Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Witness Believes Bigfoot Was Trying To Warn Them


From Sasquatch Chronicles

Very interesting encounter tonight, I spoke with the witness and his impression of the creature was it was trying to warn him to go away because something was coming down the hill. He could hear something large and breaking branches on the hill at the time he ran into the creature. A listener writes “It was very early in the morning, maybe 1 or 2 am, day 3 of a five day backpacking trip, and I got out of my tent to relieve myself. I walked ten or 15 feet to go behind a tree, when I felt dizzy and had a strange urge to walk up the hill from our campsite. I had walked maybe a hundred yards or so up the trail, when I saw something squatted down in the trail about fifty feet from me. It had one fist on the ground and was looking at me intently. I noticed then, that even squatted down, it was as tall as I was (5 foot 8 ). It was at this point I realized I wasn’t looking at a person, but I felt frozen to the spot and didn’t want to make a run for it. We stayed this way for a few seconds, then I heard something big crashing down the slope towards us. The creature looked in that direction, looked back at me, made some sort of a grunt/guttural yell at me. When it yelled, it felt like it was telling me, get the hell out of here, something bad’s coming down that hillside. It stood up and loped down the trail away from me, and I made my run for it to the campsite. I sat by the fire with my hunting knife in my hand, jumping at the slightest noise, till morning. The next two days of the hike I didn’t say a word to anyone, and I’ve only told my longtime girlfriend and one good buddy about it since. Wes, what do you think it was i saw? What do you think was coming down the hill? Do you think I was in danger?”

26 comments:

  1. Why is this necessary?
    If you think that my goal is to be admired by not believing people – it is absolutely not so.


    I am a man that has seen bigfoot on 6/1.

    From the 4th June 2016 till the 8th July 2016 for 5 weeks i saw bigfoot all the time and as I said before on 6/1.


    Even today I have seen the bigfoot and he is not as you think. Also on 6/1 as sated before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Does anyone make any sense out of this?

      Delete
    2. ^ AC collins must be drunk AGAIN!!

      Delete
    3. to answer your question that is mr 7:02

      Delete
    4. Maybe I look funny, but I do not understand why me - the man who has seen Bigfoot , is completely alienated from the world political and economic.

      I am absolutely sure that Bigfoot must exist
      I am sure that the first thing they will do is hide from the public to avoid those kinds of intrusions.

      Then they will implement for one year in all areas and then only then will the discovery happen.

      Then in the second year everyone will know.

      Then in the third year we will see the results of all of this.

      All levels and branches of all kinds of ruling power is aware.

      Delete
    5. I guess the next three years are going to be exciting!

      Delete
    6. ..Trump likes conspiracy theories: A President Trump will gleefully address the nation to report all prior administrations have covered up the existence of bigfoot..lol..

      Delete
  2. Any thoughts on why "Patty's" tracks might begin in the middle of a sandbar?

    On why it's basically impossible for the film to have been taken and developed when claimed?

    On why Patterson refused to divulge when and where it was developed?

    On why no one has ever scrutinised an original film?

    On why the incident that led them to the area, the Blue Ck Mt tracks, contain obvious Wallace fakes?

    On why DeAtley and Patterson visited bigfoot fount of knowledge, Wallace, previous to their expedition?

    On why Ginlin thinks they were there 3 weeks, and Patterson 1 week?

    On why Patterson thought his horse fell on him trapping his leg and crushing the stirrup (that he used as a prop to show people). While Gimlin claims it never happened?

    Why Gimlin thinks the tracked "Patty" for "400 yards or so", yet Patterson thinks they tracked it "for about 3 miles" losing it in rugged terrain?

    On why Gimlin told several conflicting stories about the horses that were used, when in fact he was riding the horse of the only man to publicly claim to be in the "Partysuit", his friend Bob Heironimus?

    On why Patterson never ever returned to Bluff Ck, instead forming a company "bigfoot enterprises" with DeAtley (his sponsor, according to Gimlin) and taking his show on the road, making much money, then finding time to go "bigfoot huntin'" in Thailand (LOL)?

    Why no one has ever found a shred of evidence previously, or since, to indicate bigfoot exists here, or anywhere else? Did bigfoot only exist for one day?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because everyone's lying?

      Delete
    2. Joerg will be here in a few hours to try to special plead away every one of your points. In the process, Joerg will pop off his head like a soda bottle top.

