Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film - Page 290

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

An early PGF frame! I remember wondering what we'd see if it weren't cropped.

Maybe this?

LTC8K6 · 15th February 2008, 04:04 PM

WP, to be fair, there are frames where it's a little clearer in patty3.mov.

Skeptical Greg · 15th February 2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

....

I'm not assuming the FPS. Perfectfoot has been designated as Frame 61. Blockfoot is Frame 72.

Blockfoot should be visible on MM.

All I can do is try to count the seconds from perfect foot to block foot and extrapolate the frames.. I'll see what I get ...

( It just struck me how incredibly alien and cryptic that reply would be for someone who hasn't been following these discussions... )

LTC8K6 · 15th February 2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Maybe this?

Could be!

The cropped LMS version seems to have more detail.

I remember someone seeing gloves and a suit on the ground in that pile of leaves or whatever.

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 04:10 PM

LTC, I swear it looks like a wicker chair in patty3.mov. You can stop it in the first few seconds and see this. Davis should have caught that and used it to promote Patty as a wild human. She stole it from Louse Camp the night before.

rgann · 15th February 2008, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

To you guys who have the LMS : DVD,

Here is an exercise for you to compare LMS to something like the 'real deal' PGF.

Watch the Mysterious Monsters episode.

Pay close attention to 2:18 - 2:30. That's twelve seconds of film. Compare what you see in those 12 seconds to what you see in LMS for that segment of the Patty walk.

Is the LMS missing much of that 12 seconds?

William

Just watched the MM Episode, and something struck me as odd. At 2:02 (the rider scene going down a slope) the camera being used clearly zooms in on the rider. IIR this is suppose to be B roll stuff (not sure if its claimed to be second roll or beginning of first) for RP doc, I know there has been debate about where this is being shot and when, but doesn’t this point to a different camera? Everything I’ve seen and read about the K-100 is it had either 1 or 3 fixed lenses (turret style) without a zoom. Not sure if you guys have discussed this, if he did have a camera with a zoom why not use while filming Patty?

Rick

*Enjoying this last round of analysis

cresur · 15th February 2008, 05:19 PM

Pardon me for barging in, but what is going on at the right of these pictures?

i61. photobucket. com / albums / h72 / John_WS / JREF / Patty-LTC2. gif

i179. photobucket. com / albums / w310 / william_parcher / 74154760. jpg

I'm sorry about the spaces, but I can't post links yet.

There's something that appears to be blocking the log, and it looks almost humanoid, with an arm and everything. I read the thread but I didn't find any reference to it, so I'm curious.

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 05:31 PM

Hi Rick,

We discussed that zoomy bit briefly here in this thread. We decided that the producers of MM chose to zoom in on that rider. You can see that same thing happen at 0:31, as they zoom in on a still photo of a blobsquatch.

The irony is that folks were thinking that that was Roger. It turns out that this is really Jerry Merritt (riding behind Bob Heironimus). It seems like we (JREF) were the first to properly identify that rider. Or, at least the first to make it known.

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 05:38 PM

Hi cresur,

That thingie over on the right is discussed in this post. In that post is a link to a YouTube clip that shows it much better. It seems to be a branch sticking up out of the sand. Gimlin mentioned that Patterson steadied himself once on a log. This might be the one.

cresur · 15th February 2008, 05:51 PM

Yes, that was very clear. Thanks!

Geno · 15th February 2008, 05:59 PM

The rifle Gimlin is holding looks like a lever action with a long barrel to me. Notice how Gimlin wears a headband just like the Indian guide in the movie "Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot" by Ron Olson.

I also looks like Gimlin is on the same horse in the "actors" picture.

Geno · 15th February 2008, 06:58 PM

This is from D Perez's booklet on bigfoot at Bluff Creek. If the film is copyrighted by Dahinden then it may be his copy that is the same generation as Green's copy. Looks quite a bit different from LMS.

rgann · 15th February 2008, 07:16 PM

William

Thanks for the heads up, I completely recall the who’s who segment of the thread (I typically check this thread daily to my wifes dismay), and the fact that the rider was identified as Jerry Merritt (a pretty famous rockabilly musician) was interesting.

I will go back thru the thread and find that section and re-check the consensus, if you would indulge me and review that section on YouTube (starting at 1:54) I would like to try and change your mind. First and foremost to my eyes it looks like a pan left, quick camera zoom in, and then a slight reframe by camera operator, not an effect, (was this even possible at the time?) Given that MM was produced 1975-76 I am really skeptical of the claim that the zoom was something that was done in post production. At first glance the MM Documentary looks like itself was shot on film (pretty sure on this), IIR it was part of a double feature theatrical release with Legend of Bogey Creek. Given that the PGF footage would have been footage supplied by a PGF rights holder (who knows who that was?) and that the rider sequence was really the set up for the big reveal of Patty, I can’t see why MM would go to the trouble and expense to do a post production zoom on that particular shot (not an enlargement but a pan-zoom-reframe simulation NYPD Blue style), why would they modify someone else’s footage with an effect that doesn’t add to the narrative? In regards to “blobsquatch” zoom at: 31, as you stated that appears to be a zoom by the MM film camera on a still photograph, something MM would have done in studio for affect.

I haven’t really given much thought to how this fits into the narrative or if it’s even a interesting detail/discrepancy. I will I promise.

Rick

Hitch · 15th February 2008, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by rgann

William

Thanks for the heads up, I completely recall the who’s who segment of the thread (I typically check this thread daily to my wifes dismay), and the fact that the rider was identified as Jerry Merritt (a pretty famous rockabilly musician) was interesting.

