Bigfoot Massacre: Naming Names
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 12th, 2008
What really happened at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967? Were several Bigfoot killed? Is there a hidden Sasquatch hunter history of conspiracies and coverups? Or is all of this personal speculations gone wild?
As a refresher, let me add here, the overview of the theory under discussion, via John L. Johnsen, for those that wish to review it:
According to the theory, the Patterson Gimlin Film, as we know it, wasn’t made on the first visit to the site. There had been another one, possibly one to several days before. On that visit, Davis theorized that Patterson and Gimlin (possibly others) had surprised a group of Patty’s clan and that the clan summarily attacked them, unprovoked.
What ensued was not a massacre as it is generally thought that a massacre is a vindictive action by one group or individual against another group. His theory suggests that, if Patterson and Gimlin had not shot and killed their attackers, they themselves would have been killed…a real possibility. Self defense.
But when they got up close to the bodies, they realized what they had shot were, in fact, more human like than ape like. So, the decision was to bury the bodies. It was verified by individuals that M.K. had interviewed over the years that Roger Patterson had obtained a backhoe to extricate his truck from the sand and mire of the service road leading to the site. Yet, pictures of Patterson’s vehicle show a two or three ton flatbed, outweighing a backhoe by many times.
And, Patterson’s brother in law (unsure of which side of the family) allegedly owned a paving business, so he would have had access to the backhoe without rental records.
I first suggested, after hearing of Patterson’s comment about the backhoe, that he and Gimlin might have killed Patty and buried her. But, after finding the evidence of the reddish water Davis took it one step further.
So, after Patterson and Gimlin had done the deed, and realized that something wasn’t kosher, they obtained the backhoe, buried the bodies and left the scene. But, in an effort to either actually capture one on film, or check the status of the alleged burial site, Patterson and Gimlin returned to Bluff Creek. Davis theorizes that what they found was Patty, bent over the burial site, trying to dig up the bodies. John L. Johnsen summarizes M. K. Davis “Bigfoot Massacre” theory, May 22, 2008.
In the midst of the previous back and forth debate about this M. K. Davis theory, I was the first to receive the following completely revised and thoughtful document you see here today. It was sent to me by Joe Beelart, a grassroots Bigfoot researcher in the Pacific Northwest, who seemed to be putting himself in the position of elder statesman, trying to be kind to Davis as well as supportive of his old friend, Bob Gimlin.
I made a decision to not publish it, at the time. The debate was too heated and confusing, and I know how things can get lost in the woods during such times. (For more background, please consult my previous blogs on this topic, as noted in the several links mentioned in “Bigfoot Film Controversy Stirs New Interest.”)
One significant detail I gained from my email chats with Beelart was another confirmation that, indeed, M. K. Davis had spelled out his “shootings at Bluff Creek” theory in some detail at public gatherings in the months before the Ohio conference. Davis’ statements that all he was saying was projections from others, and only privately-shared ideas, rang hollow to Beelart and others who had seen what Davis was doing with what he said he saw in his enhancements of the Patterson-Gimlin footage.
Importantly, also, in the realm of reconstructing the hidden history of this supposed “massacre,” Beelart has not been afraid to take the speculation to its ultimate end and name names. This has caused Beelart all kinds of understandable negativity from a vocal few in the Bigfoot community.
As Beelart said to me in a June email, due to what he has been saying: “The idea of a third person, especially a third person shooter — DeAtley and/or Heirominus — is absolutely sending some people into the stratosphere.”
Here below, therefore, is Beelart’s sometimes rambling, sometimes revealing, all speculative essay on the whole situation, written on May 29, 2008:
Bluff Creek Speculations
Introduction
I don’t really care what happened at Bluff Creek in October 1967. The Patterson-Gimlin film is what it is.
Second, it is my opinion that M.K. Davis is not “changing” the Patterson film. He is using off-the-shelf photography software to analyze it. In particular he: {1} stabilizes frames in sequence, and {2} removes color layers. Over the last 10 years, as better software becomes available, Davis’ work matures. I freely admit M.K.’s work is open to a wide variety of interpretation.
People are not looking at basic circumstances of the Patterson-Gimlin film. I have laid out timelines that may interest an analytical reader.
Last, I want all to know that I greatly respect and admire Bob Gimlin. He is a family man of integrity and good character. His decades of working with youth of eastern Washington are commendable. I do not doubt his words about October 1967 in Bluff Creek, but he may be leaving some things unsaid. That’s OK by me.
All of us describe all of our experiences in life in partial detail. We all leave things unsaid. It’s often the best thing to do.
Why these notes
After the May 2008 Ohio Bigfoot Conference a number of people began speculating on the Internet about a Bigfoot massacre at Bluff Creek in October 1967. In the week following the conference I received at least seven posts and telephone calls on the subject. Since I’m not an authority on the film, I didn’t respond in detail.
However a month earlier, starting on April 14, 2008, I privately circulated to a very small number of people, three pages of notes about the Bluff Creek film. My notes were speculation based on what I had seen of M.K. Davis’ newest analysis of the film at an International Bigfoot Society meeting on March 29, and again up close to M.K. Davis’ computer at Ray Crowe’s home on March 31, 2008. In April, I was simply interested in other people’s opinions of my interpretation of Davis’ newest work.
There is a vast difference between private discussion and public speculations, especially when highly inflammatory words are used in public.
What we all must know very clearly about the entire world-wide Bigfoot phenomena is there are no bodies, no bones, and no repeated photographs of the subject North American beast, or its cousins in the Himalaya or Siberia. Only a single copy of the Bluff Creek film of October 20, 1967 serves as a “good,” available, photographic record.
So, I have decided to make public my notes. They may offer a different perspective of what has been termed a “massacre” or worse. Keep in mind I too am only speculating. Many, many tough questions remain unanswered about the film and its circumstances.
Question
The most simple and difficult question to answer is how did a movie film leave the Eureka, California area on late Friday afternoon, October 20, 1967 and arrive – developed – by the morning of Sunday, October 22nd in Yakima, Washington?
If the film was sent by mail, what happened would probably rank among the most amazing delivery feats in US Postal Service history. If the film was sent via airmail, it’s likely it was shot about Wednesday, October 18th.
Some Basics
It is important to know the foundations of my speculations and opinions about the film, several of which I reached in 1995.
My timeline concerning Bigfoot and the Bluff Creek film:
December 1993 – I became interested in Sasquatch phenomena.
In 1995 I made five business trips to the Samoa paper pulp mill near Eureka. I took those five trips as opportunities to look into details found in Daniel Perez’s 1992 edition of “Bigfoot at Bluff Creek.”
Met Ray Crowe in 1997.
In 1999, M.K. Davis started sending me his work on the Bluff Creek film.
Interviewed Bob Gimlin in March 2000.
Watched Rene Dahinden’s copy of the film on a film editor at Larry Lund’s.
Went on the October 2002 expedition to Bluff Creek.
My goal is to take photographs of the creature known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. I am not a student of the Bluff Creek film, or of Bigfoot history. I consider both research resources to help prepare me for the considerable amount of time and money I spend in the mountains.
Now, a few words about me, I am 60 years old and stayed on the farm {or ranch if you prefer} until I was 20. I have a couple of state university degrees and spent five years in the USMC ’69-’74. I have hunted all my life, starting with sparrows in our hog barns. I have shot a number and variety of large animals with high-power rifles.
M.K. Davis and the film
M.K. Davis and I have maintained contact over the years. My file on him is thick. He may have learned a few things from me. I have learned much from his careful, thoughtful, technically advanced, continuing work on the Bluff Creek film.
M.K. has sent me – via the WWW, and air mail – several generations of his work on the film. To the best of my knowledge, he sometimes sends it to me before others to get a feel for the reaction he could expect from an audience. While his analysis of the film matured and became more sophisticated, nothing earthshaking touched me in his work. His carefully thought out conclusion that the beast was not an ape, but a cousin of humans was one I had reached years earlier for other reasons.
At the Ox Bow gathering in 2007 I spent much time watching M.K.’s computer and asked him to again and again replay some of his most recent work on the film. Then at the IBS meet on March 29, 2008, I saw and heard M.K.’s best and most important analysis of the Bluff Creek film.
He showed frames not previously known to exist, especially at the very start of the film. On the Monday after the meet, I went to Ray Crowe’s house to go over his new work again. I was astounded at what I saw up close. It answered many of my questions about the film and raised others.
New in March 2008
Four heretofore unknown events and observation are clearly seen in M.K.’s March 2008 analysis of the October 20, 1967 Bluff Creek film:
The pony tail suddenly flips as it would if a high-power bullet passed between the pony tail and the neck or upper back of the beast. The day was breezy, not windy and the film site is at the bottom of a canyon where air is often quiet.
The beast crouches or goes down as if it had been shot. William Dranginis notes the mane on her back is always visible, so she does not fall forward.
As distasteful as it is, the “hernia” on the thigh now looks like a bullet spout.
The important new revelation of a recent rectangular backhoe excavation at the site. Claw marks from the backhoe bucket teeth are sharp and easily seen, as are spoils piles alongside the excavation. The excavation appears fresh and does not appear affected by rain or high water.
From my hunting and military experience, I think I am correct in the above observations. However, again the reader must know what follows is simply speculation. I might be seeing things I want to see in the film, not what really happens. I might be morphing opinions about the times and people into fact.
