thrown in to the air), there's no time for crystal growth, and the small lava blobs -that's what volcanic ash usually is, plus some fragments of older rocks- solidify as an amorphous (no crystalline structure) glass.

Once exposed to the atmosphere, two things may happen:
-Devitrification, the formation of small crystals and
-Hydratation and oxidation , with OH- and O being added to the glass.
What -after some time (its hard to quantify) the original material becomes devitrified ash with variable ammounts of clays and oxides.

Note that the bulk chemical composition is relatively unchanged, since the ammounts of hydroxil and oxigen introducted are small. We regularly make chemical assays of hundred-years old volcanic ash and the result provide tons of accurate information on the parent magma. What may suffer great changes is the mineralogy, the types of minerals that are present - the chemistry remains roughly the same. Eventually, the ash will be weathered -the ultimate fate of any rock that happens to be exposed- and become soil.

Now, regarding the focus of our discussion -preservation of detail at prints- providing the granulometry is the same, and for now keeping humidity (note- this is not the OH- incorporated in to the crystal lattice, but water between the grains that compose the soil) and compaction aside, for most practical purposes ash, powdered rock, soils, sediments will have very similar detail preservation properties. Thus, it does not matter if the prints were made at a soil rich in kaolinite or montmorilonite, at a recent ash fall, at a weathered ash fall, at a clay layer deposited by a stream, etc. despite mineralogical and chemical differences, they will behave quite similarly when it comes to what's being discussed.

Originally Posted by Melissa

In your words I placed in bold - you bring up an issue Tube discussed. Tube felt compaction was necessary. This I find confusing.. As, he clearly told me he could not put his full body weight on this substrate, like my work with the TriCalcium Phosphate - putting your body weight will force your foot straight to the bottom with a "poof" of dust, which quickly follows. I have found the substrates which do not allow for full body weight create the best dermal impressions - and Im not sure exactly why that is. Simply the act of placing your foot on the TriCalcium Phosphate is enough to capture dermals and flexion creases.

Here' when humidity, and compaction and mineralogy enter. Loose grains have a low compaction index. It has to do with the spaces between the particles, a function of the way the grains are packed. Loose = low compaction, lots of empty space between grains, low density. So, if the material is loose, pressing it will decrease the volume of empty spaces. If the material is already at its optimum packing, then all you'll leave shallow prints. that's why loose and fine grained material will register more detail.

Now there are some extra factors. Compare dry loose powdery clay with wet clay. If its too dry and loose, the print walls may collapse, if the print is too deep or you move your feet too fast. We could go on and talk about wet or dry clay sticking at or skin etc. etc. etc. but it would not be truly important to the main case in point.

Now, once wet clay dries, it becomes very cohese and eventually no longer will register prints. Thuse, besides grain size, compaction and humidity are also important when it comes to the preservation of details. But again that leads to another story, related to some extrapolations of weight based on print depth.

Originally Posted by Melissa

You must understand. The substrate being light and powdery isnt because it was milled or ground into this substance, its from years of the elements and driving etc on these roads.

See, here's why being exact is needed. If you write pulverized rock I -and I bet many other people- will think of material coming from a nearby mine or quarry with grinders and mills was used to pave the road (no, its not completely unlikely, and yes, I know examples, actually I helped to make some clicks of them). This would imply the material most likely would be composed by unweathered rock fragments. If what you have is an unpaved road that strecthes over the surface -if I understood correctly this is actually the case- the loose material is not pulverized rock. Its loose soil, very probably composed by clay minerals. So, its natural soil whose original structure was disturbed and became a loose aggregate of clays.

Originally Posted by Melissa

But I will say, at this point - the Onion Mountain Cast is in play. Dermal ridges and flexion creases are possible in this soil. I have been assured by the people working for Six Rivers National Forest they have not introduced anything into the environment to change it from when the cast was originally created. And, according to the gypsum expert - that wouldnt even matter.

What the gypsum expert told you is that substrate grain size is the major factor when it comes to detail preservation level at the print and at the cast.

Originally Posted by Melissa

You can not compare Volcanic Ash with this substrate - they are two totally different animals. So, where does that leave us? Not sure yet. But, I do think what I am seeing on the Onion Mountain Cast could very well be dermal ridges.

See above comments on grain size. The animals may be different but have very similar behaviors when it comes to the aspect we are discussing.

Could be dermals? Yes.
Could be artifacts? Yes.

