Sand bar still...

Sand bar still...

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 23rd, 2010, 7:31 pm #1

Look this over closely...In the first sequence of filming you can see the red hole with the dirt/sand piled to the right of the still...the log pile...in the second sequence it appears the red hole has been covered along with the trench Patterson fell in during the first sequence of filming...the sand/dirt pile is gone...also the same pile of logs...some reason these creatures kept coming back to this area...they must have been looking for something...


Quote
Like
Share

CoastalMike
CoastalMike

February 24th, 2010, 6:47 am #2

the logs marked by the yellow arrows are similar but I am seeing different backgrounds...
Quote
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

February 24th, 2010, 2:13 pm #3

The log pile looks similar to an extent....the background looks different....but the trench in the bottom picture looks to be the same size/shape/angle as the dark patch next to the "covered" trench in the top pictures.

That that may just show that the film was taken on two separate occasions, with less foliage on the trees, different time of day (sun highlighting trunks of trees with less cover) and a partially/completely filled trench?

At the very least, it makes for more head scratching - because what are the chances of filming the same or different BF from the almost the same exact angle on two different days?

Okay, now I have a headache

-Mike in NC
Quote
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

February 24th, 2010, 3:53 pm #4

Look this over closely...In the first sequence of filming you can see the red hole with the dirt/sand piled to the right of the still...the log pile...in the second sequence it appears the red hole has been covered along with the trench Patterson fell in during the first sequence of filming...the sand/dirt pile is gone...also the same pile of logs...some reason these creatures kept coming back to this area...they must have been looking for something...


The background is essentially the same except one is a close up shot, the other is a distant shot.

What I see in the Second walk (as you have it marked) is in reality the FIRST sequence.

Then, gun fire erupted, some fell, including the maker of the smallest 9" track and at that point the hole was dug to dispose of & cover up the BFs Titmus skinned out.

If you look at a still of the very first frame, a white BF�s figure is outlined in the red pool. It is white because its hide is gone. That is what John worked hard to edit out. He got most but not all.

I imagine that is how it went down but not until late in the afternoon. Patty came back more than once for the maker of the 9-inch track. Make sense?

Notice the long shadow in the close up here.

Notice the absence of shadows or short shadows in what you have labeled "second walk sequence." There is a marked time difference.

Confused?

This event did NOT happen in late October; not in the middle of the fall deer hunting season.

In those mountain communities everything closes down for the season the first week in October.

Laverty, his tree cutter crew of 3 were in those hills all summer long and would have been long gone essentially at some point between Labor Day (Sept) and October 1st. Laverty was not in those hills during hunting season...what? And risk getting shot by deer hunters? I don't think so.

This event happened in early September when the area was still active; BEFORE the hunting season began; very late summer (Labor Dayish) and your shadow calculations will tell you that is so.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 24th, 2010, 4:03 pm #5

The log pile looks similar to an extent....the background looks different....but the trench in the bottom picture looks to be the same size/shape/angle as the dark patch next to the "covered" trench in the top pictures.

That that may just show that the film was taken on two separate occasions, with less foliage on the trees, different time of day (sun highlighting trunks of trees with less cover) and a partially/completely filled trench?

At the very least, it makes for more head scratching - because what are the chances of filming the same or different BF from the almost the same exact angle on two different days?

Okay, now I have a headache

-Mike in NC
Same sand bar with differences...hole and trench are covered but the foliage looks different...1st sequence we only see the back side of the creature...2nd sequence is when we see a female creature then see another creature further down the sand bar and the muzzle flash...

Did Patterson take all the footage of the film we see or did others take some of the footage?...I know JG and RD bought 30 seconds of film from Patterson...I have no idea exactly how many seconds the film has...does anyone know the exact seconds of the film?...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 24th, 2010, 5:05 pm #6

The background is essentially the same except one is a close up shot, the other is a distant shot.

What I see in the Second walk (as you have it marked) is in reality the FIRST sequence.