It has often been noted that Bob Gimlin rode past Roger Patterson after Patterson dismounted to film the creature. That placed Gimlin on the right of Patterson, and to the right of the beast. Supposed rifle fire came from the left-rear of the beast, indicating a third person present at the site.
My conclusion is that Bob Gimlin did not fire his rifle at the beast. Bob Gimlin has repeatedly said he did not fire his rifle that day. There is no indication from the many people associated with the film shortly after it was taken that Bob Gimlin fired his rifle. Long time, students and owners of the film have never said Bob Gimlin fired his rifle.
However, according to Sheriff Charlie Edson’s book, he only saw Patterson and Gimlin in days previous to October 20th. P&G also said they were alone in their camp. Did someone new arrive at their camp on October 18th or 19th ?
The four observations point to one thing unspoken about the Bluff Creek film. There appears there was rifle fire on the day the film was taken and that rifle fire was aimed toward the beast. If it was not Bob Gimlin shooting, who? And why shoot? Why violence? Consider the times.
Al DeAtley is shown above, at the extreme left, receiving a Distinguished Service award from the University of Washingon, College of Engineering in 2006. DeAtley became a state and national leader in the asphalt paving industry while remaining the “go-to guy” for Yakima Valley civic causes. He led the creation of a national foundation that has provided some 200 college scholarships for civil engineering students. He studied at the UW in the 1950s, and purchased Superior Asphalt Company from his father in 1974.
Bob Heironimus, above.
The Times and People
In 1967 tree hugging in its many varieties wasn’t widely practiced, especially by men like Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley – the money man.
In 1967, men like DeAtley, who is a very successful businessman, and his brother-in-law Roger Patterson wanted results. They undoubtedly felt killing game and trophy hunting were the way results happen in the mountains. And these were the two men after Bigfoot.
In 1967 photographs were for National Geographic reporters. You didn’t go to the country club or tavern, get drunk with your friends, and brag about taking photographs. You talked about a trophy on the wall, or wild meat in the freezer. You talked adventure. That sort of talk still happens today; simply pick a town during elk season when testosterone tanks are full.
The capacity for “hunting” or violence is self-evident in the story of Bluff Creek. Both men had high-power rifles. They were also into blood sport. Both were rodeo riders, and it’s my understanding that both Gimlin and Patterson were amateur boxers. And there is one other possibility of a propensity toward the use of force – personal aggrandizement. Someone wanting their 15 minutes of fame. But who?
Rifleman?
What man has long claimed to have been at Bluff Creek with Patterson and Gimlin? Answer: Bob Heironimus. Greg Long wrote a book about Heironimus going to Bluff Creek and wearing a horse-hide monkey suit made by Patterson. Later Heironimus passed a lie detector test to the effect that he was the subject filmed by Patterson. But in reality, did Heironimus play quite a different role at Bluff Creek, one that he would rather not talk about?
We know that the day of the film Patterson was running the camera. Gimlin has always claimed he did not shoot. Yet Davis’ March 2008 analysis clearly shows what appear to be high-power shots coming from the left-rear of the subject. Who was shooting a rifle the day of the film? If a beast was shot days earlier, who shot it? Who most needed the 15 minutes of fame bagging a Bigfoot would bring.
Was it 15 minutes of fame that the supposed rifleman wanted? Or, perhaps the rifleman wanted a trophy. Did DeAtley have a trophy room?
A well-respected, long-term Bigfoot researcher harbors the opinion DeAtley was called earlier in the week to drive to Bluff Creek for a special opportunity.
If DeAtley did drive to Bluff Creek, what day did he arrive? After whatever happened, was it DeAtley, and perhaps a passenger in his vehicle who drove the film to Seattle? Was Heironimus that passenger? Has anyone ever interviewed Al DeAtley?
Prospector excavation — maybe
Todd Neiss looked at Davis’ recent still frames on my computer. Neiss says the excavation looks like a prospector’s test dig on the creek bank. “Sand” bars are good places for gold to fall out as it washes downstream.
Perhaps the excavation was a prospector’s test dig. Accepting that theory also requires acceptance that a prospector walked a backhoe over 2 miles up the creek to make the dig. While it’s a somewhat unlikely scenario, it would be a good one.
Other students of the film have used the word “backhoe.” My friend and long-time companion in the hills, Cliff Olson, points out that rubber tired backhoes were still rare in 1967. His opinion is a small 3 or 4 cubic foot front-end loader was probably on the contractor’s site back then. When Cliff watched M.K.’s slides at the Portland IBS meeting, his impression was that the excavation was made by a front-end loader. Whatever made the excavation, it is obvious, and from the teeth marks, fresh.
If the prospector thesis is true, the so-called massacre theory dissolves. So, it might be best to accept that as what happened – select the easiest, most rational solution and all that.
And, as Daniel Perez astutely notes, it is truly unfortunate no one outside Patterson’s circle intensively interviewed Patterson and Gimlin in the days after the incident. The opportunity for important detail was lost. For instance, no one asked DeAtley where he was the week prior to October 20th. How was the screening coordinated?
I do not accept the prospector test dig theory. My preliminary conclusion is one or more beasts were shot at Bluff Creek on October 17th or 18th. The men quickly saw they had a dead hominid, not an ape, at their feet. They became very upset and decided to rid themselves of the evidence and cook up a story between them to protect themselves.
And why would a female remain in a dangerous area two days after a violent incident? MK and Don speculate their new film analysis shows the female has recently given birth, and supposedly, a MD has confirmed such. Perhaps that has something to do with the beast being at the site on the 20th.
In any event, the ground in the sand bars at Bluff Creek is simply too hard to dig a big excavation with shovels. The sides of the canyon are steep. There was nowhere to drag and hide a body. It was still hunting season and about a month before snow cover.
What if someone came upon it? It could have been discovered by a prospector, timber cruiser, Forest Service employee and a variety of other people. If they did manage to transport it, what would happen to them when it was discovered? The body had to be buried.
The men arranged to borrow a backhoe or loader. Since there were no roads to the site, they made an arduous trip up the creek bed with the bucket machine to bury the evidence. Days are short that time of year and canyon walls quickly bring night. They left the site with some work undone. Thus we see spoils piles along side the excavation. In a rapid paced scenario, if a shooting occurred on Wednesday, they would have used the bucket machine on Thursday, and returned on Friday to finish hand-filling the excavation.
Roger Patterson, right, and Bob Gimlin, left, look at castings of the tracks imprinted at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967.
Timeline
The film, garnered on Friday, simply solidified their cooked up story. If the speculation is a true scenario, the body was buried, snow came, and spring run off washed away the evidence of a dig. The story ended, with only one main question remaining. How did the movie film get from Bluff Creek to Yakima in two days (Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday AM) and get developed along the way?
This is where my five trips to Samoa enter into play. It became perfectly clear to me after three visits that the Bluff Creek story was not what happened. The timing was virtually impossible.
This is my Friday October 20th timeline. Insert your own time estimates for each task, add them up and convert to clock time. (All listed tasks are taken from Daniel Perez’s “Bigfoot at Bluff Creek,” Norwalk, 1992.)
Patterson makes the movie at about 1:30 PM. They “round up the horses.” (Perez, page 11.)
They ride about 2 miles back to camp, in the stream bed, to get casting material.
P&G ride about 2 miles back to site, cast tracks, and film tracks. (Perez, page 12.)
Then, “We followed up this creek bed another mile …” looking for tracks. Next Gimlin climbed about 200 feet up a hillside. (Perez, p.13.)
They now have to ride about 3 miles back to camp. They care for their horses.
(a) In his top heavy horse truck, Gimlin next drives on logging roads over Bald Mountain to Arcata. The distance from P&G’s camp to Arcata is at least 45 air miles and at least 60 miles via the mountain route. Or, (b) The highway distance from Bluff Creek road west of Orleans, to Arcata airport is about 70 miles. Mapquest lists a driving time of about 1 hour 24 minutes on the new highway. P&G’s campsite was about an additional 30 minute drive north of Orleans on logging roads for a total drive time of about 2 hours. Pick one.
Someone arranged for film transport by registered mail, courier, or charter air in the Eureka area.
P&G were interviewed by a Eureka newspaper reporter who noted the incident happened about 8 hours earlier making that interview about 9:30 PM.
The two drove east to Willow Creek to meet with Al Hodgson. Willow Creek is about 45 miles from the McKinleyville/Arcata airport. They were also driving on the old road. They arrived “several hours after 6 PM.” (Perez, page 13.)
Gimlin and Patterson drove back to camp and were asleep by about 2 AM on Saturday October 21. It started to rain about 5 AM so the two men left for Yakima, driving straight through. The rain was heavy. Perez comments they were lucky to get out of the canyon.
Item 6 virtually erases the commonly used timeline and scenario for the Bluff Creek film.
Item 8 also concerns me. It’s about 15 miles from the middle of Eureka to the McKinleyville / Arcata airport. On old Hwy 101 it would have taken some time for the reporter to get to Arcata, or for P&G to get to Eureka, or to find each other mid-way. I’ve driven that road several times. On the new roadways it’s a 20-30 minute drive.
The rain storm in Item 10 explains why possible excavation, drag and tire marks on the sand bar were obliterated enough to be ignored, or at least not mentioned by later visitors to the site.
The timeline and story simply did not add up for me in 1995, and it still does not work for me today. After seeing the backhoe excavation slide, I am certain that something is left unsaid.
There are only two possibilities the timeline in the story would work. That is if Hodgson was far off on his estimate of their arrival in Willow Creek. This is somewhat unlikely as he met them at his store and would know about the time they arrived.