As I said before, there's an easy way to bring some light to the issue, but it needs the footprint itself. Note that even this will not be a definitive "proof" of a real bigfoot. It'll be a better evidence, but still not the evidence.
High quality footage or stills from a reliable source would be a fantastic starting point, perhaps almost as good as a specimen. Sure, not everibody will agree with my opinion, but well, that's life.

Originally Posted by Melissa

I agree. But, there are no experts in bigfoot at the moment, maybe some that know quite a bit more than others due to their hours in the field, and research - but there are no experts in this. We can however rely on experts in fields such as Dr. Meldrums and Jimmy Chilcutt.

Well, they are human. They may also make mistakes. And untill better evidence shows up, I will humbly disagree with their ultimate conclusion, that bigfeet are real. I have no problem admitting my conclusion may be wrong. But I also think whoever considers the critters are real must also admit their conclusion may also be wrong. Otherwise it's just an appeal to authority and not a real argument -from both sides.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I'm doing great, Melissa!



Nope. No sarcasm.

There really are monsters in these woods. This forum is one scary place.

Ohhh I agree there. Stay close Huntster - I may need cover.

I have known about this board for a while, and have read a little - never felt the need to try and have this discussion with this many skeptics though..

The sarcasm I speak of is mine - I have a strange sense of humor.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Here's a brief summary of the changes. I will assume the material is of andesitic composition as most volcanics from the Cascades. The starting point is a bunch of minute fragments of volcanic glass. If the cooling is too fast (that's what will happen when small blobs of lava are thrown in to the air), there's no time for crystal growth, and the small lava blobs -that's what volcanic ash usually is, plus some fragments of older rocks- solidify as an amorphous (no crystalline structure) glass.

Once exposed to the atmosphere, two things may happen:
-Devitrification, the formation of small crystals and
-Hydratation and oxidation , with OH- and O being added to the glass.
What -after some time (its hard to quantify) the original material becomes devitrified ash with variable ammounts of clays and oxides.

Note that the bulk chemical composition is relatively unchanged, since the ammounts of hydroxil and oxigen introducted are small. We regularly make chemical assays of hundred-years old volcanic ash and the result provide tons of accurate information on the parent magma. What may suffer great changes is the mineralogy, the types of minerals that are present - the chemistry remains roughly the same. Eventually, the ash will be weathered -the ultimate fate of any rock that happens to be exposed- and become soil.

Now, regarding the focus of our discussion -preservation of detail at prints- providing the granulometry is the same, and for now keeping humidity (note- this is not the OH- incorporated in to the crystal lattice, but water between the grains that compose the soil) and compaction aside, for most practical purposes ash, powdered rock, soils, sediments will have very similar detail preservation properties. Thus, it does not matter if the prints were made at a soil rich in kaolinite or montmorilonite, at a recent ash fall, at a weathered ash fall, at a clay layer deposited by a stream, etc. despite mineralogical and chemical differences, they will behave quite similarly when it comes to what's being discussed.


Here' when humidity, and compaction and mineralogy enter. Loose grains have a low compaction index. It has to do with the spaces between the particles, a function of the way the grains are packed. Loose = low compaction, lots of empty space between grains, low density. So, if the material is loose, pressing it will decrease the volume of empty spaces. If the material is already at its optimum packing, then all you'll leave shallow prints. that's why loose and fine grained material will register more detail.

Now there are some extra factors. Compare dry loose powdery clay with wet clay. If its too dry and loose, the print walls may collapse, if the print is too deep or you move your feet too fast. We could go on and talk about wet or dry clay sticking at or skin etc. etc. etc. but it would not be truly important to the main case in point.

Now, once wet clay dries, it becomes very cohese and eventually no longer will register prints. Thuse, besides grain size, compaction and humidity are also important when it comes to the preservation of details. But again that leads to another story, related to some extrapolations of weight based on print depth.

Originally Posted by Melissa source: Wikipedia

The mountain includes layers of basalt and andesite through which several domes of dacite lava have erupted.

That is what Mt. St.Helens is made of. So, before I respond, does that change anything? I am trying to fully understand the type of substrate being used by tube.

