Yakima article

Yakima article

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

March 9th, 2010, 11:41 pm #1

I found this article in the Yakima Herald published immediate after the alleged Oct 20, 1967 event and it gave me pause.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yakimans.htm

Gimlin says he could see the white gleam of the creature's teeth. WTF? I had not heard that before.

But what bothers me is what Patterson is quoted as saying that his horse shied and reared.

In this release, he says nothing about the horse falling or that he later limped or that the
stirrup was bent and this article was published early on. Whatever happened to his leg must
have healed itself by then which makes me think the event DID occur in Sept, not Oct.

Where did the statement occur where someone states Patterson's horse fell? Was that in Green's
book? Is this another screw up in Green's book or what? Does anyone here know off-hand?

Also, I would be hard pressed not to believe a taxidermist would not take measurements of
anything he was about to dress out, especially something unusual.

Here, in this article the guesstimate of height is 7 feet.
If your previous published photo shows she was, what (?) about 6' 4" at the most, then counting
another 2-3 inches for the left knee which is bent and the same numbers again for the stooped
shoulders - that would make Gimlin's estimate of 7 feet tall near the mark of 6' 10" which is what I figured.
I cannot imagine Titmus, a taxidermist not taking the height measurement.

How do you see it?
Quote
Share

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

March 10th, 2010, 12:47 am #2

Quote
Like
Share

chattahoocheebigfot
chattahoocheebigfot

March 10th, 2010, 12:28 pm #3

I found this article in the Yakima Herald published immediate after the alleged Oct 20, 1967 event and it gave me pause.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yakimans.htm

Gimlin says he could see the white gleam of the creature's teeth. WTF? I had not heard that before.

But what bothers me is what Patterson is quoted as saying that his horse shied and reared.

In this release, he says nothing about the horse falling or that he later limped or that the
stirrup was bent and this article was published early on. Whatever happened to his leg must
have healed itself by then which makes me think the event DID occur in Sept, not Oct.

Where did the statement occur where someone states Patterson's horse fell? Was that in Green's
book? Is this another screw up in Green's book or what? Does anyone here know off-hand?

Also, I would be hard pressed not to believe a taxidermist would not take measurements of
anything he was about to dress out, especially something unusual.

Here, in this article the guesstimate of height is 7 feet.
If your previous published photo shows she was, what (?) about 6' 4" at the most, then counting
another 2-3 inches for the left knee which is bent and the same numbers again for the stooped
shoulders - that would make Gimlin's estimate of 7 feet tall near the mark of 6' 10" which is what I figured.
I cannot imagine Titmus, a taxidermist not taking the height measurement.

How do you see it?
...I remember reading about the horse "rearing" was in Green's first book. However, recent interviews with Gimlin suggest that maybe the horse didn't "buck-up" after all. Who knows? Since Gimlin was holding the rifle - I personally bekieve he too the first one out. Later the ambush party on the other ridge took the other twlo out.
This was a well thought out pan to bag and tag these creatures. I suspect that upon their findings; this is why Green literally stoled the backhoe in an effort to cover-up. He and others had to quickly cover up what they'd done. Those particular bigfoot were so "human-like" that they immediately formulated a plan to hide the evidence before others discovered what they'd done; It also explains the "red pool" and the butchered splicing of the film. On that fateful day, Green knew he was in a "world of ****" and acted out of pure impulse.
Luckily, he's not going to get out of this easily. Eventually, he is going to have to come clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Jeffrey





















'gumamn
Quote
Share

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

March 10th, 2010, 1:59 pm #4

the film was spliced until they got caught...He along with several others who inspected the film said there was not any more to get from the film...
Quote
Like
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

March 10th, 2010, 2:57 pm #5

...I remember reading about the horse "rearing" was in Green's first book. However, recent interviews with Gimlin suggest that maybe the horse didn't "buck-up" after all. Who knows? Since Gimlin was holding the rifle - I personally bekieve he too the first one out. Later the ambush party on the other ridge took the other twlo out.
This was a well thought out pan to bag and tag these creatures. I suspect that upon their findings; this is why Green literally stoled the backhoe in an effort to cover-up. He and others had to quickly cover up what they'd done. Those particular bigfoot were so "human-like" that they immediately formulated a plan to hide the evidence before others discovered what they'd done; It also explains the "red pool" and the butchered splicing of the film. On that fateful day, Green knew he was in a "world of ****" and acted out of pure impulse.
Luckily, he's not going to get out of this easily. Eventually, he is going to have to come clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Jeffrey





















'gumamn

A man doesn't charter a plane to fly to some remote airstrip in another country, barely making it before dark to look at bigfoot tracks, when he already had an arsenal of track cast at his home.

Bud Ryerson's call to John Green undoubtedly meant Titmus had scored a hit.

Dahinden and Green knew it, flew post haste into the melee already underway in Bluff Creek. Tracks on BCMR are secondary to the bloody skirmish that took place on the sandbar.
Quote
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

March 10th, 2010, 3:02 pm #6

the film was spliced until they got caught...He along with several others who inspected the film said there was not any more to get from the film...
The above post's count is two.

The lie by omission regarding TItmus' presence #3
The lie in his book about SC Buttrum #4
The lie by omission failing to mention Laverty in his ape book $5

WHAT ELSE?