I will go back thru the thread and find that section and re-check the consensus, if you would indulge me and review that section on YouTube (starting at 1:54) I would like to try and change your mind. First and foremost to my eyes it looks like a pan left, quick camera zoom in, and then a slight reframe by camera operator, not an effect, (was this even possible at the time?) Given that MM was produced 1975-76 I am really skeptical of the claim that the zoom was something that was done in post production. At first glance the MM Documentary looks like itself was shot on film (pretty sure on this), IIR it was part of a double feature theatrical release with Legend of Bogey Creek. Given that the PGF footage would have been footage supplied by a PGF rights holder (who knows who that was?) and that the rider sequence was really the set up for the big reveal of Patty, I can’t see why MM would go to the trouble and expense to do a post production zoom on that particular shot (not an enlargement but a pan-zoom-reframe simulation NYPD Blue style), why would they modify someone else’s footage with an effect that doesn’t add to the narrative? In regards to “blobsquatch” zoom at: 31, as you stated that appears to be a zoom by the MM film camera on a still photograph, something MM would have done in studio for affect.

I haven’t really given much thought to how this fits into the narrative or if it’s even a interesting detail/discrepancy. I will I promise.

Rick

The key thing about that footage is not whether the pan was done in camera or post-production. The important thing is there was a camera operator filming two men on horseback. The footage is presented as additional footage from the reel that includes "Patty." That it simply cannot be. (Not if we believe the official story that only Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek when "Patty" was filmed.) There's no one left to be the camera operator, so that shot is bogus. Which leaves us to wonder what else is bogus.

rgann · 15th February 2008, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hitch

The key thing about that footage is not whether the pan was done in camera or post-production. The important thing is there was a camera operator filming two men on horseback. The footage is presented as additional footage from the reel that includes "Patty." That it simply cannot be. (Not if we believe the official story that only Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek when "Patty" was filmed.) There's no one left to be the camera operator, so that shot is bogus. Which leaves us to wonder what else is bogus.

I agree with your overall take on this segment.

I guess I am trying unsuccessfully to say that RP must have had a second camera with a zoom or maybe the k-100 was not the model he used to shoot Patty. Does it matter? I don’t know, but anytime someone asks about the camera used to shoot patty the k-100 is trotted out. If someone claims this footage is from the beginning of roll one or from the elusive roll two and shot on the k-100, I think I might disagree based on the zoom.

Thanks
Rick

Hitch · 15th February 2008, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by rgann

I agree with your overall take on this segment.

I guess I am trying unsuccessfully to say that RP must have had a second camera with a zoom or maybe the k-100 was not the model he used to shoot Patty. Does it matter? I don’t know, but anytime someone asks about the camera used to shoot patty the k-100 is trotted out. If someone claims this footage is from the beginning of roll one or from the elusive roll two and shot on the k-100, I think I might disagree based on the zoom.

Thanks
Rick

Or the producers of Bigfoot documentaries just grab any old footage of Yakima cowboys and pass it off as part of the PGF whether it's related or not.

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Geno

The rifle Gimlin is holding looks like a lever action with a long barrel to me. Notice how Gimlin wears a headband just like the Indian guide in the movie "Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot" by Ron Olson.

I also looks like Gimlin is on the same horse in the "actors" picture.

Thanks again for that scan of the Argosy cover.

To me, Gimlin's gun looks strangely long to be a typical American lever-action .30-06. It could just be an illusion. But I'm not seeing anything like a forearm for quite a bit of its barrel length. It reminds me of a musket. Were there any lever action .30-06 muskets? I'm too lazy at the moment to look up Winchester, Remington, and Marlin for this.

It seems like Olson copied Gimlin's Indian look for his own production. That actor was called Tekka Blackhawk or Techa-Blackhawk (Dfoot used both names).

I'm pretty sure that gray horse was Gimlin's own. It's on the cover of Argosy, in the 'actors' shot, and may possibly be seen in the "Ape Canyon" shot.

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by rgann

William

Thanks for the heads up, I completely recall the who’s who segment of the thread (I typically check this thread daily to my wifes dismay), and the fact that the rider was identified as Jerry Merritt (a pretty famous rockabilly musician) was interesting.

I will go back thru the thread and find that section and re-check the consensus, if you would indulge me and review that section on YouTube (starting at 1:54) I would like to try and change your mind. First and foremost to my eyes it looks like a pan left, quick camera zoom in, and then a slight reframe by camera operator, not an effect, (was this even possible at the time?) Given that MM was produced 1975-76 I am really skeptical of the claim that the zoom was something that was done in post production. At first glance the MM Documentary looks like itself was shot on film (pretty sure on this), IIR it was part of a double feature theatrical release with Legend of Bogey Creek. Given that the PGF footage would have been footage supplied by a PGF rights holder (who knows who that was?) and that the rider sequence was really the set up for the big reveal of Patty, I can’t see why MM would go to the trouble and expense to do a post production zoom on that particular shot (not an enlargement but a pan-zoom-reframe simulation NYPD Blue style), why would they modify someone else’s footage with an effect that doesn’t add to the narrative? In regards to “blobsquatch” zoom at: 31, as you stated that appears to be a zoom by the MM film camera on a still photograph, something MM would have done in studio for affect.

I haven’t really given much thought to how this fits into the narrative or if it’s even a interesting detail/discrepancy. I will I promise.

Hi Rick,

I understood everything you wrote. I still doubt that Patterson had a zoom lens on any camera he may have used. That would have been an exotic and very expensive lens for a 16mm in 1967. The lens itself would probably be worth more than the body. I really don't have much rider footage at all, since I only get what I see on the web. I haven't seen anything that looks to be zoomed by the camera operator. It would seem like if Roger had a zoom lens, he didn't use it much at all. We know he got in trouble with the law for not returning and paying rental for a K-100 that he had for a long time prior to, and after, Oct. 20, 1967.

Watch the MM episode again. There is another zoomed scene in the PGF bit. During the Patty walk, a frame stops and the zooming begins. It slowly tightens in, and you can see a bit of subtle twitching as it does. That suggests that a person is manually turning a zoom lens (even one on a tripod-mounted camera will twitch like that when you have close-up magnification). These zooms could have been done by MM, or possibly somebody else did it with the copy that was provided to MM. Olson may have provided that copy to MM and he had that zooming done at his production facility. It's sort of a 'ready for general audience' copy that was made in advance, and includes zooms, still frames, and possibly slow motion scenes.