Originally Posted by Correo Neto

See, here's why being exact is needed. If you write pulverized rock I -and I bet many other people- will think of material coming from a nearby mine or quarry with grinders and mills was used to pave the road (no, its not completely unlikely, and yes, I know examples, actually I helped to make some clicks of them). This would imply the material most likely would be composed by unweathered rock fragments. If what you have is an unpaved road that strecthes over the surface -if I understood correctly this is actually the case- the loose material is not pulverized rock. Its loose soil, very probably composed by clay minerals. So, its natural soil whose original structure was disturbed and became a loose aggregate of clays.

This is an unpaved road, which the forest service maintains. The substrate I have is the product of rock that has been driven over and weathered over time. The forest service comes in every so often (not sure how many years between) and grades the road, then puts down fresh rock where needed. Your right, the rock used is high in clay minerals - as this is what is natural to the area. The track from Onion Mountain in question was found (along with many others) on the side of this road - in the substrate from the road. Its not dirt - but I suppose over enough time and weather etc it would be considered a type of soil.

Originally Posted by Correo Neto

What the gypsum expert told you is that substrate grain size is the major factor when it comes to detail preservation level at the print and at the cast.

That was one thing he told me, but not the only thing. He did infact state the mineral or chemical, minerals, or organics make no difference to the casting agent, if it can be seen - it can be casted. So, the organics of the substrate would not effect the final outcome of a cast. We agree - the grain size of the substrate is what will allow for the details of dermal ridges to be casted or even seen with the naked eye.

Tubes arguement now is that the organics is what is keeping these "crowley lines" from occuring in the soil from Onion Mountain. He also complained the substrate is sticking to the cast -- yeah - cause its an actual substrate, not volcanic ash. When I used TriCalcium Phosphate I had no issue whatsoever getting this off my finished casts - Im assuming its because its the small grain size, it is able to be brushed off easily once the cast is fully dried, but not the soil from Onion Mountain. He is right - it does stick and makes for a long cleaning process.

Originally Posted by Correo Neto

See above comments on grain size. The animals may be different but have very similar behaviors when it comes to the aspect we are discussing.

Could be dermals? Yes.
Could be artifacts? Yes.

K, so then tell me, using Tubes instructions - why cant I duplicate his work? Obviously I am able to cast dermals using the soil from Onion Mountain. We agree the substrate in question must be of a smaller grain size - and the substrate from Onion Mountain must be if I am able to cast my own dermal ridges and flexion creases. What is missing? This is why I had the conversation with the gypsum expert. Tube keeps telling me I must use Volcanic Ash - I dont think thats the case, and I have been told that. As long as the substrate being used is able to capture dermal ridges - I should be able to duplicate his work. I can not. Something is missing and I just dont know what that is yet.

Originally Posted by Correo Neto

As I said before, there's an easy way to bring some light to the issue, but it needs the footprint itself. Note that even this will not be a definitive "proof" of a real bigfoot. It'll be a better evidence, but still not the evidence.
High quality footage or stills from a reliable source would be a fantastic starting point, perhaps almost as good as a specimen. Sure, not everibody will agree with my opinion, but well, that's life.

We agree again. But, I would have to say I think Bob Gimlin is a very reliable source. Some would argue that, but in the more than 30+ years, his story has not changed. Most people I have worked with in my profession cant keep a lie straight for more than 10 minutes, unless they are a sociopath - and Bob Gimlin shows no signs of that.

Originally Posted by Correo Neto

Well, they are human. They may also make mistakes. And untill better evidence shows up, I will humbly disagree with their ultimate conclusion, that bigfeet are real. I have no problem admitting my conclusion may be wrong. But I also think whoever considers the critters are real must also admit their conclusion may also be wrong. Otherwise it's just an appeal to authority and not a real argument -from both sides.

I agree - no one is without fault, but the work they are trained in and do on a daily basis can be used by researchers in this field. If Jimmy Chilcutt with his experience and education tells me, he thinks he does infact see a dermal ridge, then I would have to defer to his expertise in that area for the time being - until there is evidence to the contrary. We must have a starting point. Researchers in this must have something other than the shape of the tracks to go on, and as I discussed, if this animal is out there it is likely in the primate family - and if thats the case, it most likely has dermal ridges - that is something we can look for in casting and its science we can use to push this search forward.

[LTC8K6]

The horses were frightened of bigfoot. Why would they follow it's trail?

If horses will follow bigfoot's trail, then dogs ought to have no problems doing so.

Not to mention that Titmus says Patty didn't come from anywhere, no tracks coming in to the area, and Patty only went up the hill a bit and sat down to watch P&G reload the camera.

