World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
kaboom!!! what a jackass
They are all Jealous
Still no bigfoot then?Any good joe meltdowns lately?
Plenty found;http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sUhttp://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNMhttp://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0whttp://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQhttp://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yIhttp://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQhttp://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXIhttps://youtu.be/31iMxiZUqVc... None "in a zoo".
plenty found ?? bolshavik!!
No, by the definition of the word.
Before I got barred from BFF I started a thread devoted to the developing of the film. Since it was shot on Kodacolor stock meant that not just any Joe Blow could have developed it. So add the complex nature of developing that stock to the hoakey timeline and it become well nigh impossible to shoot Friday afternoon and show on Sunday.
And don't forget how Patterson and Gimlin kept screwing up their stories.- Falling off the horse- Bent stirrup- Tracking Pattyetc.
"I got them (film processing) done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told." - Roger Patterson, Daily Colonist. Source: Loudon, Pete. ‘Tis Better To Believe Than Doubt.” Victoria, British Columbia, Daily Times, October 27, 1967."Unfortunately for the leap made by KitaKraze, the fact that Roger Patterson did not reveal any details of where he got the film processed does not take away from the plausibility that he may have wanted to distance himself from any commercial film processor, and therefore any leads that may have paid him a massive favour. "This is extremely important because if the film was developed privately, the original film should not have Kodak proprietary markings on it. We have, however, testimony from a person who handled the original film and made copies of it on either Wednesday, October 25 or Thursday October 26th that the original film had a Kodak leader on it."... Hmmmm, but that "testimony" was sourced by someone who's interviewees have come forward to state that their character references of Roger Patterson were twisted (Greg Long)... And surely nobody can read the following and honestly expect Greg Long to deliver an impartially, well researched product;http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.htmlAlso, isn't "eyewitness testimony notoriously inaccurate"? For people who'd no doubt have spent much of their lives processing film, and recollecting back to 1967 regarding something as frequently seen as a Kodak label, I'm not so sure it would stand up in a court of law. From this premise, the "selective memory" of Patterson and DeAtley is used on the part of Pseudosceptics to evolve theories as to how the film was processed... It's not a solid basis for filling in the blanks by any means of logic because there are no facts to start with. Someone might as easily claim that they had the film processed in the future and brought it back via a time machine car... If the information at the basis of that theory is already non-existent, then how can anything that follows be anything more than conjecture? Would you like me to proceed with the timeline and the rest?
DeAtley is still alive and he doesn't remember how the film was developed -- that makes no sense. I doubt that revealing the supposed details would "jeopardize the man's job" 50 years later.
He's CLEARLY being selective with what he remembers. Most of the references to the backstory and the developing timeline are taken from original interviews and information many decades old, and the idea that he was protecting someone who provided a favour was based around these early interviews. There's also a theory that they had it done via someone in the porn industry, which to reveal would further tarnish the reputations of them. The timeline is generally believed to be accurate with enthusiasts and sceptics alike, and within it is a credible explanation as to how developing was achieved.
How would one go about looking for the kodak developing mark?I mean is it on the film or is it on a label in the original cannister the movie film is stored in?
It was on the film leader and the original film disappeared -- suspicious huh?
Well according to the "testimony" of the people who allegedly handled the original film and made copies of it on either Wednesday, October 25 or Thursday October 26... It had a Kodak leader on it. That's all I'm aware of.
Unless he's hiding something, why doesn't Al just tell everyone now (50 years later) how the film was developed? Worried about a film developer's job from 1967? A more likely explanation is that he knows that if he tries to explain it, his story will get torn to shreds.
In 47 years, and with the death of the person who filmed it very early on, things naturally might have gone missing. These people weren't experts and I don't think Roger could have imagined his footage would have been scrutinised even to this extent so many years later. I just think it's an embarrassing effort at side stepping the readily available data in the footage that simply cannot be twisted any other way. I really don't think Roger would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM. I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 45 years later and as a result decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot".
3:17... Your repeated comment was addressed at 2:56.
You need to update your copy and paste. It's been 49 years since the incident.
49 years and no magic monkey suit... Doesn't hurt my argument one bit.
There is a 2nd reel that goes along with the first Patterson film. Roger called it reel #2. It has the Kodak name on it and so does the film cannister- it is old and yellowed, but I can still read it. What am I looking for please.
Huh? Sorry Khat... What are you referencing from exactly?? Exciting.
The only two things that are old and yellowed are your underpants and your teeth.
Never mind I will not post it here. I will send you a message okay Iktomi?