If P&G got to Hodgson’s store close to midnight, Hodgson probably would have said “close to midnight” or words to that effect. Also, Mrs. Hodgson was present as noted by Perez. Does she remember when they arrived?
There is another possibility that I have entertained since 1995. A third party took the film to the Arcata airport for a charter flight or to drive the film to Seattle. It was the courier who alerted the Eureka newspaper reporter that P&G would be driving in later to tell their story.
Who would be that third party? And if he had a vehicle, which he probably did, would he simply make a telephone call to the Eureka newspaper and then drive direct to Seattle for film processing?
If driven at reasonable speeds on the old roads, allowing for a four hour nap, the courier would arrive in Seattle in about 22 hours or about noon on Saturday. This would leave plenty of time for prearranged film processing, another nap, and a drive to Yakima by Sunday morning. It would be brutal, but doable.
Why say a courier was used and not a chartered plane? Chartering a plane is a big event. Either Patterson or Gimlin would have remembered doing it and would have mentioned an air charter to someone, sometime during the years. Arrangement would probably have to be made for DeAtley to pay for the charter. No one has written in detail or talked about chartering a plane to fly the film to Seattle. Thus, a trusted third party courier becomes a strong possibility.
A Second Site?
Anyway, in 1995 I reconfirmed distances on my last two trips to Eureka that year. Then something odd happened when I stopped at the Orleans Ranger Station. There was a Ranger inside, and a desk person.
I inquired about old maps. The Ranger politely asked, “Why?” I told them about my interest in Bigfoot and I told them about the site a long way up the hill. The desk person became interested and approached the counter.
Then they both told me in different words they thought the site was much lower down the mountain than above the 1959 bridge. The Ranger offered to take me up to where he thought the site was located, but unfortunately I didn’t have time to go with him. I had to get ready for next day at the pulp mill. On my part, that was a bad decision because the pulp mill later shut down.
Seven years later in October 2002 Alec Jennings and I spent a night at Louse Camp before the main expedition crew came up the hill. He went to bed early. It was dark and quiet, with only the sound of the creek flowing. I got to thinking about what the Ranger and the office person said about a site closer to the Klamath highway.
Fact – the film was taken a couple of miles upstream from the 1959 bridge. That was confirmed by tracks found at the site, background objects in the film, and visitors to the site. No problems there. But, what if there was a second site where something untoward happened?
One clue resides in Daniel Perez’s research. On page 13 of “Bigfoot at Bluff Creek” he writes: “Gimlin, noted Hodgson, was “very quiet.” Maybe something violent or unappetizing did happened elsewhere on Bluff Creek. Or, perhaps the simplest explanation is the best: Bob was just tired from a long, hard day.
However, the possibility of a second site opens many opportunities for speculation about what happened, when it happened and timelines concerning the happening. It is easy to think that somehow, before October 20th, the two men got some kind of result important to them, and Patterson’s money-man, Al DeAtley. What occurred was somehow communicated to DeAtley. Who knows what happened after that?
Finally, Gimlin once said one reason he stopped public appearances was because one night about 3 AM three drunks came banging on his door. They wanted him to take them into the mountains to shoot apes. Now where would they get that idea? What kind of rumors were circulating in the Yakima Valley? Started by whom? Obviously this incident greatly disturbed Bob, and his wife, so he dropped from public sight until 2000.
The End
Joe Beelart
West Linn, Oregon
Since all of this “massacre speculation” began, Bob Gimlin has suffered a broken heart from what M. K. Davis has said, Joe Beelart emails me.
Beelart told me that since he typed up the above long statement: “Basically he [Bob Gimlin] says the speculations are not correct: no third man, no shooting at all, and he provided an excellent explanation about using the backhoe.”
++++UPDATE Noon Eastern, June 12, 2008++++
The following was just received from Joe Beelart to be posted…
…at the end of the speculations:
1.
A rubber tired backhoe was used to pull Gimlin’s horse truck from a ditch. The backhoe was used for no other purpose.
The basics of the backhoe use are: (1) after only about three hours sleep, the men woke to heavy rain about 5 AM in predawn darkness. (2) They loaded their horses and gear. Bob started driving his truck up hill. (3) The two-wheel drive truck lost traction and slid backward, coming to rest against a tree.
The rear door was jammed against the tree and would not open. The horses were trapped inside. In only his shirt, Bob ran up the hill to try and find a construction site. The rain became very heavy and was cold, almost freezing. Slides were starting to occur.
Bob found the construction site and the backhoe. He managed to start the backhoe, fill the bucket with rock and drive it down to the truck.
Bob pulled the truck with the backhoe and Roger drove. As they slowly managed their way up the hill the road slid off under the right rear dual wheels. Trees were sliding down the slope above them. It was a very dangerous situation.
They got to the top and Bob returned the backhoe. By then, Gimlin was suffering severely from cold rain. Roger recognized he was hypothermic and helped him remove his shirt and put on a jacket. Fortunately the cab of the truck was warm.
2.
None of the later visitors to the site reported any kind of excavation. The marks are probably from natural water flow. Again, the simplest answer is probably the best.
The opinions and speculations presented above are those entirely of Joseph Beelart and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of the owners or administrators at Cryptomundo or any of the bloggers at Cryptomundo.
- Similar Phenomena:
It seems to me that all this discussion about ponytails, bullet wounds and mysterious other parties is the inevitable result of spending way too long looking at enhancements that simply exaggerate the film’s imperfections. People are seeing patterns and ‘evidence’ where none exist. The films as it stands, and the actions of the creature filmed, match perfectly with Gimlin’s story. I’m not saying the film is genuine, thats impossible to say for certain, but I’m pretty sure that if it was faked, Bob Gimlin wasn’t party to it. Lets stop mistaking wild speculation for considered opinion!
Good morning Cryptos…
Thanks to Loren and Joe…for sharing an interesting observation and speculative analysis…regardless of the circumstances or sequence of events… a compelling case has been made for passive respectful observation/interaction and legal protection…JMHO
If in fact genetic DNA analysis shows squatch is an “ancient people” as NA lore maintains…harvesting a “voucher specimen” becomes homicide…JMHO
The “Big Folks” have every right to exist and prosper, our failure to insure those rights is inexcusable and morally reprehensible…JMHO
live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
So it would appear that Davis and I are not the only ones who sense that something truly bizzare happened. Imagine that!
hey loren, this is a very interesting new update article about the bigfoot massacre indeed. thanks bill green
There is no apparent limping of ”Patty’ if she had been struck with a high-powered rifle bullet in the thigh. Even a large being such as she would still limp from the impact of such an injury. Patty’s limpless gait is equally as evident in the rarely seen end-footage of her hurrying off into the distance nor is there any evidence of blood in the sand that would have to have been present from such a wound!
I do not believe that Patty had been shot or that there was a massacre at Bluff Creek and think that speculation of this kind is only the result of people’s volent imagination infecting reality. Taking a mystical film of sasquatch and clouding it in a shroud blood and sinister actions from the land of ‘Whatif’ is deplorable and likely the result violent minds studying the film too much or from the influence of logging corporations wanting to blemish a beautful thing. This tragic take on the Bluff Creek footage really needs to be shelved for good!
Peace
There’s an inconsistency in the account concerning the “backhoe.” If the backhoe marks are visible in the film, then the machine was used before Patty came along and before the film was taken. That does not fit with the suggestion that the shooter discovered Patty was human and the backhoe was brought in to dig a grave.
Then we have the claim that the location was different from what P&G said it was. I thought that location had been found, mapped, filmed, and even modeled, and it seemed beyond question.
From a distance, it seems there are two possibilities. One is that only two men were there, and they filmed a real sasquatch. The other is that three or more men were there, with one of them wearing a suit.
It’s possible the suited man was there as part of a hoax in which Patterson and Gimlin were innocent observers who were set up by some third party, but it would have been hard to find a guy who would have pulled a gorilla-suit hoax in front of two sasquatch hunters who were well armed and might have succumbed to the temptation to bag Bigfoot for good.
A final thought, on watching the film again: if our choices are an unknown ape, a man in a suit, and a “wild” human being, the third explanation is way down on my list. From the waist down, it looks sort of human: from the wait up, not at all.
Everyone knows that this film IS 41 years old. It is the best piece of evidence going. But we are getting no where in the search for this creature, if we keep on speculating on the authenticity of this film. I believe it to be a LIVE flesh and blood creature and beating this film to death like a dead animal ….will only push us further back …not forward towards finding the truth about them.
I agree with the gentleman Ole bub, when he said …” The “Big Folks” have every right to exist and prosper, our failure to insure those rights is inexcusable and morally reprehensible”
They have been here longer that even my people, Research and Study …NOT Slaughter!!!!
Does any one know or has any one looked into the name of the company or person who “processed” the film. It is color movie film and would require special handling. I can tell you that back then color movie film was sent to Kodak from my home town to Rochester N.Y. for processing and it took near 10 days for return. I would bet that the Lab that processed the film is long gone and all records also gone. The speculation asks several good questions about time line but still does not prove mass killing. I would not rule that out yet because back then there was not a NO KILL thinking. Beelart may be right when you went into the woods looking for Bigfoot back then you took a high power rifle.
The only part of Joe Beelart’s explanation of his fantastic theory is the time line of events, and distances are difficult to match up. Those things do bother me but they lead me to question the dates provided not speculate on new participants or crime scenes. For me the most likely conclusion is the film was in the can probably on or before the date it was claimed to have been shot. I wont speculate on why.