[Mad Hom]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The horses were frightened of bigfoot. Why would they follow it's trail?

If horses will follow bigfoot's trail, then dogs ought to have no problems doing so.

Not to mention that Titmus says Patty didn't come from anywhere, no tracks coming in to the area, and Patty only went up the hill a bit and sat down to watch P&G reload the camera.

No,no,no...LTC....horses being WILLING to follow Bigfeets is convenient to their cause...this way Bobby G can track Patty in an expedient enough manner to help the timeline.

Dags...being WILLING to track one would be inconvenient..I mean that would require an actual flesh and blood creature to be tracked in the first place,,,besides...dags being scared of Bigfeets...sets up the excuse as to why they didn't have any along at Skookum...how cold was the trail of the butt that left that print in the mud (allegedly) again? Wasn't it like a few hours?Surely dags would have been able to pick up a nice stinky Bigfeet trail after only a few hours....and this wouldn't have helped the cause...because they don't have an actual animal for the dags to find....hence the "Dags fear Bigfeetsus" excuse...it explains the dags utter indifference to tracking something that isn't there.

[Skeptical Greg]

Don't forget the Dog Network ..

Dogs everywhere have heard the story about how a dog was torn up by a bigfoot ... Photos were taken, but they seem to be tied up in a legal hassle..

A few renegade dogs have been known to think about tracking a Bigfoot,
but they have been censured and fined by the DDNTB ( Doggies Do Not Track Bigfoot ) union ....

[Mad Hom]

Originally Posted by Huntster

The discovery of the gorilla was a nearly 2,000 year odyssey, filled with legends, disbelief, etc. Even after discovery, for years there were accusations of lying, storytelling, and wide disbelief.

There have been people like you throughout history.

Fudd? Was there any hoaxing of Gorilla-la-la-la's? Hmmm? Was there any Fudd?

Oh and were Gorilla-la-la-la's being sighted on every single swinging continent on earth..(sans antarctica) for years and years..by hundreds...maybe thousands of people....without any definitive proof of their existence....Fudd?

Widespread as Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size are...it's a testament to their craftiness that they have as of yet gone undetected huh?

Good thing there have been people like me throughout history....how else would people like you be held to a standard of proof.

[Mad Hom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Don't forget the Dog Network ..

Dogs everywhere have heard the story about how a dog was torn up by a bigfoot ... Photos were taken, but they seem to be tied up in a legal hassle..

A few renegade dogs have been known to think about tracking a Bigfoot,
but they have been censured and fined by the DDNTB ( Doggies Do Not Track Bigfoot ) union ....

Yes...because a few dags were rended limb from limb...this means that all dags know not to follow one.

They naturally assume Bigfeets are strong and aggressive and will do them harm.....whatever!!

Dags don't track Bigfeets because there's nothing there to track....bottom line.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The horses were frightened of bigfoot. Why would they follow it's trail?

If horses will follow bigfoot's trail, then dogs ought to have no problems doing so.

Not to mention that Titmus says Patty didn't come from anywhere, no tracks coming in to the area, and Patty only went up the hill a bit and sat down to watch P&G reload the camera.

No, that's not what he said. I'll post on that later.

Gimlin's horse was older and well-broke. A nervous horse can be led. Green mentioned the dog's reaction in the repost I posted about the prints, but the tracking dogs didn't happen at Bluff Creek.

How did Andalusians carry knights into battle? How do you get a high-strung racehorse through the gate?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

Widespread as Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size are...it's a testament to their craftiness that they have as of yet gone undetected huh?

They haven't. They've gone undiscovered by mainstream science.

Speaking of science, it was noted this discussion is under General Skepticism and the Paranormal. This news story was put under Science:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...ence/evolution

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...ence/evolution

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

No, that's not what he said. I'll post on that later.


Something brief, with maybe a link?


Gimlin's horse was older and well-broke. A nervous horse can be led. Green mentioned the dog's reaction in the repost I posted about the prints, but the tracking dogs didn't happen at Bluff Creek.

How did Andalusians carry knights into battle? How do you get a high-strung racehorse through the gate?

They were in the area for days, with a Bigfoot family nearby .

The horses had plenty of time to get use to their presence...

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

I'll post on that later.

Post on it all you want to. It's been discussed to death.

Don't bother saying Patty came in over hard ground again.

We've heard it all before.

Whatever is convenient to the hoax is what happened....