      Delete
    3. ^ nutter who flosses nightly with yoyo string

      Joe

      Delete
    4. bigfoot is jesus.

      prove me wrong.

      Delete
    5. Bigfoot can't be Jesus. First of all, there are no stigmata on his paws. Second, the cross was not engineered soundly enough to hold him. Finally, James was called the Disciple whom Jesus loved. Studies show his rear end was not large enough to accommodate Bigfoot's member.

      Delete
    6. Maybe Joe learned a new trick.
      such as popping the top off a soda bottle top with his BUTTHOLE??
      what do you think Anon 7:45????

      Delete
    7. Any thoughts on why "Bob H's tracks" might only begin in the middle of a sandbar? Surely, with having help putting the "costume" on, it would have left tracks that would have easily indicated a hoaxing scene to sceptical people like Rene Dahinden?

      You'll notice that according to the widely accepted timeline, that on the Friday...
      "Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed."
      ... This would give ample time for the film to be processed. If the processing machine in Yakima was already running there would have been no need to "fire it up" on Saturday. Possibly DeAtely had an arrangement with this "friend" to develop any film Roger came up with "under the table". This is also reason assume that the location of this film being processed remaining a secret, whilst there are also rumours that it was developed within a pornographic source, which would have further tarnished the reputations of the people presenting the footage as authentic.

      The original film is lost. Also...
      "The second reel we all have only seen bits and pieces from, and there's even debate if what we've seen is really on the second reel. So, frankly, we don't know what all it contains. This new film copy that surfaced is assumed to have more second reel content on it than we have seen before, but that is speculation at present. Given we don't know exactly what's on the second reel, it is common for those who feel the film is a hoax to think the content is missing to hide evidence of a hoax. But in truth, whether or not any such footage, if finally found and studied, would prove a hoax, no one knows for certain at this time. The copy recently publicized is presumed to be one of those made by Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley for the theatrical showings they did presenting to the public the Bigfoot film footage. We presume Roger may have included footage in that program we haven't seen today, and there was no copy of that program reel known in anybody's archives, so we hoped one such copy would surface but we didn't know where to look or who to ask. So it's appearance now is a quirk of fate and thus we look forward to knowing more about what is really on it."
      - Bill Munns

      Delete
    8. Also, it is common knowledge that Roger Patterson had help in tracking the Bigfoot by some of the best trackers in North America at that time. Patterson and Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967. This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson.

      In the following link, the claims regarding Wallace are taken apart piece by piece by Bill Miller, and at the bottom of the article you'll notice a comparison of the alleged Ray Wallace stomper to the most famous casts of the 50's and 60's Northern California. Spoiler; they don't remotely match. It's not wise for someone to hoax their employees in a contradiction company, with timescales and all;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      "I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it."
      "My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."
      - Roger Patterson October 20th 1967
      ... Al Hodgson was a witness to this bent stirrup and we know they were on horses because of footage of them prior to their encounter. There is a lot that Bob Gimlin can't remember, given his age that would be allowed in any other source of recollection. But these pseudosceptics/pseudo-intellectuals, would have us believe that such events are unrealiable because eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, and then contradict themselves when two people can't remember the exact details. So what is it? Is Bob Gimlin the dumbest hoaxer in the world, or is he a hoaxing genius able to fool people for 47 years? Some people need to make up their minds and keep train of their excuses when approaching an irrelevant alleged contradiction, to what is in fact an innocent old man with a memory slip. Bob Gimlin has been very open about where he can't fill the blanks in, what he never thought of before and even has appeared to transparently self-reflect that he could have been hoaxed (stupid considering he had a loaded weapon), but all this is the actions of someone with nothing to hide and unconcerned about cross examination. You hammer an old man and you'll find your inconsistencies. Bob's description of the event has never EVER changed. You'll only ever see one Bigfoot in your life (unless you're lucky) if you're a horse trainer you'll come across tens of thousands. I bet if you asked war veterans about their traumatic experience, their equipment, methods of transport, etc, keep pressing them and make them feel like lying criminals (that's putting it mildly considering the attacks Bob's had on his name) you'd find holes over time. It's only fishy if you want it to be fishy... Truth is the proof's in the pudding; and you cannot deny organic tissue once it's pointed out. At the end of the day... You hammer those war vets you'll fish your inconsistencies.

