Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film - Page 73

LAL · 2nd March 2006, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

This statement doesn't mean anything at all, but just for kicks, who studied the original film and made such a determination?

Does this mean I'm off filter?

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 06:36 AM

How about a novel idea for the kinematic for the foot of a sasquatch suit?

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Does this mean I'm off filter?

No, but I have purged my "ignore" list.

LAL · 2nd March 2006, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Meldrum accepts the track that Chilcutt ruled a fake, as if it were real. He even excuses signs of hoaxing as normal....

He also notes what sounds like the casting artifacts described by Tube. I wonder if Meldrum will ever mention the possibility?

You'd think Meldrum had no idea who Freeman is....

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=303

Meldrum interviewed Freeman extensively. There is nothing I know of that indicates the fingerprints were even left by Freeman. They could have been those of another ranger on the scene. The fact that the rest of the track appeared real may indicates someone "improved" the toes prior to casting. What about the rest of the trackway? What about the one discovered in a different area next day by people totally unconnected to Paul Freeman?

Meldrum discarded some of Krantz' casts as fakes. He's not stupid.

I've mentioned the attempt to fool him with a carved pumpkin and apelike dermals shown in Bigfoot in the Rockies. It took him about a minute to determine the cast was a fake and how it was done.

Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion, but the casting artifacts tube describes were on one particular cast from Onion Mountain, already thought by Green to have had casting artifacts:

"Up to now I have left the subject of dermal ridges to those with expertise in that field, and I would suggest doing the same in this case. I am sure that Jimmy Chilcutt can tell the difference between dermals with sweat pores scars etc. and casting artifacts. As to the cast which has been referred
to that I made on Onion Mountain, with lines looping around on the heel, I have never understood how those lines formed but they have always looked like casting artifacts to me.

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs"

(Reposted with permission.)

It takes a certain, drying substrate for these artifacts to occur. Mud is not one of them.

LAL · 2nd March 2006, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

You see the problem with this don't you ?

No ?

It's a no win situation, isn't it? Some sceptics seem to have the idea Patterson was in Bluff Creek for a day, got the film the very next morning, therefore it's a fake.

When it's pointed out he was already filming for a documentary and had been in the area for three weeks attempting to film tracks they take this as some sort of evidence it's a fake.

If he hadn't been filming already, he probably wouldn't have had a camera and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

LAL · 2nd March 2006, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

^Deliberate obtuseness^

Does anyone think Lu is actually unaware of Meldrum's purchase of Freeman's casts?

I would hope not. I'm sure I mentioned somewhere in these threads he paid a reported $2000 for them.

What evidence do you have that the ones he purchased are fakes (other than the human prints in the toe area on one of them)?

Does "^Deliberate obtuseness^" mean you're being deliberately obtuse?

LAL · 2nd March 2006, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

"Polite" doesn't equal "correct" or "unable to be fooled".

Nor did I claim it does, but I believe Correa predicted Meldrum would just dismiss anyone trying to challenge his work, or words to that effect. On this thread he (Meldrum) addressed the points and corrected the misconceptions in a patient, respectful manner.

It was good of him to take time out from his busy life to do this.

Did you understand what he was saying?

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 07:44 AM

^ = look up, Lu.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

What about the one discovered in a different area next day by people totally unconnected to Paul Freeman?

A hoaxer tactic. It adds "authenticity" if similar tracks are discovered nearby by somebody else.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Did you understand what he was saying?

I dismiss it. It has no basis in or on anything shown to be real.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Correa predicted Meldrum would just dismiss anyone trying to challenge his work, or words to that effect.

Meldrum actually sounded somewhat dismissive to me.....

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

It's a no win situation, isn't it? Some sceptics seem to have the idea Patterson was in Bluff Creek for a day, got the film the very next morning, therefore it's a fake.

When it's pointed out he was already filming for a documentary and had been in the area for three weeks attempting to film tracks they take this as some sort of evidence it's a fake.

If he hadn't been filming already, he probably wouldn't have had a camera and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You missed it LU ...