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
The discovery of the gorilla was a nearly 2,000 year odyssey, filled with legends, disbelief, etc. Even after discovery, for years there were accusations of lying, storytelling, and wide disbelief.

There have been people like you throughout history.

Fudd? Was there any hoaxing of Gorilla-la-la-la's? Hmmm? Was there any Fudd?

I don't know, but DuChaillu was sure accused of hoaxing.

Quote:

Oh and were Gorilla-la-la-la's being sighted on every single swinging continent on earth..(sans antarctica) for years and years..by hundreds...maybe thousands of people....without any definitive proof of their existence....Fudd?

Not that I know of. Just Africa and North America (sasquatch creatures were commonly called "gorillas" after the discovery of the gorilla in the late 1800's).

Quote:

Widespread as Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size are...it's a testament to their craftiness that they have as of yet gone undetected huh?

It's either a testimony to their reclusiveness, or it's testimony to the ineptitude or hard-headedness of the appropriate fields of science. You can take your pick. It think it's a bit of both.

Quote:

Good thing there have been people like me throughout history....how else would people like you be held to a standard of proof.

You don't hold me to squat. I'm an observer here.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Post on it all you want to. It's been discussed to death.

Don't bother saying Patty came in over hard ground again.

I don't believe I said that in the first place. Are you getting this confused with the Bossburg tracks or the Skookum imprint?

Quote:

We've heard it all before.

Evidently it didn't penetrate.

Quote:

Whatever is convenient to the hoax is what happened....

There's no evidence of a hoax.

[LTC8K6]

Lu, I'm familiar with your pretend ignorance, and intentional obtuseness.

Try it on someone else.

I'll be here.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by LAL

Did I say anything to you other than that I was currently defending your honor on JREF? I was as surprised as anyone when you showed up.

Matt's work didn't say anything about any other cast and now it's looking like it doesn't say much about that cast either. With all the focus on this one, I wonder if people are getting the idea there are no others considered compelling.

If I'd been taking a shot a Matt I would have posted some of the things he's said that make him look like an arrogant a**. Correa brought up his work and I responded that it's in question and pointed out the thread.

I think Greg just illustrated why I thought he wasn't old enough to be retired.

Actually LAL, I find the Elkins Creek cast very interesting. I had the opportunity to see a copy in San Antonio - and I was impressed to say the least.

I hope you didnt think I was upset with you, Im not And, I appreciate all the support you have given.

[RayG]

Jeeze Louise, does anyone stick to facts anymore?

No matter what side of the fence you think yer standing on, taunts, name-calling, sarcasm, and cut-n-pastes of someone's opinion do nothing to support an argument.

What are the actual facts regarding the PGF?

RayG

[William Parcher]

The best I could do is offer a theory of what happened based on known facts and speculation.

I believe that the 1st Reel (including the Patty encounter) was filmed weeks before October 20th. Patty was a man in a Bigfoot costume. The 2nd Reel was filmed on October 20th and apparently included scenes of Gimlin doing the stomp test and of Patterson casting at least one footprint. He is said to have cast three prints of which one is presently unaccounted for. Those were faked Bigfoot tracks that were supposed to represent the prints left by Patty. The actual tracks made by the man in the costume were never used for anything.

P&G lied to the world when they represented the end of Reel 1 (the Patty encounter) and all of Reel 2 as both having been filmed on October 20th. With Reel 1 being developed weeks prior, it gave Patterson ample time to edit it to look just the way he wanted. He may not have done any editing. Reel 1 is now ready to be viewed even before October 20 (Friday), but is held awaiting its premier viewing on October 22 (Sunday). P&G return to Bluff Creek, and on October 20th they create a fake trackway that approximates where Patty walked in the film made weeks before. They film the stomp test and Roger pouring plaster into at least one fake footprint. P&G may have made an error in the timing of filming Reel 2. It looks like the sun is too bright to represent the projected time-of-day that the plaster casting would have occured. It is primarily the claim by Gimlin of tracking Patty for 3.5 miles on horseback that causes a severe timeline discrepancy. Anyway, Reel 2 is taken to Hodgeson the night of October 20th and the men leave Bluff Creek the following morning. Later that same day, Lyle Laverty arrives at the site, finds the fake trackway (along with P&G's prints and those of their horses) and takes a few photos. Surprisingly, there seems to only be 3 or 4 published photos from Laverty's visit. Bob Titmus visits the site about 8 days later and describes what he sees of the faked trackway.

