The PG event as told by the original storytellers isn't credible

The PG event as told by the original storytellers isn't credible

EasTexSteve
EasTexSteve

February 3rd, 2010, 5:31 pm #1

To start with, the foremost piece of evidence we have from the event is the film itself. However, the authenticity of the film itself can't be trusted, because the chain of custody falls under question. Patterson, Gimlin, and the original storytellers claim the film was MAILED in 1967 at 9pm on a Friday, and arrived Saturday, the next day, in a lab in Yakima, WA. Here are some facts about the US Postal Service:

1) Overnight Express Mail requires the Post Office be in possession of the package by 4:30pm, to be delivered by noon the next day. That's 4:30pm, and NOT 9pm.

2) Next day Express Mail delivery IS NOT GUARANTEED at all locations. My local post office was not guaranteeing next day delivery until about 10 years ago.

3) Facts 1 and 2 above aren't even necessary to argue because Express Mail DID NOT EXIST in 1967. It was introduced in 1977 after an experimental period that started in 1970.

4) Prior to Express Mail, there was Special Delivery. This service was designed to bypass the local sorting process, and make a faster delivery to destinations within the local area - not destinations 620 miles away.

5) When a letter/package leaves a small, rural post office, it doesn't go directly to the destination. It first goes to one or more sorting facilities. The sorting facility for the Orleans post office is in Eureka, CA, located some 80 miles south of Orleans. From there, it will go to either Petaluma, or San Francisco.

So you see, before you can give ANY credibility to ANYTHING the original storytellers say regarding the film, you first have to overcome this insurmountable obstacle. Based upon this, you can't say with any certainty that ANY film left the Orleans area on that Friday. It could have been shot and mailed at anytime previous to this date. And, because of this, MK's, Jim's, or anybody's ideas or theories are as good as the next persons. The original storytellers don't have a monopoly on the truth here, because they weren't truthful regarding the origins of the film to begin with.
Quote
Share

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

February 3rd, 2010, 6:35 pm #2

In an interview JG had with Gimlin...Gimlin states Hodgson called Patterson after the labor day weekend...Gimlim claimed Hodgson talked to Patterson's wife...Hodgson in a recorded interview said he talked with Patterson...

Green in this same paragraph of the interview said he saw those tracks Gimlin was talking about...

The story...

Men returned from a Labor Day weekend to Bluff Creek finding large human looking tracks around their camper trailers...they immediately loaded their belongings and left the area...this was the 5th day of September...Green in the mean time was inspecting tracks on BCM Rd., waiting for some people from Humboldt University to show up...the tracks were destroyed by equipment working the roads...important to remember...equipment constantly graded these dirt roads...heavy trucks hauling logs takes a toll on dirt roads...a little rain these trucks would cut ruts knee deep...as a matter of fact...the tracks on BCM Rd. were in the drifts of dirt caused by traffic and not on the hard packed road itself...sounds a bit fishy that these creatures would walk in an area that would leave definite foot impressions doesn't it...if Ray Wallace crosses your mind make sure and keep that thought...

Ryerson told Green about the tracks at Bluff Creek...the same tracks Gimlin and Patterson saw at about the same time...the 5th or 6th day of September not October as claimed by Patterson and Gimlin...
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 3rd, 2010, 11:44 pm #3

Gimlin:

Yes. Just prior to the time we had gotten there, they had sighted tracks on that Tuesday after being off over the Labor Day weekend...(Labor Day was the 4th of September in 1967)It had also started raining all up and down the West coast. By the time we got down there, these tracks supposely were 3 different sizes and were just globs in the mud as far as I was concerned. We couldn't get any plaster cast definition of them all.

Green:

That is interesting because I was there and saw those tacks you're referring too and when I was there Al Hodgson told me he was expecting Roger...well maybe he'd called him already by then.


MH wrote:

Gimlin gives up the time lines...he and Patterson went down the first full week of September not in October as reported...
Quote
Like
Share

EasTexSteve
EasTexSteve

February 4th, 2010, 1:58 pm #4

To start with, the foremost piece of evidence we have from the event is the film itself. However, the authenticity of the film itself can't be trusted, because the chain of custody falls under question. Patterson, Gimlin, and the original storytellers claim the film was MAILED in 1967 at 9pm on a Friday, and arrived Saturday, the next day, in a lab in Yakima, WA. Here are some facts about the US Postal Service:

1) Overnight Express Mail requires the Post Office be in possession of the package by 4:30pm, to be delivered by noon the next day. That's 4:30pm, and NOT 9pm.

2) Next day Express Mail delivery IS NOT GUARANTEED at all locations. My local post office was not guaranteeing next day delivery until about 10 years ago.

3) Facts 1 and 2 above aren't even necessary to argue because Express Mail DID NOT EXIST in 1967. It was introduced in 1977 after an experimental period that started in 1970.