These are guesses, but there may be ways to get to the answers.

William Parcher · 15th February 2008, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Hitch

The key thing about that footage is not whether the pan was done in camera or post-production. The important thing is there was a camera operator filming two men on horseback. The footage is presented as additional footage from the reel that includes "Patty." That it simply cannot be. (Not if we believe the official story that only Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek when "Patty" was filmed.) There's no one left to be the camera operator, so that shot is bogus. Which leaves us to wonder what else is bogus.

Hitch, your points are not justified by what we know. These are things that are not in dispute by anyone (believers or skeptics). You are talking about the two guys (plus packhorse) riding down the hill at the beginning PGF scene on MM. This is Bob Heironimus (in front) and Jerry Merritt. That scene was filmed in Washington well before October 20, 1967. We don't know who was holding the camera, but there is no good reason to doubt that it was Roger Patterson. He was in the process of making his 'Bigfoot documentary' and had a number of guys that were with him at various times. The 'actors' shot may show most or all of the different guys that could possibly be seen in any of these various riding footages.

Whenever you see Roger on camera, somebody else was holding it. When he is on film riding at Bluff Creek, California, we presume that Bob Gimlin is holding the camera.

So, nothing is really bogus (per se) about any ancillary footages. A bogus scene would be one that shows Patterson and Gimlin riding together at Bluff Creek. We don't see that anywhere.

The question of what scenes are on what reels is a separate and somewhat complicated issue.

LTC8K6 · 15th February 2008, 10:14 PM

Possibly a Henry rifle or a copy or a stage prop version of one?

They had no forestock, making the barrel appear longer than normal.

http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/1860_henry_rifle.jpg

LTC8K6 · 15th February 2008, 10:21 PM

http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1860Henry.tpl

Copies of the original Henry rifle.

manofthesea · 15th February 2008, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Hmmm.....I Googled "manofthesea Hawaii" and came up with some interesting hits. Unfortunately, I can't open the links from work. Maybe others can.

Four months, what's the delay?

LTC8K6 · 15th February 2008, 10:43 PM

Well, it can't be an original 1860 Henry, and modern copies weren't available until the late 1970's. So, it's very unlikely to be a Henry.

Some Winchesters had a very thin forestock, though.

My guess is that it's not Gimlin's 30-06 at all, but a rifle picked for the movie.

Crowlogic · 15th February 2008, 10:46 PM

Most if not all zoom in the PGF is post production zoom. When you see a full frame from the PGF the overall area captured in very large and the Bobsquatch is pretty small.

manofthesea · 16th February 2008, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

It could ony be labelled as nonsense if:
(a) Bigfeet are proven to exist;

(b) There are enough reliable pieces of evidence pointing (or proof) that some human diseases can be transmitted to bigfeet;

(c) There are reliable evidences pointing (or proof) that at least one of these diseases can affect bigfeet population.

Since as far as I know, none of the above conditions have been met at the time of writing, assuming human diseases can pass to bigfeet and impact their population is nothing but speculation. Baseless or wild speculation, I would say.

Feel free to demonstrate I am wrong.

BTW, if you can't demonstrate I am wrong, I would like to know why you raised this issue now. I would also to ask you to adopt a less aggressive tone, if you are really interested in debating this idea.

Livescience.com, 30 January, 2008
"Human Viruses Kill Great Apes" (title of article)
"Virtually all diseases that can harm us can harm the great apes since we share so many genetic and physiologic properties".
Fabian Leendertz, wildlife epidemiologist, Robert Koch-Institute and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

Raising the issue now because one can only presume to nudge science, not rush it.

clayflingythingy · 16th February 2008, 08:11 AM

[quote=William Parcher;3439939]
To me, Gimlin's gun looks strangely long to be a typical American lever-action .30-06. It could just be an illusion. But I'm not seeing anything like a forearm for quite a bit of its barrel length. It reminds me of a musket. Were there any lever action .30-06 muskets? I'm too lazy at the moment to look up Winchester, Remington, and Marlin for this.

QUOTE]

The only lever action 30-06 available in the 1960's was the long discontinued Winchester 1895 with box magazine. Lever action muskets have forestocks extending almost to the end of the barrel. I can't see enuff detail to tell you what Indian Bob is carrying.

clayflingythingy · 16th February 2008, 08:17 AM

This may fall into the dumb question catagory but why does the Argosy cover in post #11480 refer to patty as Ca's Abombinable Snowman?

The terms bigfoot and Sasquatch postdate the magazine?

Correa Neto · 16th February 2008, 08:23 AM

OK, lets do real science.

Lets start dumping every single bit of unreliable data used to support the claim "bigfeet are real"- PGF, blobsquatches, footprint casts, Skookum cast, buttprint casts, hand casts, eyewitnesses reports, etc. Oh, you will also want to dump all the baseless speculations such as human diseases affecting populations of an animal whose existence is (highly) unlikely.

Ready to start?

William Parcher · 16th February 2008, 09:23 AM

About Gimlin's gun(s) - We are getting ourselves confused when we should not.

There are two questions:

1) What might be the ".30-06 rifle" that Gimlin says he was carrying during the Patty encounter?

2) What might be the gun that Gimlin is holding on the cover of Argosy magazine?

Gimlin has always spoken of having a .30-06 rifle with himself at Bluff Creek and during the Patty encounter at Bluff Creek. I do not think he has ever mentioned the make, model or action. There is really no reason for us to think it was a lever-action rifle (that would be a very odd gun). He must have had a bolt-action, or a semi-auto. These were certainly available by different makers during this era. I have never seen this rifle in any footage of Gimlin associated with the PGF.