Reel 2 cannot be developed before the Sunday viewing and Patterson knows this. He would probably want to have the opportunity to edit it anyway. P&G agree to tell people that Reel 1 was sent out for development late on October 20 and that it was returned just in time for the assembled Sunday debut audience. The end of Reel 1 (the Patty part) is shown to a small group of Bigfoot enthusiasts with the claim being that it was filmed about 48 hours earlier. Patterson does not show Reel 2 because he doesn't have it.

According to John Green (who was at the debut viewing), Reel 2 was not shown along with Reel 1 when it was presented to an audience of scientists at the University of British Columbia on October 26th. Patterson also had the plaster casts on hand to show. Buy why didn't Roger show them Reel 2? Reel 2 may have been shown to some viewers at some time, but it is said to have vanished in the early 70's. We apparently now have some still frames from it.

A forensic examination of the Reel 1 film compared to the Reel 2 film should show an incongruence of the timeline. The plaster casting scene happened too early in the day. Reel 1 had been filmed weeks prior to Reel 2. The scarcity of Reel 2 and still images from it may be related to it containing elements that reveal a hoax.

Why do we only see a few photos of the tracks taken by Lyle Laverty the following day? Why didn't P&G film themselves on that 3.5 mile tracking journey? Did Patterson suddenly forget how to make his documentary by leaving that part out? Why are we still being deprived of the best evidence, which is the original film(s) and/or early copies of them? We would also like to examine the Dahinden Cibachromes taken from the original film.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The best I could do is offer a theory of what happened based on known facts and speculation.

Yup. That's the best you can do, and that is what you have done.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by Melissa

That is what Mt. St.Helens is made of. So, before I respond, does that change anything? I am trying to fully understand the type of substrate being used by tube.

It sheds some lights on a number of issues, such as:
- Chemical and mineralogical composition, for most practical purposes related to the subject being discussed, is irrelevant.
- Substrate grain size, compaction and humidity are the main factors related to the preservation of detail in prints and in casts.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the above are quite clear.

Originally Posted by Melissa

This is an unpaved road, which the forest service maintains. The substrate I have is the product of rock that has been driven over and weathered over time. The forest service comes in every so often (not sure how many years between) and grades the road, then puts down fresh rock where needed. Your right, the rock used is high in clay minerals - as this is what is natural to the area. The track from Onion Mountain in question was found (along with many others) on the side of this road - in the substrate from the road. Its not dirt - but I suppose over enough time and weather etc it would be considered a type of soil.

Melissa, according to your description, the road most likely strecthes over natural soil, as most unpaved roads do, and the presence of clay minerals seems to be an evidence of this. There's no way that tires will pulverize rocks the way you are describing, even in intense traffic, unless the rocks are some poorly consolidated sedimentary or volcaniclastic rocks. Chances are its soil whose structure was disturbed by the opening and maintenance of the road and by the passage of cars, plus some soil (or sand, or gravel, whatever) from some nearby source used to fill some holes and keep it level. It thus become quite loose when dry.

Originally Posted by Melissa

Tubes arguement now is that the organics is what is keeping these "crowley lines" from occuring in the soil from Onion Mountain. He also complained the substrate is sticking to the cast -- yeah - cause its an actual substrate, not volcanic ash. When I used TriCalcium Phosphate I had no issue whatsoever getting this off my finished casts - Im assuming its because its the small grain size, it is able to be brushed off easily once the cast is fully dried, but not the soil from Onion Mountain. He is right - it does stick and makes for a long cleaning process.

Here's where mineralogical composition enters in the game. If the material is rich in phylosilicates (phylosilicates are silicates with platy crystal lattice, such as clays), it will stick, specially if humid. Blame it on Van der Waals forces... If the volcanic ash has clays, it will stick, just like the disturbed soil samples you used, be it on the cast, be it on skin. Volcanic ash, if not turned in to clay will present some additional side effects dur to the shape of its grains. It'll be more aggressive to skin, eyes and lungs, but that's an OT digression.

Originally Posted by Melissa

K, so then tell me, using Tubes instructions - why cant I duplicate his work? Obviously I am able to cast dermals using the soil from Onion Mountain. We agree the substrate in question must be of a smaller grain size - and the substrate from Onion Mountain must be if I am able to cast my own dermal ridges and flexion creases. What is missing? This is why I had the conversation with the gypsum expert. Tube keeps telling me I must use Volcanic Ash - I dont think thats the case, and I have been told that. As long as the substrate being used is able to capture dermal ridges - I should be able to duplicate his work. I can not. Something is missing and I just dont know what that is yet.