Originally Posted by LAL

The film was presented to scientists before it became the centerpiece of the documentary Patterson was making.

What documentary are you talking about ?

Oh, the one that was never made ?

How can the PGF be the ' centerpiece ' of a documentary that was never made ...

The finale seems to be missing.. The part where they return to the scene and capture the Bigfoot they just got lucky on, and filmed...

38 Years later.... Chirrrrrrrrrrrrpp ...

( Why don't we have cricket smilies ? Linda ? )

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

The original film was studied and found not to be tampered with, there are still first generation copies around .....

Well sure LU, if you don't count the missing 77 feet...

And you don't get it when we call you obtuse... That's just being obtuse about being obtuse..

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 10:24 AM

A documentary of some sort was indeed made, Diogenes.

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

Quote:

Olson says he still wasn’t a Bigfoot believer at the time he contacted Roger Patterson, the Yakima fellow who claimed to have photographed the creature. It was the chance to produce and market a potentially lucrative Bigfoot film that initially motivated Ron Olson, he said. "A Lot of things went up and down for a while, problems with company board members saying "Gee, this thing is too far out and we don’t want to put the money up for that kind of film." But I tested Patterson’s footage on movie audiences and found the subject to be as strong as I predicted it would be," Olson said.

A relatively inexpensive twenty-minute Bigfoot documentary was eventually produced but Olson says it hasn’t been the lucrative and persuasive film he had hope for. And for the past five years since he obtained Patterson’s footage he’s been unable to get financial backing for turning out the kind of Bigfoot movie that he figures would make a box office smash. Something else has happened since then though – something influencing Olson a lot more than striking it rich would have. He started believing in the beast that he wanted to make a film about.

"I don’t think I was even near the point of believing in it until I saw Patterson’s footage." Olson continued, "Not until I had seen the film and had worked with him for a while did I start coming to the point of thinking in my own mind that there was really something out there."

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Meldrum actually sounded somewhat dismissive to me.....

Now you are being polite...

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 10:29 AM

I was going for politely sarcastic....

Huntster · 2nd March 2006, 10:35 AM

Here's an example of how easy it is to hoax a sasquatch film:

It took a Hollywood insider half an attempt to get busted:

Quote:

...I was doing a real experiment - only not with a suit....

....I was pulling a hoax by using the deeply held feelings about this film to get a desired result.....

Wrangler Roger Patterson is looking more and more like a real genius to have pulled off his hoax, with his costume building skills (some 38 years ago).

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

I would hope not. I'm sure I mentioned somewhere in these threads he paid a reported $2000 for them.

What evidence do you have that the ones he purchased are fakes (other than the human prints in the toe area on one of them)?

Is this one of the casts he purchased ?

It's the wallpaper on his web site ...

Oh, I forgot for a moment.. .. That is the cast, that was a model for one of Wallace's feet;
right down to the crack in the heel ..

What is the the theory behind how a Sas got a scar like that ? Stepped on a machete that someone carelessly left laying around ?

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Here's an example of how easy it is to hoax a sasquatch film:

No one cares how easy or hard it may be, it is irrelevant.

Who is claiming that creating Patty was easy, anyway?

Assuming Patty is a hoax, no one has any idea how long it took, how many tries it took, how much money, etc.

Huntster · 2nd March 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

No one cares how easy or hard it may be, it is irrelevant.....

Clearly, you don't.

And it is relevant.

Quote:

...Who is claiming that creating Patty was easy, anyway?...

Dfoot.

Quote:

...Assuming Patty is a hoax, no one has any idea how long it took, how many tries it took, how much money, etc...

Correct.

And, assuming Patty is a hoax, nobody seems to offer an explanation that I can accept on how Patterson could have pulled it off.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

But we have to excuse BH - he can't be expected to actually remember any details about the suit.
We just need to accept his nebulous memory and the other hearsay as brute fact.

I think that is your cue over at BFF, Diogenes.