Um, hey. Why is this just getting sillier?
There is nothing in this entire debate that is supported by anything known about the Patterson film. Note: known. Not conjured up in someone’s mind by sensory deprivation caused by too much time indoors monkeying with video.
Occam’s Razor says one thing: the simple account by Patterson and Gimlin of what happened – supported well by what is clearly visible on the film – is the most likely thing to be true of everything that has been deduced, induced, speculated or wildly guessed at.
This kind of rot is why cryptozoology can achieve no traction as a science. Real science is conducted by real scientists, working with their subjects, where the subjects are. Even in astronomy and molecular and quantum physics, where this might not be totally possible, speculation generally follows, clearly and logically, what is known.
As I said on a previous thread: the only thing Bigfooters have to fear, really, is themselves. And their rather incredible tendency to give stuff like this time of day.
Someone really needs to get outside. Evidence indicates there’s an ape out there. Not gonna find the ape in Photoshop, or monkeying with old film. You may indeed find some very weird stuff, but that stuff is all in your head.
I have added an overview of the M. K. Davis theory to the blog above. I did this to short-circuit the confusion that appears to be present in some comments about a timeline involving the backhoe’s use, the blood pool’s appearance, and which day there were shootings.
This is not to say any of these things actually happened, but if a cryptofiction is being developed by people that weren’t there, the least we can do is try to make remarks critiques based on their imagined timelines.
Speaking of cryptofiction, I’m quite surprised no one has tried a novelization of the events. (No, I’m not going to try it, I’m just surprised no one else has. As Shaara proved with The Killer Angels, fiction in the right hands has a way of making real events come alive, even if it necessarily involves speculation.)
I have added an update from Joe Beelart, to the text of the blog, with his informant findings on the matter of the backhoe.
It doesn’t sound very believable.
I tend to be for Occam’s Razor, too, DWA. But one never knows. Weirder things have happened.
Good post and good airing of both sides so far, Loren.
*Wonders if Google Earth can find 40something old backhoe traces*
I’m in agreement with John5. Besides the lack of a limp after getting “shot”; the figure in the film doesn’t react to the “ballooning” shown on its leg. Whether you are a bull elephant or a cottontail rabbit you will react to getting shot, even if it is small caliber. I see nothing in this film to substantiate any sudden change to the health of the individual in the film.
Wasn’t there logging operations going on in that area during the time the PG film was taken? Wouldn’t one expect to find heavy equipment and markings left by heavy equipment in and around that area? Are we to believe that Patterson and Gimlin were the only ones that could have had some heavy machinery in that area, during that time period? And if it took a simple courier a couple of days to get film delivered for processing, how long would it have taken to get heavy machinery in that area during that era when an untimely massacre supposedly took place? Isn’t there a much more logical and simple explanation?
This is starting to sound like conspiracy theory kookieness. Every item that is presented as fact for this massacre theory, relies on a series of contingencies. When in reality, the items are opinion and not fact. One man has the facts and happened to be there–Bob Gimlin. The massacre theory suggests: If this happened, it would depend on this or that longshot of an event happening. And then of course, this would have had to happen for the theory to continue backwards in story. There are so many contingencies based on grasping at improbable scenarios, that it becomes a bunch of IFs. If this happened than this might have happened. But they are all big ifs. It is all speculation!
The facts are there. Now maybe a few people were unsure of when things happened in the timeline. Maybe their memories are not so reliable as it pertains to time. Maybe they were not wearing a watch. But to take the timelines from witnesses as gospel truth, when they are based on their best recollection, and then use that as the reason for a BF massacre taking place, is just ludicrous.
What we do know is that Bob Gimlin stated no gunshots rang out. We know him to be a man of his word, a man of honor. We know the supposed embarrassment he felt when drunks showed up at his house asking to be taken on an ape hunt in the wee hours of the morning. Could it be he just did not like strange and potentionally dangerous people showing up at his house in the wee hours of the morning? Who does that? Who shoes up at a stranger’s house at 3 am drunk? Not sane or civil people. I would be looking out for my family’s safety and protection. Maybe I would not be talking about what I experienced with Patty. Wouldn’t a man of ethics want to protect his family? Or are we supposed to believe that he participated in the massacre of BFs because he did not want to endanger his family with nutjobs showing up at his house? That makes perfect sense to me and is the most logical conclusion. But some will try to apply the most logical reaction to make it fit a bizarre theory. Some others would try and sway your beliefs, that it must be because he participated in a massacre. That is highly less improbable than the most reasonable explanation, he wanted to protect his family from strange people. Brother!
You know, there are some people that believe that if they wear tin foil on their heads that they can communicate with extraterrestrials. And if others believed that same theory, they would use that example to say people agreed with them, so it is not an improbable theory. They will perpetuate a theory they believe in, just because some other person they found among millions of people, happens to be wearing tinfoil on their head too. I can tell you that most normal and logical people are not going to start wearing tinfoil on their heads in an effort to communicate with ETs just because a few people insist it is true. At least this truth seeker is not buying it.
Which is a nice segway into my humorous UFO BF Theory. Perhaps P&G used the UFO to transport the film to the lab and did it in seconds. Afterall, we know the film ended with BF disappearing. So IF Patty was transported to the mothership, then it could be that P&G had contact with the UFOs as well and asked them to transport the film for developing. We all saw Patty disappear at the end of the film and the most probable explanation is that a UFO transported her up to the ship. Afterall, UFOs were spotted in that same area in the past. So if UFOs were spotted earlier, and if we see Patty disappear, that means P&G could have befriended them and asked them to deliver the film for processing in quick order. See all the IFs and contingencies in that ridiculous UFO theory? I suspect this is the same kind of logic and thinking going into the massacre theory. Oh, and that hernia, is a subdermal tracking device implanted by the aliens. Given what we know about UFO accounts, they can travel at thousands of miles per hour. Thus making the trip in mere seconds. So it all fits together and along with other theories. The problem is all the IFs, all the contingencies, and the dismissal of more highly probable explanations, one of them being the truth and facts as presented by Bob Gimlin.
This new information does not add any more credibility to the massacre theory for me. For me, the PG footage is what it is. Some will try to make less of it than it is. And some will try to make more of it than it is, as it is with the BF massacre theory. Sometimes, it just IS what it IS!
Good God.
It suddenly occurred to me why very few take this animal or those who research it seriously.
80% of those who claim to research it are (shouting loudly here) FREAKING NUTS!
I never read about or heard about so many looneys in my entire life.
It’s a shame that a creature that actually exists attracts some of the looniest people on the planet.
Nature of the beast, I guess.
What especially doesn’t work for me with this scenario is the idea that they would have been afraid and buried the corpses.
America was saner in 1967 (at least in some ways, not others), and shooting a ‘monster’ in self-defense would not have been questioned by hardly anyone. Certainly not by local law enforcement.
If they had shot and killed one, they could have claimed self-defense, drug it out, and made lots more money than they ever could have from the film. Being hunters, like most non-urban men in those days, they would have known well how to take out a carcass of similar weight or size to a grizzly or an elk.
I just don’t think they had them selves a carcass to deal with.
First of all, if such a massacre really took place, why even bother to hide it?
If you knew you’d killed the creatures in cold blood but still wanted acclaim as the provider of the final and definitive proof of the creature’s existence, all you’d have to do is come up with some cover story along the lines of you’d inadvertently stumbled on the creatures, they’d gone completely ape, and you’d started blasting away in blind terror, only to afterwards find you hadn’t, as you’d intended, merely driven them off, but’d accidentally killed them all. (If you’d killed a family of humans in this way and were frightened of the bodies being discovered, this is precisely the sort of story you’d have to devise if you hoped to have any chance of getting away with it).
But if M.K. really does believe in this massacre, then why isn’t he up at Bluff Creek digging the bodies up? With modern CSI style techniques there must be evidence all over the place. (The remains of the Russian Royal family, subjected to extremely harsh and vindictive treatments immediately after their death, were still genetically identifiable almost a century later).
It’s almost as if he’s trying to win over both sides of the argument: he’s certain the film’s genuine, and expects acclaim from the pro-Sasquatch community for ‘proving’ this but, knowing the idea of Patty as genuine but unknown species is absolute anathema to the scientific status quo, he attempts to circumvent their censure and win their acclaim by ‘proving’ Patty is only a member of a family of genetically degenerated humans.
Then, when the expected universal acclaim from that approach fails to arrive, he begins modifying the theory with ever more astounding details, until finally he’s reached the stage where he now resembles some minor would-be rock star who keeps coming out with ever more outrageous statements in the hope all the indignant attention he’s receiving will eventually turn into real acclaim and real fame.
But prove me wrong, M.K., prove me wrong.
At the very beginning of that long piece of fiction are the words….”My notes were speculation”.
Thank you for that clarification. And furthermore, it is speculation built upon someone else’s speculations.
When it comes down to it I also do not doubt the words of Mr. Gimlin, and I would not venture to speculate things that are completely contrary to what he has stated and attempt to pay homage to him.
Since I know a little about photography, I’ve been hoping that Photo Expert could share with us a little about film grain size and at what point enlarging a 16mm film actually breaks down to nothing but various shades and shapes of dots, out of which many of the “speculated” details are simply a figment of one’s imagination.
If this has been done in another thread could I/we be directed to it, please.
Sergio: feel your pain, man. Although heck, maybe not.
You at least have one consolation: you have your proof.
Thanks to stuff like this, I will quite likely never get it. Unless I get way luckier than I tend to get with animals.