First, lets keep focus.
-The undisturbed substract being able to register details such as dermal ridges is a different and independent issue from obtaining or not the casting artifacts.

-Unfortunately, as far as I know, there's little evidence that soil conditions (compaction, humidity, etc.) at the time and place of the production of the original print were the same you used while making your prints. The same is valid for the conditions prevalent while both casts (the original and yours)were made. Thus, the original cast may or may not have real dermals. That's as far as one can go without making some assumptions.

-If the casting artifacts are not showing at your experiments, this may indicate that there are some problems with the casting methodology itself, problably unrelated to the substract used. And at the moment, I think there is not enough information to say what or where the problem -if there is one- is.

Thus, were're left exactly where we were before all this- dermals at casts are not the definitive tell-tale mark of a real footprint of a real bigfoot...

Originally Posted by Melissa

We agree again. But, I would have to say I think Bob Gimlin is a very reliable source. Some would argue that, but in the more than 30+ years, his story has not changed. Most people I have worked with in my profession cant keep a lie straight for more than 10 minutes, unless they are a sociopath - and Bob Gimlin shows no signs of that.

I'm really not willing to enter again on the PGF discussion, since it came to a point that the same arguments are being recycled over and over, and repeating them ad infinitum will not convince any side.

But I'll say two things:
1) The world is full of people that seem sincere but are not. In doubt? Check politicians and some of the folks that quite often pop out at Randi's weekly comment. You'll find "sincere" people offering crystal healing, homeopathy, Feng Shui, etc.

2) Even if it shows the real deal -something that I highly doubt- its so entanglend with problems and suspicious issues that it should not be used as "pro" evidence. Remember the data handling 101? If the data set has or may have problems, to the recycle bin it goes.

That's all I am willing to say on this particular subject. Unless something really new appears, I feel any further discussion is a waste of my time.

Originally Posted by Melissa

I agree - no one is without fault, but the work they are trained in and do on a daily basis can be used by researchers in this field. If Jimmy Chilcutt with his experience and education tells me, he thinks he does infact see a dermal ridge, then I would have to defer to his expertise in that area for the time being - until there is evidence to the contrary. We must have a starting point. Researchers in this must have something other than the shape of the tracks to go on, and as I discussed, if this animal is out there it is likely in the primate family - and if thats the case, it most likely has dermal ridges - that is something we can look for in casting and its science we can use to push this search forward.

You would have a point, if the other "evidence" shown as favorable to to bigfoot as real creatures were not so weak and indeed provided at least a starting point or paralell corroboration. Thus when seeing the whole picture, unfortunately I have to say chances are he may have made a mistake.

As always, I admit that my opinion may be wrong.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

What are the actual facts regarding the PGF?

What is the actual PGF?

[LTC8K6]

Sasquatch pulverizes the rocks when it steps on them, of course.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What is the actual PGF?

It's a film of a bipedal creature walking on a riverside gravel/sand bar.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Huntster

It's a film of a bipedal creature walking on a riverside gravel/sand bar.

Or more correctly, a bipedal subject.

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RayG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's a film of a bipedal creature walking on a riverside gravel/sand bar.

Or more correctly, a bipedal subject.

Whoops! You're right, Ray. Poor choice of words on my part (and I was trying to be careful and creative!):

Quote:

–noun
1. an animal, esp. a nonhuman: the creatures of the woods and fields; a creature from outer space.
2. anything created, whether animate or inanimate.
3. person; human being: She is a charming creature. The driver of a bus is sometimes an irritable creature.
4. an animate being.
5. a person whose position or fortune is owed to someone or something and who continues under the control or influence of that person or thing: The cardinal was a creature of Louis XI.
6. Scot. and Older U.S. Use. intoxicating liquor, esp. whiskey (usually prec. by the): He drinks a bit of the creature before bedtime.

It can be only one of two things:

1) A man in a costume
2) A bipedal animal

It was not a bear or other known native animal, it was not an extraterrestrial creature, it was not a tree stump, it was not another animal mistaken in the dark, it was not a machine or robot, it was not another man-made object mistaken as a live being, and it was not a gorilla or other escaped ape. Fill in what I missed. It was not. It was either a man in a costume, or it was what the Native peoples in the region have described as and what we call a "bigfoot" or "sasquatch."