But we have to excuse P/G - they can't be expected to actually remember any details about the event.
We just need to accept their nebulous memory and the other hearsay as brute fact.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 10:51 AM

It's irrelevant whether it was easy or hard because no one knows how long P/G had to do it, what help they had, how much money, etc.

If it was easy, then they just did it.

If it was hard, then it likely took them several tries and maybe even several suits.

Assuming it is a hoax, then it is irrelevant whether it was hard or easy, they did it.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 10:53 AM

I disagree entirely with what dfoot did, btw.

Correa Neto · 2nd March 2006, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

Nor did I claim it does, but I believe Correa predicted Meldrum would just dismiss anyone trying to challenge his work, or words to that effect. ...snip...

Have I? Exactly where?

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think that is your cue over at BFF, Diogenes.

But we have to excuse P/G - they can't be expected to actually remember any details about the event.
We just need to accept their nebulous memory and the other hearsay as brute fact.

I've pointed that out so many times, it ought to be my signature....

Did you see the exchange about Chambers ?

He lied ( by ommision ) for 30+ years, but if he finally, flatly said he didn't do the costume in PGF, in the interview with Short, then that must really be the truth ..

http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=74

Quote:

JC: I never made an ape suit for Roger Patterson and there isn't anyone else who could have, not in
those days.

Someone is real confused about the quality of the costume, and what was available in those days..

( I don't think Chambers made the suit ... But there seems to be a feeling among some Footers, that if Chambers wasn't connected to the suit, it is evidence the film is not a hoax.. Go figure... )

Huntster · 2nd March 2006, 12:13 PM

I thought we'd agreed that everybody was a liar, and we could simply concentrate on the subject of the film instead of trying to catch one side or the other in yet another lie?

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 12:20 PM

If so, then we can look at the physical things we actually have, which doesn't include the original PGF, as far as I can tell.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 12:22 PM

Does Chambers ever say it's not a suit?

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I thought we'd agreed that everybody was a liar, and we could simply concentrate on the subject of the film instead of trying to catch one side or the other in yet another lie?

How can we concentrate on the film ? Most of it is missing ...

What we have, looks like a bloke in furry pajamas to me..

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Does Chambers ever say it's not a suit?

The quote above, implies he thought it was too good to be a suit..

This could still be classic misdirection or sarcasm..

In other words, he thinks it's crap, but says it's so good, it was beyond his capabilities..

He could have been pulling Short's leg , but she just went with what she wanted so bad to be true..

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 12:45 PM

He doesn't appear to believe bigfoot is real, though.

Quote:

JC: I wouldn't know about that, yes, I know now. Don't you think it's all phony baloney
anyway?
Question: No, I don't . . .when this story got back to the Bigfoot community it caused a lot of dismay,
pain and grief.
JC: I wouldn't know about that. You believe in this monster stuff?

This is absolutely wrong.

Quote:

JC: I never made an ape suit for Roger Patterson and there isn't anyone else who could have, not in
those days.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 01:02 PM

Hmmmm......

Quote:

This is not so. It rose from its crouch, turned, took four or five steps and then stopped

Quote:

When it stopped it stood, motionless, for what I count, in my examination of the incident, as visible in the footage, for about one and half seconds. Maybe a period close to two seconds.

http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=73

Huntster · 2nd March 2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

How can we concentrate on the film ? Most of it is missing .....

I don't think it's missing. I think you just don't have access to it.

We have copies.

Skeptical Greg · 2nd March 2006, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Hmmmm......
http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=73

I noticed that too. Did Byrne see some footage at the beginning, not being shown now ?

2 Seconds is a long time in Pattyfilm chronology..

I have heard other reports of people seeing a film where Patty was standing still at the beginning..

Doesn't happen in all the clips I've seen ..

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 01:23 PM

http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=33

Lots of interesting stuff in there that I never knew, such as the discrepancy in the track direction and the fact that no other 14.5" tracks were found at the site. Some stuff that doesn't matter too, but a lot of good stuff.

I don't know how much of the good stuff is true, though.

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

We have copies.

Have you seen a version where Patty stands still?