The gun that he is holding on the cover of Argosy is no kind of .30-06 rifle. I suspect that this may be a genuine or replica "Kentucky rifle", or another muzzleloader of that design. The key visual is that long thick barrel with no indication of a conventional forestock. This could be the full small-diameter stock that runs the length of a "Kentucky-style rifle" (giving it a uniform thickness over the whole length). It could also be a thick octagon barrel with no forestock that is associated with some muzzleloaders. Regardless of what it actually is, an old-style muzzleloading rifle would be a great prop for a guy who is acting the part of an "Indian Tracker". He already has the wig, the headband, the high moccasins. I don't see a scabbard on the visible side, and I'm not sure what the saddle/stirrup situation is there (only a blanket?).

Skeptical Greg · 16th February 2008, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy

This may fall into the dumb question catagory but why does the Argosy cover in post #11480 refer to patty as Ca's Abombinable Snowman?

Just crypto-jargon, trying to get readers to relate to a well known term.
The Himalayan ' Yeti ' ( Abominable Snowman ) had received some publicity prior to this ..
Also, Patterson had authored a book entitled " Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist "

Quote:

The terms bigfoot and Sasquatch postdate the magazine?

No, they were in common use before the film, going back to at least the late 50's ...

Drewbot · 16th February 2008, 11:13 AM

The rifle in the Argosy Pic, looks too short to be a Musket. But I do not see much of a stock. There are some pics if you do a Google Image search for "30-06 rifle 1967 western field" I can't upload them because I'm not at my base of operations.

Some of them have short stocks and exposed barrels.

manofthesea · 16th February 2008, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

OK, lets do real science.

Lets start dumping every single bit of unreliable data used to support the claim "bigfeet are real"- PGF, blobsquatches, footprint casts, Skookum cast, buttprint casts, hand casts, eyewitnesses reports, etc. Oh, you will also want to dump all the baseless speculations such as human diseases affecting populations of an animal whose existence is (highly) unlikely.

Ready to start?

Welcome to the bandwagon. If you've watched any of 'bigfoot shows' on TV you'd have noticed that DNA analysis is the issue now. "Close to human" ring a bell?

Can you grasp reality? Just being in close proximity to humans could very well allow transmission of some human diseases. Read the link. Read it again. Try to understand what it is saying.

William Parcher · 16th February 2008, 11:29 AM

Here are some conventional bolt-actions (using your suggested ".30-06 rifle 1967 western field" search). To me, they don't like what Gimlin is holding.

Crowlogic · 16th February 2008, 08:04 PM

Does it matter what rifle Gimlin? is holding in the picture? Its obviously not from Bluff Creek. Is it really even Gimlin. Could be the other guy they dressed up later. I can't believe that all these guys were posing for photos and hanging out with Patterson on his field trips and not getting payed.

LTC8K6 · 16th February 2008, 09:55 PM

This is from a post on another board. I was wondering if anyone had this book that apparently has another Gimlin interview in it.

Quote:

An extract from the wonderful present I received when I was 12 years old, christmas 1994, 'The Encyclopedia Of The Unexplained' by Reuben Stone:

'On 20 October 1967 Roger Patterson & Bob Gimlin of Yakima, Washington, went to Bluff Creek (in northern California, notorious for large footprints & other dubious evidence) in the hope of catching sight of a bigfoot after hearing that tracks had been seen in the area. They went on horseback, and were 50 or 50 miles from the nearest road when they rounded a bend on the trail and came to a creek. In Grimlin's words: 'Here this thing stood by the creek, just stood. We were on one side of the creek, the creature on the other and our horses went crazy. Roger's little horse just went bananas.'

Patterson managed to haul out the 16-mm movie camera, loaded with colour film, that he was carrying in his saddlebag.

'This creature turned', said Grimlin, 'and started to walk away from us, just slow like a man would if he were just walking down the street, but as it did this, Roger ran across the creek behind it, but then he stumbled on a sandbad...he was shooting the camera whilst he was running. He hollered back for me when he stumbled and fell. He said "Cover me!" And, naturally, I knew what he meant.

'So I rode across the creek on my horse and took my .30-06 rifle out of the saddle scabbard and just stood there (pointing but not aiming the rifle at the beast). When I did this, this creature was...about 90 feet (away)- and it turned and looked at me; just turned as it was walking away. It never stopped walking. And then...I heard Roger say, "Oh my god, I ran out of film."'

Gimlin remains adamant that he and Patterson saw a bigfoot that day.'

LTC8K6 · 16th February 2008, 10:05 PM

Stone wrote Mysteries of the Unexplained, and Encyclopedia of the Unexplained, among other books. That poster must be referring to Mysteries, because Encyclopedia apparently wasn't published until 1999. Mysteries was 1993.

William Parcher · 16th February 2008, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

WP,

The order in LMS is:

WP3
WP2
WP1
WP4

Greg, you should see this order in LMS:

WP5
WP3
WP2
WP1
WP4

Late entry...

WP5 (note the overexposure; possibly first frame after starting camera)

sgoodman72 · 16th February 2008, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Greg, you should see this order in LMS:

WP5
WP3
WP2
WP1
WP4

Late entry...

WP5 (note the overexposure; possibly first frame after starting camera)
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/75d5654a.jpg

Where is Patty is WP5?

Skeptical Greg · 17th February 2008, 09:26 AM

WP,
Agreed, that is the first frame after the ' tent poles'..

sgoodman72,

Fuzzy Patty is almost centered in the frame.. If you compare it to WP3 she is in the same spot..

Skeptical Greg · 17th February 2008, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Crowlogic

........... I can't believe that all these guys were posing for photos and hanging out with Patterson on his field trips and not getting payed.

What's so hard to believe ?

Patterson was a con man.. He got all kinds of people to do all kinds of things for free..

He was making a movie ! Everyone would be a star !

Back then an handshake was as good as anything on paper .. ( for most people )

He promised BH $,1000 . BH Believed him . The average annual wage was around $6,000 ..

15th February 2008, 04:03 PM	#11561
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 An early PGF frame! I remember wondering what we'd see if it weren't cropped. Maybe this?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th February 2008, 04:04 PM	#11562
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	WP, to be fair, there are frames where it's a little clearer in patty3.mov.
	__________________ 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?