If I speculated that the cheetah was in fact a lost African tribe that knew it had to will itself to change into cats and work waaaaaay hard on foot speed to survive, I don’t think I could get that speculation into the door of a serious zoological conference.
But have a similar speculation with regard to Bigfoot, and zoom, all over the Web!
No wonder, indeed.
Tamarack–When evaluating film, it is a very tricky thing. There are several factors that come into play for digital image analysis. In the case of video footage, it adds some other factors into the equation. I am going to not get technical on this explanation. I will address the problems with an overview.
Let’s just look at a typical digital camera today. You would think that in this day of computer technology, everything would be pretty standardized. But it is not. If you had a Nikon D 70, that would be a 6 megapixel SLR type digital camera, correct? Then if you shopped the internet, you could find name brand 6 megapixel cameras, correct? Well the problem is that you think you are comparing apples to apples and both cameras should yield the same quality shot. They would not. You end up comparing apples to pears. The processor in the Nikon probably costs more than the other camera’s total price. That’s why the Nikon would give you a better quality image. In the other camera, the processor might delete pixels because of the quality and you end up with a 4 meg photo in the end, whereas the Nikon will give you a 6 million pixel finished product.
Then you have to look at the type of lens. Let’s say you are using a two Nikons. But you have an off brand lens X on one Nikon and a Nikon Lens on the other. Even though the cameras are the same, the final image is going to be much better, sharper and clearer with the all Nikon product.
Let’s say you are using the best of everything. And you take the shot. Well, if your exposures were not correct or dead on, you could either overexpose or underexpose the photo. If you overexpose it and were not in RAW image mode, you will lose detail in the photo. So exposure effects the still photo. With video, there are other factors.
The point is, even today, there are many variables which effect the final image. Think about the times in which Patterson and Gimlin obtained their footage. They were using one of the best fine grain films of the time. You will hear that argument used over and over again. You will hear them talk about the equivalent of the megapixel count if compared to today’s standards. Fantastic! Great! Big Deal is what I say.
For you see, the video cam that took the PG footage had different speed settings to get the best quality shot for the lighting conditions or subject matter. There were a couple of options for settings. Which one did they use? Well, if you asked them, they probably could not say for sure. And if the correct setting for the film was not there for the shot, one is apt to end up with less frames per second effecting the actual still taken from the footage.
And now let’s add the variable of processing. Was the film overexposed or underexposed? If so, was it noted for the lab to compensate in the development process? Ever hear of pushing film during developing? Was it done correctly in the first place? All these factors can add to the quality of the final product.
So these people trying to sound all knowing and definitive about P & G using the best film available is a lot of hogwash. There are so many factors that influence the outcome of the film that it is not even funny.
For a moment, for argument sake, let’s say we are fools and believe the hype about the best film available and the equating high megapixel count. Let me destroy that theory in two seconds. Put some vasoline on Carl Zeiss lens and use 22 megapixel back on a Contax 645. That is some camera and some back and some lens. However, you just put vasoline on the lens. What do you think the final product is going to look like? Film is one factor, quality of the lens is another major factor! My answer, garbage in, garbage out! What lens was P&G using? Even though it was the best film available at the time, does that even matter given the other factors? No! Everything would have to be perfect and I assure you, it was not. It all happened very quickly and outdoor with environmental elements that could effect quality. Again, that is why people with crazy theories will pick one asset, such as the film, and concentrate on that to turn you to their side of the argument. But it won’t stick if you know your stuff and ask relevant questions about the other dozens of variables that they left out of their theory.
I am just getting started. So now we have Davis proposing a theory. It is my understanding that he did not have the original but a copy of the original. Well, how was that copy made? What copier did they use at the time? Here’s the thing, if it is not the actual original, it is a first generation copy. You can say what you want, but any true expert will tell you that there is degredation of the original when it is copied into further generations when it pertains to slide film going to digital. There is some loss of data.
Which brings me to my next point. The software to enhance the copies Davis was working with was supposedly an over the counter type software. It was not special NASA software or something professionals would use. Even if it were, there is going to be degredation when you start fooling with the image. Through interpolation, data will be lost or changed, especially with an amaturish software version for editing. No doubt about it! But the proponents of this theory will argue how great the original film was at the time. That is all they can say. Once you buy that mess, they have you. True, it was probably the best slide film of the time. I used the still version of it. But if I did not have everything else in line that could effect the photo, who cares? See, if you believe just one technical thing they use for their argument to back up the theory, they have you buying into it because they have given you a “scientific stat” that can not be refuted. What they fail to tell you are the dozens of other things that effect the final image, and those things are just as important if not more important than the type of film used. They FAIL to tell you those things.
What I can tell you about digital manipulation, and especially digital manipulation with run of the mill software, there is degredation of the image. If you simply darken a photo, usually it will add pixels or change pixel color in most programs. If you lighten a digital image, these over the counter type programs remove pixels. Uh, hello, that is picture degredation. If you use a color separation tool and then do an additive process, you are changing the original image or copy of the image as it pertains to Davis. Eventually, if you enlarge a section of the still such as the hernia section of Patty, say a 24 meg image, the resulting enlargement might give you 3 megs of total image or less. And then you “enhance” it to bring out detail, or “dehance” it, as I like to say. Well, you will begin to manipulate the image to best suit your theory. And you can skew the photo into looking like it backs up your theory. A blurry hernia image is now manipulated to the point that the manipulator sees a gunshot wound. It no longer becomes fact, or science or anything else but opinion. The more you manipulate an image, the more “artifacts” increase in an image or the probability of them increasing.
Maybe that is why some are seeing sticks and braids and gunshot wounds. Garbage in, garbage out. I don’t know why they see these things. I certainly don’t. Most others do not see them either. But I guess if I play with an image long enough, I might see a UFO in the Patty footage.
Here’s the bottom line: The film quality does make a slight difference if all the other variables are optimal. If not, the quality of the original does not amount to a hill of beans. Secondly, when you manipulate a film while having a theory in mind, that favoritism of the theory will come out either intentionally or unintentionally in the final digital manipulation. I manipulated a photo of my girlfriend a year or two ago. Her hair color came out much lighter than it really was. I did not mean to intentionally lighten her hair, but it was my perception of her hair color of what I thought it was. I saw a blonder blonde. Davis is seeing gunshot wounds. To each his own. The PG Footage is what it is.
So Cryptomundo readers, I tried to keep it nontechnical as best as I could. Pixel count or film quality is somewhat important but don’t get hung up on pixel count. That is what they want you to feed into and thus feed into the theory. Don’t be concerned with what anyone tells you. Be concerned with what they do not tell you. I just filled in the blanks. You are all intelligent here from the posts I have read. Look at the film yourself. Draw your own conclusions and don’t necessarily believe the hype. By the way, I am still waiting for Mr. Johnsen to answer any of my questions from previous posts. I will get technical then, if and when he answers my questions.
Sergio…..
It’s people like you who make us rant like lunatics!
It’s so hard to get your point across to the people who actually want to know more about this creature, with people like you around. When it’s people like you whom we have to SHOUT OVER to make ourselves heard!
We have logged more time in more woodlands than you could even imagine.
One more thing, just for your information, a lot of us hold degrees in biology and the evolutionary sciences. Moron!
For you, Ignorance must be Bliss!
Indian Tracker:
I, um, think you and Sergio have to, like, meet.
You both sound like you feel the same way about the same people. You just don’t know it.
Reading your first post on this thread, in fact…with minor tonal, grammar and usage differences, Sergio could have written it.
I think you jumped too soon there. You two seem pretty sympatico to me.
Sergio, I believe, has spent more time in the woods than many if not most on this board. And if you are one of those with a degree in the sciences, you might want to read some of mystery_man’s posts. THAT is what they sound like.
Not sure, now, whether Sergio would want to tell you that he’s SEEN one…
Photo Expert…or not?
He begins his latest attack by saying that comparing digital cameras of the same pixel count is not apples to apples. I agree. The pixel count gives you the approximate size of the image…a six mp sensor yields an image that when the length of the frame is multiplied by the width of the frame the result is roughly 6mp. Actual image sensor sizes depend upon ratios (5:7, 4:3, etc) and effective pixel count. Also, the quality available from like sized sensors (CCD and CMOS alike) varies greatly. Nikon has one of the best and was influenced by the Kodak Indium Tin sensors of the DCS series used in their hybrid digitals developed with Nikon more than a decade ago. So, in that respect I agree with him.
Yet he blows his own assessment out of the water by comparing apples to oranges using digital means to illustrate the characteristics of Kodachrome II color reversal film processing. This is an inaccurate way to illustrate his point.
In 1967, when KII was in wide use, I was a 17 year old high school student. I owned a Nikon F manual camera and metered with an old Weston meter as I could not afford the F Photomic Prism that Nikon made to do through the lens metering. My film of choice was KII with an ISO (ASA) of 64.
KII was, in 1967, an investment in time for the photographer. KII was developed using the Kodak K-14 proprietary processing procedure that was largely only available at Kodak Labs in Rochester, NY as well as a few licensed places around the country, but nowhere else. So, when I shot a roll of KII I could expect a minimum of 7 to 10 days before I would see my results. I used the services of a lab in St. Petersburg, Florida by the name of RoMo Color Labs. They did just about everything in house, but the KII they sent to Kodak in Rochester.