LTC8K6 · 2nd March 2006, 01:35 PM

If Patty stood still for 1-2 seconds, we ought to have a good look at her. That would be between 16 & 48 frames of Patty standing still in the open, depending on the fps setting and 1-2 seconds of time.

You could do a lot with that many frames of Patty standing still, such as overlaying them.

Huntster · 2nd March 2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Have you seen a version where Patty stands still?

Nope.

LAL · 2nd March 2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by RogerKni

Parcher accused the sculptor of deliberately creating a statue that misrepresented Patty in order to make her appear more authentic. He put forward five claims:
• The thigh bulge was missing (I countered that it was visible when viewed from the side);

Murphy included a link to a photo of it in his latest newsletter (if anyone still cares).

Dfoot · 2nd March 2006, 02:41 PM

When Chambers told Bobbie Short that no one could build anything like that back then that is a clear sign that Chamber's pal (the one I spoke to) may well have been telling the truth as such a statement is absolute rubbish and Chambers would know that.

The thing I can't seem to get across to people is that Chambers and his friends think this is hilarious. To them, it's an awesome prank among funsters (that's what they called themselves back then).

I just checked in at the BFF and found that the thread in which I experimented to see how long it would take for an actual image of Patty that I claimed was a suit I'd made (which I'd com posited onto a different background) before it would be blasted as not being anything nearly as good as Patty. Took all of a few seconds before I was told that my "new suit" had legs that were all wrong, that it was nothing but a blobsquatch, that it looked like a bad Gozilla suit, etc...

Now the thread is closed. Not unlike some minds really.

I believe that there could very well be some sort of undiscovered species like Sasquatch. Perhaps even a few survivors into the modern age. But this film is simply a con based around interest in this subject. That's all.

Below is my "new suit" on the left next to the image of Patty from the film. I used an arm from another frame.

This messenger has been shot. I would have expected nothing less. But maybe some will think about what I've demonstrated with this experiment.

- Dfoot

2nd March 2006, 06:36 AM	#2881
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,225	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 This statement doesn't mean anything at all, but just for kicks, who studied the original film and made such a determination? Does this mean I'm off filter?
	__________________ Lu http://360.yahoo.com/librarylu

2nd March 2006, 06:55 AM	#2884
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,225	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Meldrum accepts the track that Chilcutt ruled a fake, as if it were real. He even excuses signs of hoaxing as normal.... He also notes what sounds like the casting artifacts described by Tube. I wonder if Meldrum will ever mention the possibility? You'd think Meldrum had no idea who Freeman is.... http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=303 Meldrum interviewed Freeman extensively. There is nothing I know of that indicates the fingerprints were even left by Freeman. They could have been those of another ranger on the scene. The fact that the rest of the track appeared real may indicates someone "improved" the toes prior to casting. What about the rest of the trackway? What about the one discovered in a different area next day by people totally unconnected to Paul Freeman? Meldrum discarded some of Krantz' casts as fakes. He's not stupid. I've mentioned the attempt to fool him with a carved pumpkin and apelike dermals shown in Bigfoot in the Rockies. It took him about a minute to determine the cast was a fake and how it was done. Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion, but the casting artifacts tube describes were on one particular cast from Onion Mountain, already thought by Green to have had casting artifacts: "Up to now I have left the subject of dermal ridges to those with expertise in that field, and I would suggest doing the same in this case. I am sure that Jimmy Chilcutt can tell the difference between dermals with sweat pores scars etc. and casting artifacts. As to the cast which has been referred to that I made on Onion Mountain, with lines looping around on the heel, I have never understood how those lines formed but they have always looked like casting artifacts to me. John Green Harrison Hot Springs" (Reposted with permission.) It takes a certain, drying substrate for these artifacts to occur. Mud is not one of them.
	__________________ Lu http://360.yahoo.com/librarylu Last edited by LAL; 2nd March 2006 at 08:35 AM.