15th February 2008, 04:06 PM	#11563
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by William Parcher .... I'm not assuming the FPS. Perfectfoot has been designated as Frame 61. Blockfoot is Frame 72. Blockfoot should be visible on MM. All I can do is try to count the seconds from perfect foot to block foot and extrapolate the frames.. I'll see what I get ... ( It just struck me how incredibly alien and cryptic that reply would be for someone who hasn't been following these discussions... )
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

15th February 2008, 04:07 PM	#11564
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: Maybe this? Could be! The cropped LMS version seems to have more detail. I remember someone seeing gloves and a suit on the ground in that pile of leaves or whatever.
	__________________ 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?

15th February 2008, 04:10 PM	#11565
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	LTC, I swear it looks like a wicker chair in patty3.mov. You can stop it in the first few seconds and see this. Davis should have caught that and used it to promote Patty as a wild human. She stole it from Louse Camp the night before.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th February 2008, 05:04 PM	#11566
rgann Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58	Originally Posted by William Parcher To you guys who have the LMS : DVD, Here is an exercise for you to compare LMS to something like the 'real deal' PGF. Watch the Mysterious Monsters episode. Pay close attention to 2:18 - 2:30. That's twelve seconds of film. Compare what you see in those 12 seconds to what you see in LMS for that segment of the Patty walk. Is the LMS missing much of that 12 seconds? William Just watched the MM Episode, and something struck me as odd. At 2:02 (the rider scene going down a slope) the camera being used clearly zooms in on the rider. IIR this is suppose to be B roll stuff (not sure if its claimed to be second roll or beginning of first) for RP doc, I know there has been debate about where this is being shot and when, but doesn’t this point to a different camera? Everything I’ve seen and read about the K-100 is it had either 1 or 3 fixed lenses (turret style) without a zoom. Not sure if you guys have discussed this, if he did have a camera with a zoom why not use while filming Patty? Rick *Enjoying this last round of analysis
rgann Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58

15th February 2008, 05:19 PM	#11567
cresur Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 78	Excuse me... Pardon me for barging in, but what is going on at the right of these pictures? i61. photobucket. com / albums / h72 / John_WS / JREF / Patty-LTC2. gif i179. photobucket. com / albums / w310 / william_parcher / 74154760. jpg I'm sorry about the spaces, but I can't post links yet. There's something that appears to be blocking the log, and it looks almost humanoid, with an arm and everything. I read the thread but I didn't find any reference to it, so I'm curious.
cresur Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 78

15th February 2008, 05:31 PM	#11568
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Hi Rick, We discussed that zoomy bit briefly here in this thread. We decided that the producers of MM chose to zoom in on that rider. You can see that same thing happen at 0:31, as they zoom in on a still photo of a blobsquatch. The irony is that folks were thinking that that was Roger. It turns out that this is really Jerry Merritt (riding behind Bob Heironimus). It seems like we (JREF) were the first to properly identify that rider. Or, at least the first to make it known.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th February 2008, 05:38 PM	#11569
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Hi cresur, That thingie over on the right is discussed in this post. In that post is a link to a YouTube clip that shows it much better. It seems to be a branch sticking up out of the sand. Gimlin mentioned that Patterson steadied himself once on a log. This might be the one.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th February 2008, 05:51 PM	#11570
cresur Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 78	Yes, that was very clear. Thanks!
cresur Scholar Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 78

15th February 2008, 05:59 PM	#11571
Geno Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 69	The rifle Gimlin is holding looks like a lever action with a long barrel to me. Notice how Gimlin wears a headband just like the Indian guide in the movie "Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot" by Ron Olson. I also looks like Gimlin is on the same horse in the "actors" picture.
Geno Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 69	Last edited by Geno; 15th February 2008 at 06:03 PM. Reason: extra thought

15th February 2008, 07:16 PM	#11573
rgann Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58	William Thanks for the heads up, I completely recall the who’s who segment of the thread (I typically check this thread daily to my wifes dismay), and the fact that the rider was identified as Jerry Merritt (a pretty famous rockabilly musician) was interesting. I will go back thru the thread and find that section and re-check the consensus, if you would indulge me and review that section on YouTube (starting at 1:54) I would like to try and change your mind. First and foremost to my eyes it looks like a pan left, quick camera zoom in, and then a slight reframe by camera operator, not an effect, (was this even possible at the time?) Given that MM was produced 1975-76 I am really skeptical of the claim that the zoom was something that was done in post production. At first glance the MM Documentary looks like itself was shot on film (pretty sure on this), IIR it was part of a double feature theatrical release with Legend of Bogey Creek. Given that the PGF footage would have been footage supplied by a PGF rights holder (who knows who that was?) and that the rider sequence was really the set up for the big reveal of Patty, I can’t see why MM would go to the trouble and expense to do a post production zoom on that particular shot (not an enlargement but a pan-zoom-reframe simulation NYPD Blue style), why would they modify someone else’s footage with an effect that doesn’t add to the narrative? In regards to “blobsquatch” zoom at: 31, as you stated that appears to be a zoom by the MM film camera on a still photograph, something MM would have done in studio for affect. I haven’t really given much thought to how this fits into the narrative or if it’s even a interesting detail/discrepancy. I will I promise. Rick
rgann Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58	Last edited by rgann; 15th February 2008 at 07:18 PM. Reason: clarity