JOHN GREEN IS NOT CAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH
Quote
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

March 10th, 2010, 3:30 pm #7

I found this article in the Yakima Herald published immediate after the alleged Oct 20, 1967 event and it gave me pause.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yakimans.htm

Gimlin says he could see the white gleam of the creature's teeth. WTF? I had not heard that before.

But what bothers me is what Patterson is quoted as saying that his horse shied and reared.

In this release, he says nothing about the horse falling or that he later limped or that the
stirrup was bent and this article was published early on. Whatever happened to his leg must
have healed itself by then which makes me think the event DID occur in Sept, not Oct.

Where did the statement occur where someone states Patterson's horse fell? Was that in Green's
book? Is this another screw up in Green's book or what? Does anyone here know off-hand?

Also, I would be hard pressed not to believe a taxidermist would not take measurements of
anything he was about to dress out, especially something unusual.

Here, in this article the guesstimate of height is 7 feet.
If your previous published photo shows she was, what (?) about 6' 4" at the most, then counting
another 2-3 inches for the left knee which is bent and the same numbers again for the stooped
shoulders - that would make Gimlin's estimate of 7 feet tall near the mark of 6' 10" which is what I figured.
I cannot imagine Titmus, a taxidermist not taking the height measurement.

How do you see it?
I've read that police detectives eventually get the truth out of suspects because, after asking the same questions over and over again, the suspect will at some point let the truth slip out because it is actually difficult to remember the lie(s).

Could it be that, with advancing age, some participants in this event are sharing truths they never meant to admit to? Old lies are forgotten and, because the truth is the clearest image in their minds, they sometimes revert back to memories of what actually transpired?

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if additional lies were added over time to embellish the story.....but as some truths (and even fresh lies) come to light, prior "testimony" is contradicted more frequently.......and the alibies begin to fall apart.

-Mike in NC
Quote
Share

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

March 10th, 2010, 4:13 pm #8

The above post's count is two.

The lie by omission regarding TItmus' presence #3
The lie in his book about SC Buttrum #4
The lie by omission failing to mention Laverty in his ape book $5

WHAT ELSE?

JOHN GREEN IS NOT CAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH
Time lines...BS...
1. film being mailed...
2. dates they were at Bluff Creek...
3. locations...Hodgson interview...
4. access to Bluff Creek...
5. no more to get from the film...JG...
6. film was not spliced...JG...
7. only one creature...by film we can clearly see two...
8. no gun fire...right thigh wound...back wound...muzzle flash...
9. horse manure and not a pile of rocks...
10.bloody dog print is a leaf...Patterson film frame 352...
11.no red hole...a definite dug hole with the dirt mound visible...
12.film has been edited all to hexx...
13.JG denies Hodgson picked him up at Orleans...
14.JG denies having a film camera...
15.RP said the horse fell on him...Gimlin said the horse didn't fall on RP...
16.the creature disappeared around a bend in the creek but yet reported it walked the road...
17.Titmus casting tracks nine days later...
18.Hodgson identifying Titmus from stills from the Dahinden film but changes his mind during his interview...

These are off the top of my head without going back and reading their BS again...
Quote
Like
Share

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

March 10th, 2010, 4:17 pm #9

I've read that police detectives eventually get the truth out of suspects because, after asking the same questions over and over again, the suspect will at some point let the truth slip out because it is actually difficult to remember the lie(s).

Could it be that, with advancing age, some participants in this event are sharing truths they never meant to admit to? Old lies are forgotten and, because the truth is the clearest image in their minds, they sometimes revert back to memories of what actually transpired?

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if additional lies were added over time to embellish the story.....but as some truths (and even fresh lies) come to light, prior "testimony" is contradicted more frequently.......and the alibies begin to fall apart.

-Mike in NC
You'll come to understand everything written is contradictory...as my mother would say..."they're not very smart."
Quote
Like
Share

chattahoocheebigfoot
chattahoocheebigfoot

March 12th, 2010, 2:54 am #10

Time lines...BS...
1. film being mailed...
2. dates they were at Bluff Creek...
3. locations...Hodgson interview...
4. access to Bluff Creek...
5. no more to get from the film...JG...
6. film was not spliced...JG...
7. only one creature...by film we can clearly see two...
8. no gun fire...right thigh wound...back wound...muzzle flash...
9. horse manure and not a pile of rocks...
10.bloody dog print is a leaf...Patterson film frame 352...
11.no red hole...a definite dug hole with the dirt mound visible...
12.film has been edited all to hexx...
13.JG denies Hodgson picked him up at Orleans...
14.JG denies having a film camera...
15.RP said the horse fell on him...Gimlin said the horse didn't fall on RP...
16.the creature disappeared around a bend in the creek but yet reported it walked the road...
17.Titmus casting tracks nine days later...
18.Hodgson identifying Titmus from stills from the Dahinden film but changes his mind during his interview...

These are off the top of my head without going back and reading their BS again...
...


20.) They lied about the flooding rains also.
21.) Can't acount for 10 seconds of film purchased
22.) Can't account for the "misplacement" of minutes more film edited from Patterson's original.
23.) Lied about "entrance" road into Bluff Creek


....add more please. We can map this down in to a science if we want to.


Jeffrey Teagle
Quote
Share