2nd March 2006, 07:00 AM	#2885
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,225	Originally Posted by Diogenes You see the problem with this don't you ? No ? It's a no win situation, isn't it? Some sceptics seem to have the idea Patterson was in Bluff Creek for a day, got the film the very next morning, therefore it's a fake. When it's pointed out he was already filming for a documentary and had been in the area for three weeks attempting to film tracks they take this as some sort of evidence it's a fake. If he hadn't been filming already, he probably wouldn't have had a camera and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
	__________________ Lu http://360.yahoo.com/librarylu

2nd March 2006, 07:09 AM	#2886
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,225	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 ^Deliberate obtuseness^ Does anyone think Lu is actually unaware of Meldrum's purchase of Freeman's casts? I would hope not. I'm sure I mentioned somewhere in these threads he paid a reported $2000 for them. What evidence do you have that the ones he purchased are fakes (other than the human prints in the toe area on one of them)? Does "^Deliberate obtuseness^" mean you're being deliberately obtuse?
	__________________ Lu http://360.yahoo.com/librarylu Last edited by LAL; 2nd March 2006 at 07:45 AM.

2nd March 2006, 07:22 AM	#2887
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,225	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 "Polite" doesn't equal "correct" or "unable to be fooled". Nor did I claim it does, but I believe Correa predicted Meldrum would just dismiss anyone trying to challenge his work, or words to that effect. On this thread he (Meldrum) addressed the points and corrected the misconceptions in a patient, respectful manner. It was good of him to take time out from his busy life to do this. Did you understand what he was saying?
	__________________ Lu http://360.yahoo.com/librarylu Last edited by LAL; 2nd March 2006 at 07:26 AM.

2nd March 2006, 06:36 AM	#2882
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	How about a novel idea for the kinematic for the foot of a sasquatch suit?

2nd March 2006, 06:38 AM	#2883
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: Does this mean I'm off filter? No, but I have purged my "ignore" list.

2nd March 2006, 07:44 AM	#2888
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	^ = look up, Lu.

2nd March 2006, 07:47 AM	#2889
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: What about the one discovered in a different area next day by people totally unconnected to Paul Freeman? A hoaxer tactic. It adds "authenticity" if similar tracks are discovered nearby by somebody else.
	Last edited by LTC8K6; 2nd March 2006 at 07:49 AM.

2nd March 2006, 07:49 AM	#2890
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: Did you understand what he was saying? I dismiss it. It has no basis in or on anything shown to be real.

2nd March 2006, 07:50 AM	#2891
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: Correa predicted Meldrum would just dismiss anyone trying to challenge his work, or words to that effect. Meldrum actually sounded somewhat dismissive to me.....

2nd March 2006, 10:18 AM	#2892
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LAL It's a no win situation, isn't it? Some sceptics seem to have the idea Patterson was in Bluff Creek for a day, got the film the very next morning, therefore it's a fake. When it's pointed out he was already filming for a documentary and had been in the area for three weeks attempting to film tracks they take this as some sort of evidence it's a fake. If he hadn't been filming already, he probably wouldn't have had a camera and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You missed it LU ... Originally Posted by LAL The film was presented to scientists before it became the centerpiece of the documentary Patterson was making. What documentary are you talking about ? Oh, the one that was never made ? How can the PGF be the ' centerpiece ' of a documentary that was never made ... The finale seems to be missing.. The part where they return to the scene and capture the Bigfoot they just got lucky on, and filmed... 38 Years later.... Chirrrrrrrrrrrrpp ... ( Why don't we have cricket smilies ? Linda ? )
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

2nd March 2006, 10:23 AM	#2893
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LAL The original film was studied and found not to be tampered with, there are still first generation copies around ..... Well sure LU, if you don't count the missing 77 feet... And you don't get it when we call you obtuse... That's just being obtuse about being obtuse..
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