15th February 2008, 07:23 PM	#11574
Hitch Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 661	Originally Posted by rgann William Thanks for the heads up, I completely recall the who’s who segment of the thread (I typically check this thread daily to my wifes dismay), and the fact that the rider was identified as Jerry Merritt (a pretty famous rockabilly musician) was interesting. I will go back thru the thread and find that section and re-check the consensus, if you would indulge me and review that section on YouTube (starting at 1:54) I would like to try and change your mind. First and foremost to my eyes it looks like a pan left, quick camera zoom in, and then a slight reframe by camera operator, not an effect, (was this even possible at the time?) Given that MM was produced 1975-76 I am really skeptical of the claim that the zoom was something that was done in post production. At first glance the MM Documentary looks like itself was shot on film (pretty sure on this), IIR it was part of a double feature theatrical release with Legend of Bogey Creek. Given that the PGF footage would have been footage supplied by a PGF rights holder (who knows who that was?) and that the rider sequence was really the set up for the big reveal of Patty, I can’t see why MM would go to the trouble and expense to do a post production zoom on that particular shot (not an enlargement but a pan-zoom-reframe simulation NYPD Blue style), why would they modify someone else’s footage with an effect that doesn’t add to the narrative? In regards to “blobsquatch” zoom at: 31, as you stated that appears to be a zoom by the MM film camera on a still photograph, something MM would have done in studio for affect. I haven’t really given much thought to how this fits into the narrative or if it’s even a interesting detail/discrepancy. I will I promise. Rick The key thing about that footage is not whether the pan was done in camera or post-production. The important thing is there was a camera operator filming two men on horseback. The footage is presented as additional footage from the reel that includes "Patty." That it simply cannot be. (Not if we believe the official story that only Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek when "Patty" was filmed.) There's no one left to be the camera operator, so that shot is bogus. Which leaves us to wonder what else is bogus.
Hitch Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 661

15th February 2008, 07:58 PM	#11575
rgann Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58	Originally Posted by Hitch The key thing about that footage is not whether the pan was done in camera or post-production. The important thing is there was a camera operator filming two men on horseback. The footage is presented as additional footage from the reel that includes "Patty." That it simply cannot be. (Not if we believe the official story that only Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek when "Patty" was filmed.) There's no one left to be the camera operator, so that shot is bogus. Which leaves us to wonder what else is bogus. I agree with your overall take on this segment. I guess I am trying unsuccessfully to say that RP must have had a second camera with a zoom or maybe the k-100 was not the model he used to shoot Patty. Does it matter? I don’t know, but anytime someone asks about the camera used to shoot patty the k-100 is trotted out. If someone claims this footage is from the beginning of roll one or from the elusive roll two and shot on the k-100, I think I might disagree based on the zoom. Thanks Rick
rgann Scholar Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58	Last edited by rgann; 15th February 2008 at 08:11 PM. Reason: clarity

15th February 2008, 08:41 PM	#11576
Hitch Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 661	Originally Posted by rgann I agree with your overall take on this segment. I guess I am trying unsuccessfully to say that RP must have had a second camera with a zoom or maybe the k-100 was not the model he used to shoot Patty. Does it matter? I don’t know, but anytime someone asks about the camera used to shoot patty the k-100 is trotted out. If someone claims this footage is from the beginning of roll one or from the elusive roll two and shot on the k-100, I think I might disagree based on the zoom. Thanks Rick Or the producers of Bigfoot documentaries just grab any old footage of Yakima cowboys and pass it off as part of the PGF whether it's related or not.
Hitch Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 661

15th February 2008, 09:07 PM	#11577
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by Geno The rifle Gimlin is holding looks like a lever action with a long barrel to me. Notice how Gimlin wears a headband just like the Indian guide in the movie "Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot" by Ron Olson. I also looks like Gimlin is on the same horse in the "actors" picture. Thanks again for that scan of the Argosy cover. To me, Gimlin's gun looks strangely long to be a typical American lever-action .30-06. It could just be an illusion. But I'm not seeing anything like a forearm for quite a bit of its barrel length. It reminds me of a musket. Were there any lever action .30-06 muskets? I'm too lazy at the moment to look up Winchester, Remington, and Marlin for this. It seems like Olson copied Gimlin's Indian look for his own production. That actor was called Tekka Blackhawk or Techa-Blackhawk (Dfoot used both names). I'm pretty sure that gray horse was Gimlin's own. It's on the cover of Argosy, in the 'actors' shot, and may possibly be seen in the "Ape Canyon" shot.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th February 2008, 09:24 PM	#11578
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by rgann William Thanks for the heads up, I completely recall the who’s who segment of the thread (I typically check this thread daily to my wifes dismay), and the fact that the rider was identified as Jerry Merritt (a pretty famous rockabilly musician) was interesting. I will go back thru the thread and find that section and re-check the consensus, if you would indulge me and review that section on YouTube (starting at 1:54) I would like to try and change your mind. First and foremost to my eyes it looks like a pan left, quick camera zoom in, and then a slight reframe by camera operator, not an effect, (was this even possible at the time?) Given that MM was produced 1975-76 I am really skeptical of the claim that the zoom was something that was done in post production. At first glance the MM Documentary looks like itself was shot on film (pretty sure on this), IIR it was part of a double feature theatrical release with Legend of Bogey Creek. Given that the PGF footage would have been footage supplied by a PGF rights holder (who knows who that was?) and that the rider sequence was really the set up for the big reveal of Patty, I can’t see why MM would go to the trouble and expense to do a post production zoom on that particular shot (not an enlargement but a pan-zoom-reframe simulation NYPD Blue style), why would they modify someone else’s footage with an effect that doesn’t add to the narrative? In regards to “blobsquatch” zoom at: 31, as you stated that appears to be a zoom by the MM film camera on a still photograph, something MM would have done in studio for affect. I haven’t really given much thought to how this fits into the narrative or if it’s even a interesting detail/discrepancy. I will I promise. Hi Rick, I understood everything you wrote. I still doubt that Patterson had a zoom lens on any camera he may have used. That would have been an exotic and very expensive lens for a 16mm in 1967. The lens itself would probably be worth more than the body. I really don't have much rider footage at all, since I only get what I see on the web. I haven't seen anything that looks to be zoomed by the camera operator. It would seem like if Roger had a zoom lens, he didn't use it much at all. We know he got in trouble with the law for not returning and paying rental for a K-100 that he had for a long time prior to, and after, Oct. 20, 1967. Watch the MM episode again. There is another zoomed scene in the PGF bit. During the Patty walk, a frame stops and the zooming begins. It slowly tightens in, and you can see a bit of subtle twitching as it does. That suggests that a person is manually turning a zoom lens (even one on a tripod-mounted camera will twitch like that when you have close-up magnification). These zooms could have been done by MM, or possibly somebody else did it with the copy that was provided to MM. Olson may have provided that copy to MM and he had that zooming done at his production facility. It's sort of a 'ready for general audience' copy that was made in advance, and includes zooms, still frames, and possibly slow motion scenes. These are guesses, but there may be ways to get to the answers.
	__________________ 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; 15th February 2008 at 09:25 PM.