The assertion that Patterson could have shot the film late one day and had processed film in hand in a couple of days is ludicrous, especially adding in the weekend. It was this very fact that sent the first red flag up the flagpole for me with regards to the timelines Patterson and Gimlin claimed. It just didn’t wash.
Why PhotoExpert (or not?) chose to compare digital processes to this is beyond me. Never the less, there is simply no way the processing could have gone the way P&G claimed…period. KII was a manually monitored process and was not designed for push/pull processing like the C-41, E-6 or B&W photo processes so the results were extremely consistent and reliable.
No way Jose. That is the first lie they told. Maybe there were more?
I think so.
John Johnsen
Grendel Films
Thank you for that post, Photo Expert.
Yes, I have played with “pushing” film. In the days of ASA, I used to use TRI-X Black and White film with a 400 ASA but would set my camera to 1200 ASA and push the film development time up (I forget how much more time I used in the developer) as I did my own processing.
Why did I do that?? So that I could shoot available light shots of a basketball game and still get enough shutter speed to stop action and have a good enough picture to publish.
What was I sacrificing? The pictures were obviously more “grainy”, but as long as I wasn’t wanting to enlarge them beyond 8×10 they looked good.
Yes, much has been said about the use of “the best film of that time” without even talking about the other variables. You make several good points and they fall in line with what I was thinking about the film.
I lived in Yakima and I also worked in a photography retail store for a while, and it was common knowledge at that time, (late 1960’s) that the closest commercial lab for color processing to Yakima, WA was “Color Labs” of Seattle and we would automatically send all color processing to them unless the customer specified “Kodak” processing, which cost more and took longer to get back because the Kodak lab was in California, but you would definitely get better results.
I was also aware of at least one private color lab in Yakima that did not do processing for the general public, but for their own purposes.
Coming up with a theory and speculating is one thing, actually naming names as to who did what is another. I am not going to be mean spirited to those who put this forward, but I want to see the evidence. Not a he said-she said sort of thing. One thing for sure, let’s go to the two areas (according to the article) and do a complete dig to see what is there, or not there. We will know for sure.
I know one of the skeptic’s arguments against the P-G film is that it was taken in a very high traffic area of loggers and hunters for the time of the year, and if true, how on earth could they do all that was supposedly done without witnesses coming along. Catching a hominid/ape on film that was quickly coming through was one thing, but having a slaughter of several creatures, filming one escaping, and bringing in heavy equipment to bury them without being seen by loggers and hunters coming through from the nearby road would seem quite incredible to me.
Please remember this is a comment section tied to this blog. It is not a forum for conversations, off-topic discussions or of remarks wandering into side issues not related to the entry above. Such comments will be deleted.
No chest-beating flaming will be tolerated either, of course.
Thank you.
Well I’m back.
My what a net storm the Massacree has caused. Sorry, I don’t buy it. It would simply be impossible to cover up such a mess, or conduct such an elaborate conspiracy to hide the murder/ killings of a Sasquatch family. A good fiend of mine has been scouring the battlefields of France the past two years. He and a French team of researchers found the exact location of Alvin York’s famous sniper stand right down to the lost buttons and shell casings from Alvin’s 45 and rifle. They found a few dead Germans too. Bones and bullets don’t fade away so easily, or wash away after every rain.
Bluff Creek may hide a lot of secrets, but I don’t think you find buried bones or shell casings from a Sasquatch shoot em up.
It’s my experience that people rant like lunatics, because, well, they’re lunatics; it’s analogous to the old “it quacks like a duck because it’s a duck” axiom.
Also, folks who issue challenges to people about whom they know nothing impress me as being a little higher than your normal run-of-the-mill lunatic — they are more your basic half-breed: part imbecile, part lunatic, regardless of whether they have a degree from God himself.
Nuts.
Wow. It is amazing the amount of information and detail that has been claimed to have been gleaned from the PG clip, and based on so few hard facts and so little concrete evidence. In my opinion, a major problem here is that a good deal of what is being said and theorized about is based on very subjective data, here-say, and sketchy, not always clearly defined facts. There isn’t anything in the footage that really objectively supports much of this whole story, and Occam’s razor is being thrown out the window. I’m sure anyone could look at the footage, pick out some details, and concoct a whole new theory, fitting what we see into their own vision, and the resulting story would be just as legitimate as anything here. Some alternative speculative takes might actually go a long way towards challenging and debunking this one.
I am pleased that many people are remaining rational and critical here, and approaching this with a scientific eye for the facts and a need to have evidence be the justification for supplanting what is already known. DWA said it well before when he noted that science follows what is known and what is supported by evidence. We branch out to new knowledge by slowly amending the facts of what is known based on improved understanding and better evidence. Personally, I am not comfortable with the large amount of assumptions being made in this theory and some of the conclusions that have been jumped to based on purely subjective evidence, basically sidestepping the way that real science would come to its understanding. Speculation is a very useful thing, but I must say I think this “speculative theory” is dangerously close to being claimed as the truth, and I feel that would be a very irresponsible thing to do at this point.
I say it’s time to move on. I don’t see what more we can learn from 40 year old footage, even with all the technology available today. The focus needs to shift to getting more and better evidence. However, for an armchair crypto-enthusiasts like myself this is about as close as I can get to any evidence. I do bring my camera when I go camping just in case
, but no luck yet!
Cryptidsrus- In response to your post way up there. You are right, weirder things HAVE happened. But the thing about Occam’s Razor, and this is where I find it is often misrepresented, is that it does not actually implicitly say that the simplest answer is the best answer or that it is always the right answer. What it says is that we should not posit plurality, which is to say that basically we should not make stuff up. Basically, that means that in absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest answer is the one we should go with for now, so let’s start there and work from that. The truth may be strange and not simple at all, but we should not start embracing these explanations unless there is evidence to show that the simpler possibilities are false.
In the case of this massacre theory, I think there is a lot of subjectivity, personal interpretation, and nothing that satisfactorily refutes the simpler answers. I feel that essentially some of it is “made up”, or in other words it doesn’t have enough evidence to negate some of the simpler possibilities. In that respect, I don’t feel we should abandon the simpler explanations for some of the points made here and go off embracing more fantastic theories as fact just yet.
What I see in the various PG vids available online is a lot of film/video artifacts all over the place. Heck Patty’s head changes shape drastically at certain points–there are blobs popping up and disappearing here and there the whole time.
I don’t see how the “hernia” is any different than any other blob that pops up and disappears, morphs into another blob, etc. It happens all over Patty’s body, the trees, the ground, etc.
Maybe MK does have access to much better resolution versions, but from what I see there’s just a lot of reading into things when the resolution just isn’t there.
I guess there be speculating next that Bigfoot landed at Roswell in 1947.
BIGFOOT DOESN’T EXIST!
Looking into the time line issue as it pertains to the developing of the film it was not difficult to find that Kodak had several of their own labs at various places around the country.
But, I also found that the U.S. Government had actually taken Kodak to court over the issue of film processing.
Apparently the government felt that Kodak should not be the only company that could possibly process their films and Kodachrome was at the heart of that lawsuit. United States v. Eastman Kodak Company.
As a result of that lawsuit Kodak was required to make the chemicals as well as the necessary machinery and technical information available to independent labs for the processing of their films.
It is pretty obvious that many independent labs were able to process any of the films made by Kodak at the time of the processing of the Patterson/Gimlin film since this had occurred before 1967 and at the behest of the independent film processors. It was required by the order of the lawsuit.
I have no problem with the processing of the film within the time frame described by Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin.
I think I am partially retracting my statement about the massacre. I could explain why Bigfeet are afraid of humans. I don’t blame them either. As we are constantly encroaching on their territory, encounters should become more common and eventually there will be a conflict.
Wow, what alot of info on this story. I wonder if what happened at bluffs creek is real that means the bigfoots are real, what great speculation, im intrigued.
Seriously. If you really want to use Occam’s Razor, then the correct conclusion for now would be that it’s a man in a suit.
wtb1- I don’t dispute that at all, in fact in many ways I agree. But the thread is not about whether it is a man in a suit or not. It is about the theory that was proposed, so I am staying within that framework.
one thought keeps repeating in my head, no matter how many times I read this stuff over……..”that’s just crazy talk”.
it’s like a national inquirer article.
Tamarack wrote:
“I lived in Yakima and I also worked in a photography retail store for a while, and it was common knowledge at that time, (late 1960’s) that the closest commercial lab for color processing to Yakima, WA was “Color Labs” of Seattle ….”
The lab was originally called “True Color” lab, then later (mid-sixties) renamed “Technicolor Labs.” (See Long’s book, bottom of p. 288)
“I was also aware of at least one private color lab in Yakima that did not do processing for the general public, but for their own purposes.”
I’ve heard a rumor of such a place too. Tell me more!!! In particular, did they do Kodachrome II processing? (It wouldn’t have been the TV station, because they didn’t have a color lab in 1967, according to what the boss there then, Bob Pace, told me.)
PhotoExpert wrote:
“Then you have to look at the type of lens. Let’s say you are using a two Nikons. But you have an off brand lens X on one Nikon and a Nikon Lens on the other. Even though the cameras are the same, the final image is going to be much better, sharper and clearer with the all Nikon product. … What lens was P&G using?”
The serial number of the lens given in the arrest warrant reprinted on p. 168 of Long’s book is RE 2796. This format–the alphabetical model code RE followed by identifier digits with no leading zeros–signify Kodak’s standard 25 mm lens for the K-100. I have a couple of K-100s with that sort of serial number on their lens, which also has Kodak’s name on it, thus: “Kodak Cine Ektar II Lens”. I believe this was a good-quality lens.