2nd March 2006, 10:24 AM	#2894
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	A documentary of some sort was indeed made, Diogenes. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ronolson.htm Quote: Olson says he still wasn’t a Bigfoot believer at the time he contacted Roger Patterson, the Yakima fellow who claimed to have photographed the creature. It was the chance to produce and market a potentially lucrative Bigfoot film that initially motivated Ron Olson, he said. "A Lot of things went up and down for a while, problems with company board members saying "Gee, this thing is too far out and we don’t want to put the money up for that kind of film." But I tested Patterson’s footage on movie audiences and found the subject to be as strong as I predicted it would be," Olson said. A relatively inexpensive twenty-minute Bigfoot documentary was eventually produced but Olson says it hasn’t been the lucrative and persuasive film he had hope for. And for the past five years since he obtained Patterson’s footage he’s been unable to get financial backing for turning out the kind of Bigfoot movie that he figures would make a box office smash. Something else has happened since then though – something influencing Olson a lot more than striking it rich would have. He started believing in the beast that he wanted to make a film about. "I don’t think I was even near the point of believing in it until I saw Patterson’s footage." Olson continued, "Not until I had seen the film and had worked with him for a while did I start coming to the point of thinking in my own mind that there was really something out there."

2nd March 2006, 10:25 AM	#2895
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Meldrum actually sounded somewhat dismissive to me..... Now you are being polite...
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

2nd March 2006, 10:29 AM	#2896
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	I was going for politely sarcastic....

2nd March 2006, 10:35 AM	#2897
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Here's an example of how easy it is to hoax a sasquatch film: It took a Hollywood insider half an attempt to get busted: Quote: ...I was doing a real experiment - only not with a suit.... ....I was pulling a hoax by using the deeply held feelings about this film to get a desired result..... Wrangler Roger Patterson is looking more and more like a real genius to have pulled off his hoax, with his costume building skills (some 38 years ago).

2nd March 2006, 10:36 AM	#2898
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LAL I would hope not. I'm sure I mentioned somewhere in these threads he paid a reported $2000 for them. What evidence do you have that the ones he purchased are fakes (other than the human prints in the toe area on one of them)? Is this one of the casts he purchased ? It's the wallpaper on his web site ... Oh, I forgot for a moment.. .. That is the cast, that was a model for one of Wallace's feet; right down to the crack in the heel .. What is the the theory behind how a Sas got a scar like that ? Stepped on a machete that someone carelessly left laying around ?
	__________________ 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; 2nd March 2006 at 10:40 AM.

2nd March 2006, 10:40 AM	#2899
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: Here's an example of how easy it is to hoax a sasquatch film: No one cares how easy or hard it may be, it is irrelevant. Who is claiming that creating Patty was easy, anyway? Assuming Patty is a hoax, no one has any idea how long it took, how many tries it took, how much money, etc.

2nd March 2006, 10:45 AM	#2900
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 No one cares how easy or hard it may be, it is irrelevant..... Clearly, you don't. And it is relevant. Quote: ...Who is claiming that creating Patty was easy, anyway?... Dfoot. Quote: ...Assuming Patty is a hoax, no one has any idea how long it took, how many tries it took, how much money, etc... Correct. And, assuming Patty is a hoax, nobody seems to offer an explanation that I can accept on how Patterson could have pulled it off.

2nd March 2006, 10:46 AM	#2901
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Quote: But we have to excuse BH - he can't be expected to actually remember any details about the suit. We just need to accept his nebulous memory and the other hearsay as brute fact. I think that is your cue over at BFF, Diogenes. But we have to excuse P/G - they can't be expected to actually remember any details about the event. We just need to accept their nebulous memory and the other hearsay as brute fact.

2nd March 2006, 10:51 AM	#2902
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	It's irrelevant whether it was easy or hard because no one knows how long P/G had to do it, what help they had, how much money, etc. If it was easy, then they just did it. If it was hard, then it likely took them several tries and maybe even several suits. Assuming it is a hoax, then it is irrelevant whether it was hard or easy, they did it.

2nd March 2006, 10:53 AM	#2903
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	I disagree entirely with what dfoot did, btw.