4) Prior to Express Mail, there was Special Delivery. This service was designed to bypass the local sorting process, and make a faster delivery to destinations within the local area - not destinations 620 miles away.

5) When a letter/package leaves a small, rural post office, it doesn't go directly to the destination. It first goes to one or more sorting facilities. The sorting facility for the Orleans post office is in Eureka, CA, located some 80 miles south of Orleans. From there, it will go to either Petaluma, or San Francisco.

So you see, before you can give ANY credibility to ANYTHING the original storytellers say regarding the film, you first have to overcome this insurmountable obstacle. Based upon this, you can't say with any certainty that ANY film left the Orleans area on that Friday. It could have been shot and mailed at anytime previous to this date. And, because of this, MK's, Jim's, or anybody's ideas or theories are as good as the next persons. The original storytellers don't have a monopoly on the truth here, because they weren't truthful regarding the origins of the film to begin with.
Unless they can ascend the obstacle of "when" and "what" film was delivered "where", the original storytellers have no credibility. Bill Miller and all the other Green supporters can do their best imitations of Bagdad Bob, but it won't matter. Their story of the origins of the film is truthless, and they cannot defend it. It just didn't happen when they said it did.

However, the funny part is we KNOW where MK got the transparencies he's working with, and it seems the Green supporters don't have a clue. Personally, I was amazed at the quality of them when MK showed them to me. They are far and away better than anything I have seen posted on the internet. Perhaps, the file manipulation that happens when you upload to websites like YouTube detracts from the quality.
Quote
Share

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

February 4th, 2010, 2:52 pm #5

Below is an example Steve...the transparencies set dormant in an album for over 40 years until MK looked at and then copied...an incredible difference...there are still a few quality copies of the Patterson film that are not in JG's hands...

Quote
Like
Share

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

February 4th, 2010, 3:04 pm #6

doesn't do justice to what was actually filmed at Bluff Creek...another point...frame 352...why when anyone discusses frame 352 we always see the frame altered by Bonny?...the altered Bonny frame is on the left...notice the mouth, right hand and how much darker the still is...

Quote
Like
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

February 4th, 2010, 4:14 pm #7

Below is an example Steve...the transparencies set dormant in an album for over 40 years until MK looked at and then copied...an incredible difference...there are still a few quality copies of the Patterson film that are not in JG's hands...

Looking at the "pool" in the transparency.....

In the "pool" there are whitish areas (at bottom left and further up, towards the right).

These specific areas seem soft/fuzzy with no defined edges/shadows of any kind. The fuzzy areas seem to have a more bluish/watery tint as opposed to the white/grey rocks on dry land.

Granted, everything has a slightly fuzzy/blurred appearance....but some stones/sticks around that area seem to have solid enough/hard edges to indicate they are solid objects.

So, could these whitish areas be indications of running water as opposed to a standing body of water? It could be that the water is, at the upper right, making a left-hand turn around a bend before continuing to the bottom-left of the frame?
If not a bend in the creek, perhaps earth was moved to create a solid "bridge" and water is perculating through the material and continuing on it's way down stream?

Dunno if this has been mentioned before, so I thought I'd run it past you.

Just wondering.

-Mike in NC
Quote
Share

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

February 4th, 2010, 4:36 pm #8

You can see it is only a hole...watch closely and you can see the dirt/sand piled on the right of the frames...

Quote
Like
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

February 4th, 2010, 4:54 pm #9

Unless they can ascend the obstacle of "when" and "what" film was delivered "where", the original storytellers have no credibility. Bill Miller and all the other Green supporters can do their best imitations of Bagdad Bob, but it won't matter. Their story of the origins of the film is truthless, and they cannot defend it. It just didn't happen when they said it did.

However, the funny part is we KNOW where MK got the transparencies he's working with, and it seems the Green supporters don't have a clue. Personally, I was amazed at the quality of them when MK showed them to me. They are far and away better than anything I have seen posted on the internet. Perhaps, the file manipulation that happens when you upload to websites like YouTube detracts from the quality.
Steve, I don't see that Bill Miller has anything whatsoever to do with this,
who cares what Miller thinks? The judgments will fall hardest on John Green and
Bob Titmus' shoulders for all the lies and inconsistencies. They are the ones left alive.

John Green allowed himself to be portrayed as the "father of bigfootdom" with
all the pomp and adoration that goes with that title. Instead, he chooses to leave
his children a mess to clean up that he created. Imagine the heapings of charges
his family will face trying to defend John's place in the face of mounting evidence
to the contrary!!

Miller is just a nobody trying to be somebody. The fact that he tried to
pull a couple of fast ones puts him in the same category however. He's another misfit.

Quote
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

February 4th, 2010, 4:59 pm #10

You can see it is only a hole...watch closely and you can see the dirt/sand piled on the right of the frames...

How did Green explain the above .gif to the board, MH,
I guess I missed those posts on this board. Can you repost
his responses or direct me?

Sask
Quote
Share