15th February 2008, 09:47 PM	#11579
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by Hitch The key thing about that footage is not whether the pan was done in camera or post-production. The important thing is there was a camera operator filming two men on horseback. The footage is presented as additional footage from the reel that includes "Patty." That it simply cannot be. (Not if we believe the official story that only Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek when "Patty" was filmed.) There's no one left to be the camera operator, so that shot is bogus. Which leaves us to wonder what else is bogus. Hitch, your points are not justified by what we know. These are things that are not in dispute by anyone (believers or skeptics). You are talking about the two guys (plus packhorse) riding down the hill at the beginning PGF scene on MM. This is Bob Heironimus (in front) and Jerry Merritt. That scene was filmed in Washington well before October 20, 1967. We don't know who was holding the camera, but there is no good reason to doubt that it was Roger Patterson. He was in the process of making his 'Bigfoot documentary' and had a number of guys that were with him at various times. The 'actors' shot may show most or all of the different guys that could possibly be seen in any of these various riding footages. Whenever you see Roger on camera, somebody else was holding it. When he is on film riding at Bluff Creek, California, we presume that Bob Gimlin is holding the camera. So, nothing is really bogus (per se) about any ancillary footages. A bogus scene would be one that shows Patterson and Gimlin riding together at Bluff Creek. We don't see that anywhere. The question of what scenes are on what reels is a separate and somewhat complicated issue.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th February 2008, 10:14 PM	#11580
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Possibly a Henry rifle or a copy or a stage prop version of one? They had no forestock, making the barrel appear longer than normal. http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/1860_henry_rifle.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?

15th February 2008, 10:21 PM	#11581
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1860Henry.tpl Copies of the original Henry rifle.
	__________________ 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?

15th February 2008, 10:22 PM	#11582
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: In Your Head Posts: 958	Were You Trying To Personalize This? Originally Posted by GT/CS Hmmm.....I Googled "manofthesea Hawaii" and came up with some interesting hits. Unfortunately, I can't open the links from work. Maybe others can. Four months, what's the delay?
	__________________ That sounds like a lot of, yup you guessed it, google searching pseudoscience.

15th February 2008, 10:43 PM	#11583
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Well, it can't be an original 1860 Henry, and modern copies weren't available until the late 1970's. So, it's very unlikely to be a Henry. Some Winchesters had a very thin forestock, though. My guess is that it's not Gimlin's 30-06 at all, but a rifle picked for the movie.
	__________________ 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?

15th February 2008, 10:46 PM	#11584
Crowlogic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Crows Nest At Large Posts: 1,378	Most if not all zoom in the PGF is post production zoom. When you see a full frame from the PGF the overall area captured in very large and the Bobsquatch is pretty small.

16th February 2008, 04:50 AM	#11585
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: In Your Head Posts: 958	How About a Little Bit of Real Science? Originally Posted by Correa Neto It could ony be labelled as nonsense if: (a) Bigfeet are proven to exist; (b) There are enough reliable pieces of evidence pointing (or proof) that some human diseases can be transmitted to bigfeet; (c) There are reliable evidences pointing (or proof) that at least one of these diseases can affect bigfeet population. Since as far as I know, none of the above conditions have been met at the time of writing, assuming human diseases can pass to bigfeet and impact their population is nothing but speculation. Baseless or wild speculation, I would say. Feel free to demonstrate I am wrong. BTW, if you can't demonstrate I am wrong, I would like to know why you raised this issue now. I would also to ask you to adopt a less aggressive tone, if you are really interested in debating this idea. Livescience.com, 30 January, 2008 "Human Viruses Kill Great Apes" (title of article) "Virtually all diseases that can harm us can harm the great apes since we share so many genetic and physiologic properties". Fabian Leendertz, wildlife epidemiologist, Robert Koch-Institute and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany. Raising the issue now because one can only presume to nudge science, not rush it.
	__________________ That sounds like a lot of, yup you guessed it, google searching pseudoscience. Last edited by manofthesea; 16th February 2008 at 04:52 AM.

16th February 2008, 08:11 AM	#11586
clayflingythingy Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 133	[quote=William Parcher;3439939] To me, Gimlin's gun looks strangely long to be a typical American lever-action .30-06. It could just be an illusion. But I'm not seeing anything like a forearm for quite a bit of its barrel length. It reminds me of a musket. Were there any lever action .30-06 muskets? I'm too lazy at the moment to look up Winchester, Remington, and Marlin for this. QUOTE] The only lever action 30-06 available in the 1960's was the long discontinued Winchester 1895 with box magazine. Lever action muskets have forestocks extending almost to the end of the barrel. I can't see enuff detail to tell you what Indian Bob is carrying.
clayflingythingy Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 133

16th February 2008, 08:17 AM	#11587
clayflingythingy Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 133	This may fall into the dumb question catagory but why does the Argosy cover in post #11480 refer to patty as Ca's Abombinable Snowman? The terms bigfoot and Sasquatch postdate the magazine?
clayflingythingy Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 133

16th February 2008, 08:23 AM	#11588
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Digging for Au somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,094	OK, lets do real science. Lets start dumping every single bit of unreliable data used to support the claim "bigfeet are real"- PGF, blobsquatches, footprint casts, Skookum cast, buttprint casts, hand casts, eyewitnesses reports, etc. Oh, you will also want to dump all the baseless speculations such as human diseases affecting populations of an animal whose existence is (highly) unlikely. Ready to start?
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