2nd March 2006, 11:07 AM	#2904
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Digging for Au somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,094	Originally Posted by LAL Nor did I claim it does, but I believe Correa predicted Meldrum would just dismiss anyone trying to challenge his work, or words to that effect. ...snip... Have I? Exactly where?
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

2nd March 2006, 11:42 AM	#2905
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 I think that is your cue over at BFF, Diogenes. But we have to excuse P/G - they can't be expected to actually remember any details about the event. We just need to accept their nebulous memory and the other hearsay as brute fact. I've pointed that out so many times, it ought to be my signature.... Did you see the exchange about Chambers ? He lied ( by ommision ) for 30+ years, but if he finally, flatly said he didn't do the costume in PGF, in the interview with Short, then that must really be the truth .. http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=74 Quote: JC: I never made an ape suit for Roger Patterson and there isn't anyone else who could have, not in those days. Someone is real confused about the quality of the costume, and what was available in those days.. ( I don't think Chambers made the suit ... But there seems to be a feeling among some Footers, that if Chambers wasn't connected to the suit, it is evidence the film is not a hoax.. Go figure... )
	__________________ 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; 2nd March 2006 at 12:51 PM.

2nd March 2006, 12:13 PM	#2906
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	I thought we'd agreed that everybody was a liar, and we could simply concentrate on the subject of the film instead of trying to catch one side or the other in yet another lie?

2nd March 2006, 12:20 PM	#2907
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	If so, then we can look at the physical things we actually have, which doesn't include the original PGF, as far as I can tell.
	__________________ 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?

2nd March 2006, 12:22 PM	#2908
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Does Chambers ever say it's not a suit?
	__________________ 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?

2nd March 2006, 12:34 PM	#2909
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by Huntster I thought we'd agreed that everybody was a liar, and we could simply concentrate on the subject of the film instead of trying to catch one side or the other in yet another lie? How can we concentrate on the film ? Most of it is missing ... What we have, looks like a bloke in furry pajamas to me..
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

2nd March 2006, 12:40 PM	#2910
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Does Chambers ever say it's not a suit? The quote above, implies he thought it was too good to be a suit.. This could still be classic misdirection or sarcasm.. In other words, he thinks it's crap, but says it's so good, it was beyond his capabilities.. He could have been pulling Short's leg , but she just went with what she wanted so bad to be true..
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

2nd March 2006, 12:45 PM	#2911
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	He doesn't appear to believe bigfoot is real, though. Quote: JC: I wouldn't know about that, yes, I know now. Don't you think it's all phony baloney anyway? Question: No, I don't . . .when this story got back to the Bigfoot community it caused a lot of dismay, pain and grief. JC: I wouldn't know about that. You believe in this monster stuff? This is absolutely wrong. Quote: JC: I never made an ape suit for Roger Patterson and there isn't anyone else who could have, not in those days.
	__________________ 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?

2nd March 2006, 01:02 PM	#2912
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	Hmmmm...... Quote: This is not so. It rose from its crouch, turned, took four or five steps and then stopped Quote: When it stopped it stood, motionless, for what I count, in my examination of the incident, as visible in the footage, for about one and half seconds. Maybe a period close to two seconds. http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=73
	__________________ 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?

2nd March 2006, 01:06 PM	#2913
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Diogenes How can we concentrate on the film ? Most of it is missing ..... I don't think it's missing. I think you just don't have access to it. We have copies.

2nd March 2006, 01:10 PM	#2914
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,115	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Hmmmm...... http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=73 I noticed that too. Did Byrne see some footage at the beginning, not being shown now ? 2 Seconds is a long time in Pattyfilm chronology.. I have heard other reports of people seeing a film where Patty was standing still at the beginning.. Doesn't happen in all the clips I've seen ..
	__________________ A quantum of solace, is better than no solace at all.. " Don't come home a' drinkin' , with lovin' on your mind "... Loretta Lynn

2nd March 2006, 01:23 PM	#2915
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	http://www.internationalbigfootsocie...icle.php?id=33 Lots of interesting stuff in there that I never knew, such as the discrepancy in the track direction and the fact that no other 14.5" tracks were found at the site. Some stuff that doesn't matter too, but a lot of good stuff. I don't know how much of the good stuff is true, though.
	__________________ 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?