Incidentally, if you pick up an old K-100 on eBay with lens #RE 2798, you’ve located a valuable collectible.
PhotoExpert wrote:
“There were a couple of options for settings. Which one did they use? Well, if you asked them, they probably could not say for sure.”
The speed was set by a hard-to-move dial with a range of 16 to 64 fps and no click stops. (Contrary to what has sometimes been published elsewhere, for instance in Krantz, p. 307.) Only dot-markings identified the four standard settings: 16, 24, 32 & 64. It would have been possible for Patterson to have set the fps at 18, which was Krantz’s estimate. It’s likely that 18 (or 16) was the setting, because (as Meldrum and others have argued):
1. At 24 fps the film would have been less blurred, due to shorter exposure times per frame;
2. At 24 fps the movement of the horses in the “cowboy footage” in the three minutes preceding the Patty footage would have looked jerky and unnatural;
3. According to Igor Bourtsev, who analyzed the film in Moscow in the early 70s, the rhythm of the camera-swing as Patterson ran would have been in sync with his steps. At 24 fps this would have required a stride-frequency beyond human capability. (See Dmitri Bayanov’s excellent and little-known book, America’s Bigfoot, pp. 45-46 & 135. This analysis has also been done by Krantz, in his Bigfoot Ssquatch Evidence, pp. 94-97.)
I love conspiracy theories. They’re fun to think “what if”? But this one makes no sense. An entire group of Bigfoot killed? But they were actually very hairy men? If several persons ended up missing, were there no police reports looking for them?
Secondly, if Patty were shot, why did she just lumber away? If it were a guy in a suit, he didn’t yell “stop! I’m an idiot in a suit!” If, as I think the evidence has shown, that Bigfoot is an unidentified species of ape, why not attack? Why not scream in rage?
Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up, and makes those actively searching for cryptic creatures look foolish.
Tamarack wrote:
“It is pretty obvious that many independent labs were able to process any of the films made by Kodak at the time of the processing of the Patterson/Gimlin film since this had occurred before 1967 and at the behest of the independent film processors. It was required by the order of the lawsuit.
“I have no problem with the processing of the film within the time frame described by Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin.”
There were, on the contrary, few labs that could handle Kodachrome II in 1967. It required a machine whose cheapest, stripped-down version, from a non-Kodak mfgr. in Minneapolis, cost $50,000. (Information courtesy of Frank Ishihara, chief technician at Technicolor labs–personal communication.) For more on this rare-lab situation, see Long’s ch. 17, pp. 277-94.
However, some people have contended that a very knowledgeable, dedicated, and capable amateur could have developed such film without a machine, if he did everything just right. E.g., perhaps someone in the photo-school of a university. This is an unsettled question.
PhotoExpert wrote:
“If you lighten a digital image, these over the counter type programs remove pixels. Uh, hello, that is picture degradation.”
I very much doubt that any program, OTC or not, would remove pixels. It would degrade the image, which customers would dislike. And it would make it impossible to get back to the original image when the customer moved the slider bar back to Darker. I bet something less drastic than pixel removal is done.
PhotoExpert wrote:
“Was the film overexposed or underexposed?”
It’s possible to overexpose a light subject in an image, and simultaneously underexpose a dark subject. The sand in the PGF looks overexposed (too bright), but Patty seems underexposed (too dark). (This is why the PGF is confusingly described both ways, by different people.) But the overall exposure looks right in the cibachromes and the transparencies. That is, the foliage color in the background, and the log in the foreground, seem neither too light or too dark.
One complicating factor is that when a K 2 film is copied to Ektachrome, contrasts are heightened (according to MKD). In other words, darks get darker and lights get lighter. This hides detail.
From what I read in the comments, the only really interesting thing that has surfaced from all this speculation is the issue about the processing time for the P-G film and where it could have been done—could it have been done by an amateur so it wouldn’t cost so much and would be ready sooner to show the film to the media, as Roger Knight points out?— This I can agree to discuss and research further. The Bigfoot Massacre? Pass.
“Basically he [Bob Gimlin] says the speculations are not correct: no third man, no shooting at all, and he provided an excellent explanation about using the backhoe.”
Should this not end the matter?
To Roger Knights…
Thank you for the detailed substantiation and corroboration of what I said concerning the KII processing. Technicians that operated KII processors were highly trained at Kodak’s Rochester facility, trusting their good name and reputation to very few third parties.
A comment here concerning the lens issue that Photo Expert (…or not?) brought up.
The assertion that the Nikon lens in his example would consistently yield better images is bogus. There are lenses manufactured by Nikon that were, frankly, an embarrassment to the company. I.e, the original 43-86mm Zoom Nikkor. That lens was rushed through production without adequate testing to meet a market demand by photojournalists and was dismally soft at all focal lengths. Nikon corrected the problems in subsequent versions but the damage had been done. The newer 35-70mm lenses were much better.
Also, manufacturers such as Tamron and Sigma, typically make high quality stuff. One of the very best nature photos I have ever taken was with a Kodak DCS460c (a Nikon N90s with a Kodak 6mp digital back) using a Tamron 70-300 LD (low dispersion) zoom lens. It was sharp enough to cut you. And, those lenses in most mounts sell for around $140 or less. An OUTSTANDING value. So, without a lens by lens comparison, Photo Expert’s (…or not?) claims are without merit.
His comment about “removing pixels” is blatant garbage. I am not a software engineer, but designing any program that removed pixels, rather than simply altering their properties, would lead to overnight failure. Get real.
Photo Expert (…or not?) displays little photo expertise.
As to the issue of the Ektar lens…you are again right on the money. Ektar lenses were highly regarded by advanced amateurs and pros alike. Even if there had been an after market lens on the camera, manufacturers such as Angenieu, Leitz and others were as sharp if not sharper.
Photo Expert (…or not?) has accused me and M.K. Davis of wild speculation without knowing the facts, and demands answers to questions I have already answered. Yet he is practicing the very same methods. He knows very little for a guy who claims to have been called as an expert witness where photo analysis was key. I feel sorry for those whose lives may have been affected by his testimony.
This whole debate has been, allegedly, about facts. Well, if you do not know the facts yet run those into the ground that do, you are just guilty of grandstanding and waisting everyones time.
John Johnsen
Grendel Films
PhotoExpert wrote:
“If you use a color separation tool and then do an additive process, you are changing the original image or copy of the image as it pertains to Davis. Eventually, if you enlarge a section of the still such as the hernia section of Patty, say a 24 meg image, the resulting enlargement might give you 3 megs of total image or less. And then you “enhance” it to bring out detail, or “dehance” it, as I like to say. Well, you will begin to manipulate the image to best suit your theory. And you can skew the photo into looking like it backs up your theory.
………………
“When you manipulate a film while having a theory in mind, that favoritism of the theory will come out either intentionally or unintentionally in the final digital manipulation. I manipulated a photo of my girlfriend a year or two ago. Her hair color came out much lighter than it really was. I did not mean to intentionally lighten her hair, but it was my perception of her hair color of what I thought it was. I saw a blonder blonde. Davis is seeing gunshot wounds.”
The hair-blonding is not really a good analogy. Merely lightening or darkening your girlfriend’s image wouldn’t cause non-existent hair braids and pony tails to appear, even if you wanted them to be there.
I do believe a person can fiddle and fiddle with various settings until some “face in the clouds” emerges. This is especially likely if only a portion of an image is “lassoed” and played around with.
But the sentence I’ve boldfaced is too sweeping. When the entire image is “enhanced,” and the enhancement is fairly simple and/or straightforward, subtle details can become more apparent. Just about everyone can see them, regardless of their predisposition, and no predisposition is likely to insert them. Footprints in the sand, for instance. If several of these emerge and they are regularly spaced and of an identical length, it is a piece of evidence in support of the film’s authenticity. At a minimum, it knocks down a talking-point against the film: that no tracks are visible in Patty’s wake. Very little enhancement is required in order to see a trail of several of these in the new transparencies, although enhancement adds clarity to the details in them.
On his more controversial “finds,” what’s needed is for several photo experts to sit down and see if they can replicate what he’s obtaining, apply different software tools and see if the finds are “artifacts” of his software or not, and critique his methods in dialog with MKD. Ideally there’d be a jet-pack-wearing peer-review tag-team at his elbow day and night. (Not that he’d be the only one who’d benefit from such angels on his shoulder.)
wtb1 wrote: “Seriously. If you really want to use Occam’s Razor, then the correct conclusion for now would be that it’s a man in a suit.”
The problem with that assertion is that a man in a suit is actually not the simplest explanation or conclusion. Especially when one REASONABLY and realisticly considers how exceedingly difficult doing so was at the time, given the circumstances, terrain, technology available. In fact, I think it was impossible (and still is 40 years later) to pull off that film with the available technology of that day.
In fact, it’s been demonstrated several times now that even 40 years later, putting a man in a suit and obtaining similar results is not at all simple; in fact all attempts thus far to recreate or even imitate the original film have looked silly in comparison.
While admittedly it’s not at all simple to conclude that the film subject is an undocumented bipedal non-human primate, it is, in my opinion, no more simple to realisticly and reasonably conclude that it’s a man in some kind of suit.
Even now, when we watch motion pictures and TV shows from the 1960s and even the early 1970s, the special effects are incredibly bad, even an embarrassment, when we realize that back then, many of those movies and shows with special effects, costumes, etc, were considered to be convincing. However, as time passed, and better technology and film methods evolved and became better, we were able to see those movies and shows in a different light and their effects are now very much dated.