If anyone has any other possibilities, please fill me in.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Huntster

It can be only one of two things:

1) A man in a costume
2) A bipedal animal

No argument from me on that count. It was either human or non-human. However, labelling it a 'creature' implies it's non-human, which we cannot say with any certainty, so it's probably more accurate to refer to it as a 'subject'.

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RayG

No argument from me on that count. It was either human or non-human. However, labelling it a 'creature' implies it's non-human, which we cannot say with any certainty, so it's probably more accurate to refer to it as a 'subject'.

Correct. Poor wording on my part.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The best I could do is offer a theory of what happened based on known facts and speculation.

A theory describes the facts. I'm having trouble finding the facts in there.

<snip>

Titmus' casts are on display at the Willow Creek Museum, as I recall.

Quote:

Why are we still being deprived of the best evidence, which is the original film(s) and/or early copies of them? We would also like to examine the Dahinden Cibachromes taken from the original film.

Try checking with Patricia Patterson and Dahinden's sons. Erik Beckjord has a first generation copy. Did you ask him for it while he was here?

This is a Laverty photo you may not have seen:

[LAL]

Titmus cast 9 consecutive prints. These are photos of the casts:

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Melissa

Actually LAL, I find the Elkins Creek cast very interesting. I had the opportunity to see a copy in San Antonio - and I was impressed to say the least.

I hope you didnt think I was upset with you, Im not And, I appreciate all the support you have given.

I didn't think you were upset and I really appreciate you stepping in.

I've seen a copy of OM, and even with many air bubbles (which let me see what tube was talking about on those) I was startled to see irregular holes with rounded edges matching Krantz' description of what he took for sweat pores. I hadn't seen any discussion about OM having them. I'll be getting my own copy and a Freeman cast (that cast, I think), soon.

I'd love to see Elkins Creek.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

A theory describes the facts. I'm having trouble finding the facts in there.

A student of the PGF should have no trouble finding the facts and the speculation in my theory. One problem for anyone trying to tell the story of the PGF is that many of the described events are only known from P&G's testimony. Nobody but P&G would have known if they really did track Patty for 3.5 miles. The story of the PGF is nearly always told with the presumption that they told the truth about everything. But the real inquiry into the film always must ask the question of it being a real film of a real undocumented "Bigfoot". It means that P&G must always be suspects in creating a hoax.

Verifiable facts surrounding the PGF are fewer than might be imagined after hearing the typical story of the film and events. Many assumed facts are taken from the testimony of the two men who might have created the hoax and had incentive to tell lies about it.

We don't know the dates of the filming and the development of the two reels. We don't know if the "Patty encounter" occurred on October 20th. We don't know that Roger's camera ran out of film near the end of the Patty scene. We do know that Roger showed the Patty scene to a few invited viewers on October 22, but he only showed the Patty scene and nothing else. He didn't show what we call "Reel 2". The film was shown along with castings to the scientists at the University of British Columbia on October 26. Green & Dahinden were there. Green says Reel 2 was shown and Dahinden says it was not shown. Chris Murphy says Reel 2 vanished in the early 1970's.

We also know that virtually all professional organizations or other venues that were given showings and solicited for support - did not endorse its authenticity. Most were negative after their review. We know that we might be able to answer some important questions if we could conduct an open forensic inquiry upon the original film. This is also true but to a lesser extent for good early copies of the film. The public does not have access to any viewable version (film, VHS, DVD or digital movie) of the film that represents what watching the actual film would be like. The "Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science" producers were given access to a good early copy, but presented this only in portion and with altered aspect ratios.

[Skeptical Greg]

That's it it in a nut shell Mr. Parcher..
We can show patterson was a liar and a cheat, there is solid evidence for that..

That doesn't mean liars and cheats can't get lucky, but it does mean we really need to see receipts..

Originally Posted by William Parcher

...............................
The "Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science" producers were given access to a good early copy,.............

Apparently they chose not to use it .. The PGF I see in LMS looks like it was
cleaned up with a wire brush ..

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

.....That doesn't mean liars and cheats can't get lucky, but it does mean we really need to see receipts.......

Why bother with reciepts when the merchandise is in hand?

Of course, to accuse the shopper of shoplifting....................

[Melissa]

Not worth it.

Take care.