16th February 2008, 09:23 AM	#11589
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	About Gimlin's gun(s) - We are getting ourselves confused when we should not. There are two questions: 1) What might be the ".30-06 rifle" that Gimlin says he was carrying during the Patty encounter? 2) What might be the gun that Gimlin is holding on the cover of Argosy magazine? Gimlin has always spoken of having a .30-06 rifle with himself at Bluff Creek and during the Patty encounter at Bluff Creek. I do not think he has ever mentioned the make, model or action. There is really no reason for us to think it was a lever-action rifle (that would be a very odd gun). He must have had a bolt-action, or a semi-auto. These were certainly available by different makers during this era. I have never seen this rifle in any footage of Gimlin associated with the PGF. The gun that he is holding on the cover of Argosy is no kind of .30-06 rifle. I suspect that this may be a genuine or replica "Kentucky rifle", or another muzzleloader of that design. The key visual is that long thick barrel with no indication of a conventional forestock. This could be the full small-diameter stock that runs the length of a "Kentucky-style rifle" (giving it a uniform thickness over the whole length). It could also be a thick octagon barrel with no forestock that is associated with some muzzleloaders. Regardless of what it actually is, an old-style muzzleloading rifle would be a great prop for a guy who is acting the part of an "Indian Tracker". He already has the wig, the headband, the high moccasins. I don't see a scabbard on the visible side, and I'm not sure what the saddle/stirrup situation is there (only a blanket?).
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

16th February 2008, 09:33 AM	#11590
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by clayflingythingy This may fall into the dumb question catagory but why does the Argosy cover in post #11480 refer to patty as Ca's Abombinable Snowman? Just crypto-jargon, trying to get readers to relate to a well known term. The Himalayan ' Yeti ' ( Abominable Snowman ) had received some publicity prior to this .. Also, Patterson had authored a book entitled " Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist " Quote: The terms bigfoot and Sasquatch postdate the magazine? No, they were in common use before the film, going back to at least the late 50's ...
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 16th February 2008 at 09:34 AM.

16th February 2008, 11:13 AM	#11591
Drewbot Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,594	The rifle in the Argosy Pic, looks too short to be a Musket. But I do not see much of a stock. There are some pics if you do a Google Image search for "30-06 rifle 1967 western field" I can't upload them because I'm not at my base of operations. Some of them have short stocks and exposed barrels.
Drewbot Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,594	__________________ "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

16th February 2008, 11:21 AM	#11592
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: In Your Head Posts: 958	Originally Posted by Correa Neto OK, lets do real science. Lets start dumping every single bit of unreliable data used to support the claim "bigfeet are real"- PGF, blobsquatches, footprint casts, Skookum cast, buttprint casts, hand casts, eyewitnesses reports, etc. Oh, you will also want to dump all the baseless speculations such as human diseases affecting populations of an animal whose existence is (highly) unlikely. Ready to start? Welcome to the bandwagon. If you've watched any of 'bigfoot shows' on TV you'd have noticed that DNA analysis is the issue now. "Close to human" ring a bell? Can you grasp reality? Just being in close proximity to humans could very well allow transmission of some human diseases. Read the link. Read it again. Try to understand what it is saying.
	__________________ That sounds like a lot of, yup you guessed it, google searching pseudoscience. Last edited by manofthesea; 16th February 2008 at 11:23 AM.

16th February 2008, 11:29 AM	#11593
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,930	Here are some conventional bolt-actions (using your suggested ".30-06 rifle 1967 western field" search). To me, they don't like what Gimlin is holding.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

16th February 2008, 08:04 PM	#11594
Crowlogic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Crows Nest At Large Posts: 1,378	Does it matter what rifle Gimlin? is holding in the picture? Its obviously not from Bluff Creek. Is it really even Gimlin. Could be the other guy they dressed up later. I can't believe that all these guys were posing for photos and hanging out with Patterson on his field trips and not getting payed.
	Last edited by Crowlogic; 16th February 2008 at 08:08 PM.

16th February 2008, 09:55 PM	#11595
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	This is from a post on another board. I was wondering if anyone had this book that apparently has another Gimlin interview in it. Quote: An extract from the wonderful present I received when I was 12 years old, christmas 1994, 'The Encyclopedia Of The Unexplained' by Reuben Stone: 'On 20 October 1967 Roger Patterson & Bob Gimlin of Yakima, Washington, went to Bluff Creek (in northern California, notorious for large footprints & other dubious evidence) in the hope of catching sight of a bigfoot after hearing that tracks had been seen in the area. They went on horseback, and were 50 or 50 miles from the nearest road when they rounded a bend on the trail and came to a creek. In Grimlin's words: 'Here this thing stood by the creek, just stood. We were on one side of the creek, the creature on the other and our horses went crazy. Roger's little horse just went bananas.' Patterson managed to haul out the 16-mm movie camera, loaded with colour film, that he was carrying in his saddlebag. 'This creature turned', said Grimlin, 'and started to walk away from us, just slow like a man would if he were just walking down the street, but as it did this, Roger ran across the creek behind it, but then he stumbled on a sandbad...he was shooting the camera whilst he was running. He hollered back for me when he stumbled and fell. He said "Cover me!" And, naturally, I knew what he meant. 'So I rode across the creek on my horse and took my .30-06 rifle out of the saddle scabbard and just stood there (pointing but not aiming the rifle at the beast). When I did this, this creature was...about 90 feet (away)- and it turned and looked at me; just turned as it was walking away. It never stopped walking. And then...I heard Roger say, "Oh my god, I ran out of film."' Gimlin remains adamant that he and Patterson saw a bigfoot that day.'
	__________________ 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?

16th February 2008, 10:05 PM	#11596
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Stone wrote Mysteries of the Unexplained, and Encyclopedia of the Unexplained, among other books. That poster must be referring to Mysteries, because Encyclopedia apparently wasn't published until 1999. Mysteries was 1993.
	__________________ 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?