Then, gun fire erupted, some fell, including the maker of the smallest 9" track and at that point the hole was dug to dispose of & cover up the BFs Titmus skinned out.

If you look at a still of the very first frame, a white BF�s figure is outlined in the red pool. It is white because its hide is gone. That is what John worked hard to edit out. He got most but not all.

I imagine that is how it went down but not until late in the afternoon. Patty came back more than once for the maker of the 9-inch track. Make sense?

Notice the long shadow in the close up here.

Notice the absence of shadows or short shadows in what you have labeled "second walk sequence." There is a marked time difference.

Confused?

This event did NOT happen in late October; not in the middle of the fall deer hunting season.

In those mountain communities everything closes down for the season the first week in October.

Laverty, his tree cutter crew of 3 were in those hills all summer long and would have been long gone essentially at some point between Labor Day (Sept) and October 1st. Laverty was not in those hills during hunting season...what? And risk getting shot by deer hunters? I don't think so.

This event happened in early September when the area was still active; BEFORE the hunting season began; very late summer (Labor Dayish) and your shadow calculations will tell you that is so.
The sequences of filming is not clear IMO...I have spoken with MK about this on several occasions with us both thinking anything is possible...why we think the second sequence is correct is the wet sand that is visible after covering the trench and hole...

Shadows...I understand there are a few that are working on shadows considering the time periods claimed...

Laverty....much more to his involvement then we have discussed...he claims casting a track and taking pictures of tracks the day after RP left...so much for the rain storm mud slide Gimlin claimed occurred...according to the weather chart of October 21 there was a 3/4 inch rainfall in that area...mountainous area 3/4 of an inch could have caused some flooding and slides especially down the roads and creeks...the weather chart was from Hoopa I believe...

The time lines...according to the reports RP visited with Hodgson and a newspaper after he claimed he had film of a creature...I haven't read where any of the dates were mentioned other then by RP & BG...Hodgson did call RP after Ryerson informed him of finding tracks at Bluff Creek the 5th of September...Ryerson also contacted Green and Titmus...if Titmus wasn't involved why contact him?...

We know that the film being mailed, processed and viewed is not even close to the actual event...

Will we ever know exactly what happened?...yes I do think we will...this forum is not the only means of investigation...
Quote
Like
Share

CoastalMike
CoastalMike

February 24th, 2010, 6:45 pm #7

I have no doubt that Laverty photo'd prints a couple days later, because RP and BG had gone to Bluff Creek to make prints, cast them, and start the publicity campaign. If the prints they made on Friday got washed out, they went back and made more on Saturday. Why was Gimlin so tired on Sunday that he didn't go the movie? Because he and RP had to redo the whole track and cast thing on Saturday, extricate themselves with the front loader, then drive 10-12 hours home.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 24th, 2010, 7:29 pm #8

This would solve the time lines and tracks cast and photographed...Laverty said he had been back and forth on those roads and hadn't seen anything...RP appears and gets film of not one but two creatures...RP was known to fake casts...I read somewhere, without knowing the accuracy, the place RP got the camera...RP goes in with a cast track...the owner or a man working in this shop told RP it didn't look right and wouldn't support such a large creature...RP came back in a few days with another different cast...

This could be in Longs book but I read it on a web site somewhere...guess I need to start saving all these sites for future reference...
Quote
Like
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

February 24th, 2010, 10:48 pm #9



If what John Green said on BTR is reliable, that between 5 possibly 7 tracks were never cast or seen again after Patty was filmed

and if you believe the film was shot in September and not October - then there would be no Laverty track to cast on October 21. Period.

The individual that left that imprint was dead a month earlier.

Laverty was not in those hills in October, that is hunting season.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sasquatche ... h-triangle
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 24th, 2010, 11:17 pm #10

Were possible hoaxed tracks by Patterson & Gimlin if indeed Laverty took pictures and cast any tracks in October...did Gimlin go back with Patterson in October?...

Titmus claims he was at Bluff Creek casting tracks nine days later...of course by film evidence we know Titmus was there the entire time...
Quote
Like
Share