The P-G film has very much stood the test of time. It looks the same now as it did 40 years ago; its degree of realism has not gotten worse with time (as the Planet of the Apes and other shows of the time have). The subject in the film looks much more realistic than Chewbacca or the apes in the movie Congo (who all have very noticeable and obvious extensions to their arms, unlike the P-G film subject).
Patrick Bede:
couldn’t have said it much better.
Occam’s Razor requires evidence. No one has been able to produce a scrap that indicates a fake of P/G could practically have been done, let alone evidence that it was.
Bill Munns - an unquestioned expert in the most relevant field to the question - puts Occam down firmly on the side of: real animal.
Man in Suit isn’t cutting it. Because, as mystery_man notes:
“we should not posit plurality, which is to say that basically we should not make stuff up. Basically, that means that in absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest answer is the one we should go with for now, so let’s start there and work from that.”
Says Occam: you have to make up a LOTTA stuff to put a man in that suit. And it isn’t as simple - not even near - as: that’s an animal that we’re just in denial about.
Until someone smartens up, and comes up with the evidence otherwise, here’s Occam: interesting critter. Don’t need to make up a thing to see that. So. Found him yet?
Mystery_Man:
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t tend to believe Davis either. I’m just saying that one cannot reject the possibility that the “truth” in this case may be “out there,” in the sense of “stranger then strange.” One has to be open to the possibility that there “may” be some truth in this. However, I agree—this is almost certainly BS. I’m hedging my bets, to be honest. 99% of me says this is false, but I’m leaving it open for that one percent.
To parapharase Sherlock…
“Whenever one eliminates the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.”
From what I’ve seen so far, this is leaning towards “impossible, not improbable.” Somebody is lying here. And it sure “looks” like Davis is.
Let me back up on the “lie” bit. Let’s say the data was “misinterpreted” by Davis. Wild speculation ensued. In any way you see, confusion and accusations ensue. And this controversy is used by people to further discredit the discipline.
Ultimately, you are right about Occam’s Razor.
I’m a believer (I’ve never denied it the time I’ve been here) so I tend to be reluctant to be as empirical and assign ulterior motives to people as other folks here. But I’ll go out on a limb here—this smells like BS.
So, ultimately, I agree with you, Mystery_Man.
Roger Knights:
Great analysis!!!
Patrick Bede says
“Even now, when we watch motion pictures and TV shows from the 1960s and even the early 1970s, the special effects are incredibly bad, even an embarrassment, when we realize that back then, many of those movies and shows with special effects, costumes, etc, were considered to be convincing. However, as time passed, and better technology and film methods evolved and became better, we were able to see those movies and shows in a different light and their effects are now very much dated.
The P-G film has very much stood the test of time. It looks the same now as it did 40 years ago; its degree of realism has not gotten worse with time (as the Planet of the Apes and other shows of the time have). The subject in the film looks much more realistic than Chewbacca or the apes in the movie Congo (who all have very noticeable and obvious extensions to their arms, unlike the P-G film subject). ”
I’m glad that you mentioned that. While watching a “Making of” show pertaining to a movie that I don’t remember the name of right now, one of the special effects people said something like “what is cutting edge today looks corny tomorrow”. I also think that even looking at the lesser quality net versions of the Patterson/Gimlin film, or the times that it has been used in several T.V. shows it doesn’t fall into the corny catagory for me.
I have not intended to diverge from the posted article. It has simply been apparent to me that much of the “Bluff Creek Speculations” post are built, as I alluded to before, on other people’s speculations, not on verifiable facts. Some of the speculations are presented in such a way as to appear to be true up and down this rickety ladder. In actuality it would take a great deal more research and documentation than has been done. Sources have been cited who to me are not of an authoritative level, let alone credible, yet they have been taken to be such.
Occurs to me I should clarify “Occam’s Razor requires evidence.”
What I meant was: for a posited solution to be considered the simplest, you have to be able to get there without positing plurality (i.e., making stuff up, such as is being done with the Patty Massacre Theory right here right now).
To say that Patty was what Patterson and Gimlin say it was doesn’t require making stuff up. If you have seen enough humans and enough ape suits, you know that does not look like either. Expert analysis has come to the same conclusion. There is no reason - contrary to what seems popular belief - that this critter, if such it be, is implausible. The film could simply show the critter (and much other evidence seems to say that it does).
To say that’s a man in a suit you have to posit much that simply isn’t there: how a human could get into that suit and look that natural; how that human could have gotten to that site; how that human would have had to be dealt with in order to provide such a convincing appearance; how the tracks, equipment and other evidence of all the people required to do that dealing could have gotten there and then vanished with no one knowing about it other than the perpetrators; and on and on.
When 40 years have not only not yielded evidence of a fake but haven’t even provided anywhere close to a plausible scenario how it could have been done - well, do you have anything anywhere near what Occam would call a simple solution? You don’t.
Hey, um, that’s an ape?
Now we are talking simple. And backed by lots of other evidence pointing right back to: yes, it seems to be.
Application of Occam’s razor can be a definite advantage in ferreting out the truth. However, it can also slice you to the bone!
There are some great posts and opinions coming out on this topic. Also, a lot of good information on film and developing techniques. As someone who really doesn’t know anything about cameras, it is fascinating to learn about this stuff. A lot of good posts here. By the way, DWA, thanks for the compliment up there about talking science. It’s good to know I make sense sometimes to at least someone.
All this arguing goes ultimately back to the enhancements which MK Davis made to the original P&G film. He has said that the enhancements are too complex to send the motion picture film over the web and still have the quality be any good. Okay, I can accept that. But if MK Davis has overlays and stills, then he should be able to send A STILL over the web without degrading it beyond usability. Send just ONE still that shows something new. Show me a picture of a braid; I can’t see it on any other version of the P&G film I’ve ever seen. If you tantalize me enough, I very well might buy a copy of the DVD, just so that I can see whatever else might be there, along with the braid (or whatever). That way everyone would be happy.
The waters are muddy, but I’ll try to wade in anyway.
On Occam’s razor and the P/G film: we know in fact there are hoaxes and hoaxers. We do not know for a fact, bigfoot exist. Hence, Occam’s razor suggests a hoax shave. (Advocates offer hyperbole when addressing how authentic the P/G subject looks; closed minded skeptics say it’s “obviously” fake. Must be in the eye of the beholders.)
In an earlier article, Davis (or someone in his behalf) stated that Patty Patterson possessed
some very clear stills from the original film. Accordingly, these stills were revelatory as to the Native American identity of the P/G subject
(and, presumably as well, a gun assault on the subject). So, posters who claim not to see what Davis claims to see are not addressing the real issue. Obviously, it is Davis’s responsibility to share his evidence with serious researchers like Meldrum and our kind host, or sit down.
A salient issue popping up here concerns the time frame involved in the processing of the original P/G film. This has troubled researchers from the beginning. This troubling fact suggests that Patterson and Gimlin were not entirely accurate in the telling of their story. And if they were not telling fact about this part of the story, then maybe other parts of their story are suspect as well.
John L. Johnson’s first post above offers a curious admission. He says that he and Davis and now Beelart, “sense” that something is amiss with the conventional P/G narrative. This is extremely curious because one cannot simply “sense” the contrary narrative that they put forth. Their narrative is pure fiction and imaginary unless they have some testimony or real evidence in support of it. To date, they have offered nothing but scenario.
jerrywayne- Nice, insightful post. I am resisting the urge to discuss whether Patty is actually a real sasquatch or not, but what you said about this whole MK Davis theory is right on the money. Right now, it is all conjecture, and without more solid objective evidence that’s all it should be treated as. So far, it amounts to speculative cryptofiction, yet some are making the mistake of treating it as if it is an actual scientific hypothesis supported by actual evidence. I agree that until something other than what has been put forth already comes to bear, this is more or less just a speculative exercise at best.
Two words, PEER REVIEW. The ones who have proposed this theory now have done so without making their data readily available for analysis by other parties. Usually, the way real science works is that this sort of theory will be announced along with tangible evidence to support it upon which it will be open for review by others within the field. Evidence FIRST, THEN publication. By the time the theory is put forward, it has already been well researched and has evidence to back it up that can be put under scrutiny by others. The opposite of this is what it seems is happening here; proposing the idea first , then either being unwilling or unable to provide adequate peer review of the data used to come to the conclusion (and I mean real, objective data). If every neat idea that scientists have was expected to be given real consideration and weight without the evidence to back it up, it would take forever to learn anything new.
So absolutely Davis needs to share his evidence with other researchers, and make it available for peer scrutiny. If not, this whole theory cannot pretend to be a viable proposition and should not present itself as the truth, or pretend to be something to be given real scientific weight when scientific protocols are not being followed. Until such peer review is put into effect, I think we have really no choice but to treat this as a flight of fancy, pure speculation. I say, don’t tell us this is how it happened. SHOW US.
DWA “Occam’s Razor requires evidence. No one has been able to produce a scrap that indicates a fake of P/G could practically have been done, let alone evidence that it was.”
That so misses the point that it doesn’t deserve to be explained to DWA.
wtb1:
When you explain something - anything - here, I for one will be listening.
But you don’t seem to be able to do that. If you changed your handle to Captain Potshot, it might be more spot on.
I explained myself above, quite well, but you missed it so badly I don’t feel the need to point you to exactly where I said it.
Hoping you smarten up.