Khat is this site's Bigfoot tease. She claims all these things like having access to Sasquatch skulls but never produces any proof of what she says. She apparently likes to be looked up to as having special knowledge of them but all her comments come without evidence to back them up. All she has to do is produce what she claims but all we will get is excuses.
I have provided "proof" to the proper authorities. I have absolutely no need to provide proof to some anonymous troll on an internet site. Please, don't get me wrong here, but you obviously have some delusions of grandeur or a sense of entitlement. You are NOT as important as you think you are and your opinion does not matter one iota to me. All I did was ask a question concerning where to look on a film for a mark that was bequeathed to me by my mentor that he won in a card game with Roger Patterson. That is all I am guilty of. If you really think that I owe YOU any explanations then you obviously need serious mental help.
GOOD GOD MAN HAVE YOU LOST YOUR SANITY???You will bring the wraith of Deebs down on us all. You must never, NEVER question her word. He will find you and pop off your head like a soda bottle cap for your wickedness. Watch your back mate.
Indeed you have no need to provide proof so I and others reading this have no need to believe a word of what you say. Visions of grandeur? Needing mental help?Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.In any case enjoy your little fantasy world - you obviously cannot contribute anything of importance to anyone who truly believes they may exist.
...Rene Dahindren thought they filmed it earlier than claimed..He probably beat Mrs. Patterson and Bob Gimlin over the head with a threat to broadcast this opinion in order to obtain rights to the stills..How else would he have obtained them? Because they liked his personality...lol..Peter Byrne is another who shares this view, and I would bet good money so does Bill Munns: when discussing the timeline problem he attributes it to "human frailty". He is not thinking of clandestine pornographers but of greed...In their view, Roger captured a bigfoot on film, viewed the results with his business savoy and wealthy brother-in-law and they planned a reveal that would maximize publicity with an eye on future profits.....Of course the deniers would have a field day with such a concession so the weak "secret developer" scenario is put forward..The incomplete provenance hamstrings attempts to have the mainstream consider the film or studies of it..Indeed, after the article with the quotes from Roger that Joe mentioned above came out, Washington State canceled its viewing(although I cannot be sure that was the reason for the cancellation)...EEG
...s\b "savvy"..I'd blame the spell checker, but I dont have one turned on...lol..
Khat put that troll in his place, ha ha ha!! Good on you Khat. You have nothing to prove to these idiots, because the people who count know how remarkable you are. Good for you for not falling for the baiting, you're a better person then me for it, and ten of these trolls all combined. I'll look forward to that email. EEG... Interesting comment.
...Thanks Iktomi..Have a good day...
LOL - of course Joerg would side with her. He must follow his prime directive: THOU SHALL NOT SPEAK NEGATIVELY ABOUT ANOTHER BELIEVER- no matter how outlandish or impossible the story may be. This is the same guy who goes on and on about scientific evidence but readily accepts the most bullshit of stories. I'm delighted that he shows his true colors by not requiring any proof from what she and other believers say. He is more than willing and happy to enter that fantasy world of hers. What a nutter.
So Khat has some lost second reel of the PG film...riiiiiiiiight. Along with Bigfoot skulls. Iktomi eats this crap up.
Aren't you the one that believes that for thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all out to get your money? Accordinflg to you hese people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too."No matter how outlandish or impossible the story may be. This is the same guy who goes on and on about scientific evidence but readily accepts the most bullshit of stories."Ironic... And the word "science" is lessened by being written in any comment you decide to impose on us with those sausage fingers.
Keep repeating the same canned responses. Hint, they don't get any better the more you repeat them.The better question is regarding the lost PG film canister So when are you getting a viewing?
Sorry kid... It's your conspiracy after all, I'm just reminding you of how bat sh*t crazy you sound by maintaining it.
I don't recall claiming that there was any conspiracy. That's more a product of your imagination and faulty logic.As far as bat sh*t crazy goes, Khat Hansen and DS are *your* friends and they make you look that much worse.
Sorry Iktomi I am only human!Such nasty creatureshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etBoJJ0GZI8
11:48... But all reports and evidence are the product of "hoaxes, lies and misidentification", right? Remember... This is your logic, not mine. Be accountable for your face falls, young man. Oh, and take a look at this; http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/brilliant-scientists-are-open-minded-about-paranormal-stuff-so-why-not-you/... Nothing more crazy than a conspiracy loon, I don't think you're warranted in calling anyone else's sanity into question.Khat, ha ha ha ha!!
Coyotes. I guess folks don't get out much.
Coyotes. I have heard them a million times while outdoors hunting/camping. The people recording this should know what a coyote sounds like if they are a "researcher."
Khat's penis got hard telling that story about secret tapes of Bigfoot from Nixon