      Delete
    9. Regarding Patterson claiming he tracked Patty "for about 3 miles"...
      "I think we all agree that Roger Patterson was an embellisher/exaggerator. That doesn't mean he's a liar. I think he was one of those people who exaggerates what he has seen and done. I've known people like that myself."
      - Skunk Ape on the BFF
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/8811-the-mutual-contradictions-of-roger-patterson-and-bob-gimlin/

      Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low
      budget documentary about the subject. He organized some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his association with Roger. Hieronimous is, in fact, one of Bob Gimlin's neighbours, but Gimlin had little social contact with him over the years. Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbours. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967. If Hieronimous had felt left out of Patterson's project by 1967, it would have added insult to injury to learn that his own horse was used by Gimlin on the horse trip that made them both famous. Yakima folks say Bob Hieronimous, by contrast, was always an under-achiever, since he was young. His bare-minimum
      work ethic won him no admirers in the community. He didn't have many friends, compared to Gimlin. Gimlin had a rather large circle of friends in the Yakima Valley. Compared to the Hieronimous property, the Gimlins seem to have done nicely for themselves. The Gimlins' home has always been well maintained, and nicely painted, and the landscaping nicely manicured. The Gimlins always had nicer, newer vehicles in their driveway too. The Hieronimous family could never keep up with those Joneses. It was a formula for envy in a small western town. Hieronimous had been telling people in Yakima bars for years that he would someday find a way to make money off the Patterson footage, like his famous neighbour did. So you see... Even if Bob H was telling the truth, he was either participating in a documentary (not the PGF) or merely had his horse in the film. Lastly... And this is courtesy from John W Jones, why would the horse go nuts if it was his owner in a suit?

      Delete
    10. "Roger's next plans were to capture a Bigfoot, which he planned a full expedition returning to California and searching all the way up to Canada. He planned a one-year expedition with tracking dogs, cages, a large crew, and the entire project filmed. This would have been a huge financial project. So they immediately went to Hollywood for funding, but they turned him down. Roger then went on his film tour- he made lots of money, started his own organization, and started investigating capture claims to bag one that way (and was duped in the process). He partnered with Ron Olson to fund the 'capture expedition' that he originally planned. They were going to fund the expedition themselves by making a movie, but that never panned out and the expedition never happened. Roger kept investigating claims. He eventually had Ron do investigations for him because by that time he was getting too sick. Roger died and Ron basically continued where they left off doing research, and ended up making a docudrama movie based on Roger's ideas (Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot). For one, a lot more people were in and out of that area immediately following the film. So the odds of seeing another in the general area were much more slim. He also had no means to capture a Bigfoot which would be the next logical step. We could speculate all day long and go over 'would haves' and 'could haves', but reality is never that black and white. The facts show that Patterson did make immediate plans for a return to California and a capture- it just didn't pan out financially."
      - Roguefooter from the BFF

      "Why no one has ever found a shred of evidence previously, or since, to indicate bigfoot exists here, or anywhere else? Did bigfoot only exist for one day?"
      Clear photos;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg
      Scat;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm
      Hair;
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
      Bones;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
      Forensic physical evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      Audio;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf


      ... Ok!! I think that was everything... Next?

      Delete
    11. *construction company (contradiction company)

      Delete
    12. And how could I forget...

      GOT MONKEY SUIT?????

      Delete
  3. Starting with the PG film of 1967 and tabulating all subsequent videos, my linear regression studies show that by 2087, all living human beings will have each recorded 3.39 Bigfoot sightings. Iktomi Joe says that you will have to believe him then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you're such a smart statistician Haites . Must have taken you all day to figure that out eh mate ? Now for being a good boy your nanny will make you some milk and cookies before you go to sleep and dream about me all night
      God save the queen !

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ shut up and answer the question at 1:45----You Wussy,,

      lol!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. AC Collins likes to remind you that "he's your pal" so that he doesn't get his backside roasted too harshly when he's trolling. Is there anything more wuss-like?

      Don't bring up the Humboldt and Khwit skulls to Haites, he'll have to go into anon mode just so his comments don't make him look like the patoot he is.

      Haint
      Southern colloquialism
      def., ghost, apparition, lost soul
      "On his way back from Mobile my friend was killed on Bloody 98, and now he's just another restless Haint."
      Chiefly Southern U.S. var of haunt, originally, but the meaning has since morephed to mean more than a ghost. It can also mean a scary b*tch or mean person, usually a woman.
      "I tried to kill her with kindness, but that haint is just full up with meanness."

      ... A "restless, mean b*tch of a woman", having to name drop and hate because he's sore. Perfect.

      Delete