|
Post by thomassteenburg on Oct 4, 2009 1:49:38 GMT -5
A new article by Bill Miller entitled, "Massacre at Bluff Creek" has just been posted on the main page of this web site. It is also posted on the "SearchforBigfoot.org" web site. It concerns the outlandish claims made concerning the slaughter of a number of Sasquatch at Bluff Creek back in 1967. And the wild speculation that John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus as well as others not only new about it but helped to cover the whole matter up. Pretty out landish stuff.
Thomas Steenburg
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 4, 2009 2:02:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 4, 2009 11:38:52 GMT -5
This is an example of 'tabloid' research which is so common in the past decade. People making wild accusations and leaving it up to the victim to try to defend themselves against evidence which does not even really exist. Excellent come back on the part of Bill Miller, who clearly gave this story a great deal of attention and focus. Too bad the perpetrators of this latest fiasco didn't do likewise! They are all too willing to yel "fire" in a crowded room, just to have the notoriety of being the first to respond.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 4, 2009 11:58:07 GMT -5
Here are some images taken from what Davis called the 'Dog Attack'. In the real world it was obvious that the pilot had just ran his hands over the dog in a friendly manner and then appears to look to see if he had hair on them before moving on ... (least ways that was my interpretation). MK Davis asserted that the dog had just attacked the pilot who MK had mistakenly thought was Titmus. MK also implies that the pilot's hands are all bloody. Yet in latter frames seen immediately afterwards ... the pilot's hands appear clean and none of the men in the film appear to be reacting to the alleged vicious dog attack. Invent a scenario out of thin air - add red color to selected areas - and there we have another piece of the puzzle come together (sigh~) Give me a break!!! I hope that when Bobbie Short told me "but the trouble is with advancements in technology, it would appear that keeping the secret isn't going to work any longer" or when Paulides said to Hodgson "It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out" ... that they weren't talking about this kind of nonsense. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 4, 2009 18:31:01 GMT -5
Another look at the 35MM still camera that was not a large Movie camera resting on Green's shoulder ... Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 5, 2009 14:47:16 GMT -5
Great job Bill! How ridiculous can people get. If anyone in the bigfoot scene has integrity, it is John Green. I know his family, and the integrity has been passed on down the generations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2009 4:52:09 GMT -5
When Davis was adding the red blood to the film, he forgot to add the blood to the white dog. I guess the dog didn't get any blood on him even though he had just attacked, and even though there were dead sasquatch lying around everywhere. Whatever........
Thanks for adding the film clip here.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 7, 2009 22:36:56 GMT -5
I took a moment to go look at the site where the MK supporters are supposed to be criticizing my article. The forum in its header says its - Factual - Friendly - and Professional. I tried to respond to one fellow in particular, but the post was lost when it was telling me that I needed to give them my personal information just to post there. It appeared to me that my critics(s) are more cult minded than anything else. Below are some of the things that they said. I will respond in bold lettering.
The genius writing his flaming response failed to understand that by showing there was no large movie camera on Green's shoulder, that Green wasn't wearing a pistol on his left hip, or by making these super sleuths aware that the Blue Creek Mountain footage was not excerpts from the Patterson/Gimlin film that I had indeed answered several questions by way of their own evidence.
I think the critic has his facts wrong. Green didn't deny having 'a camera' on that trip, but rather John Green denied having a 'movie camera' in his hand on that trip. Do these people not even know MK's position before responding to the article I wrote using MK's own illustrations. Paulides used MK's version and asked Green about a 'large movie camera' being on John's shoulder. If these people cannot keep the basics straight, then how can they claim to be able to set the record straight?
This is interesting because is not MK's position that Green and Patterson were in Bluff Creek filming the slaughter of Sasquatch at the same time. And someone tell this guy that he keeps spelling Al's last name incorrectly.
Once again this individual hasn't a grasp of the claims being made by those he thinks he is defending. Why would it matter how long Green and Gimlin were in Bluff Creek? The claim made by MK is that they were all there running their cameras at the same time as the Sasquatch were slaughtered. I think that even the slowest of thinkers wouldn't believe that this slaughter lasted from Summer to Fall. When people post such idiocy ... there can be no reaching them for they are living in a different world than I.
I guess this is where I should rest my case. (smile~) What splice is in the camera original Patterson film? MK claims to see evidence of a splice in a film copy that was spliced into other films for public speaking venues. None of this has anything to do with the Patterson film being spliced.
Blood on a left foot! Maybe it looks that way on a poor copy of the film, especially one that MK has admitted altering. MK also put red on the pilots hands and claimed that a dog attack had just taken place ... none of which is supported by the very film the copy was made from. Artifacts can occur in the copying of films, but common sense should dictate that if something isn't present on a better generation film that the copy was made from, then the artifact is non-related to the image itself. I invite this individual to get one film expert to say otherwise.
The sequence showing the alleged red hands on the pilot shows Green and the pilot of equal distance from the camera in front of a log on the ground. Both men's shadows can be seen in alignment with one another, so even if there was an inch difference in depth between the two ... it won't make a 5'7" man look anywhere close to 6'4"
It appears that the defender of the massacre claim didn't have the time to watch the film in question either. I advise that he take the time and do so, for only then will he be better suited to be eating anyone's behind out. As far as the fishing remark ... I cited Paulides from his emails and from the questions he put to John Green. The critic didn't correct anything and only misstated the record which isn't a rebuttal at all.
Everyone needs to understand that I wrote the article with other investigators in mind ... not the cult minded who cannot keep their facts straight.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 13, 2009 20:34:21 GMT -5
www.network54.com/Forum/23217/viewall-page-1If people read the first post on the board list of responses at the above link which was of John Green and posted by by someone who goes by Monster Hunter, then they will also see a follow-up response to Green. It was that follow-up response that I posted to today because my name and the article (which I did not send to that forum) was being discussed. That post was not allowed to go onto their forum and Monster Hunter wrote the following ... "Bill Miller... by Monster Hunter You are no longer allowed to post on this forum...you have no idea what you are talking about...you talk when you should have listened and done your research...you had ample opportunity to discuss issues but you chose to go to other forums and post your thoughts without answering questions here..." I find it self-serving that posters from ***** will go to other forums and pull information to post to their site's forum without posting a single response on the original site where the article originated and yet use the double-standard that because I read something off their site and posted on it elsewhere, I should not be allowed to be heard. So much for their header that proclaimed the ***** to be fair - friendly - and professional! If that is the way they want it and don't mind people knowing it, then so be it and here it is as Monster Hunter's less than sense of fair play goes out for discussion as does my response that was not allowed to be posted. It will go on three other major sites ........... Monster Hunter responded with the following to John Green's post: "Please explain the short animation below... This is you and what appears to be Titmus....are you telling us this is not Titmus?...Miller claimed it's the pilot that is the same height as you...obviously you tower above this man even though you are further from the camera... We know from the Dahinden film you and your crew had a dog...Patterson and Gimlin, according to their reports, didn't mention a dog...can you explain the bloody dog track in the Patterson film?..." My response that Monster Hunter doesn't want seen on the ***** was as follows: "I would like to point out some things that may be of help ... To start with and what I am sure was mentioned on the forums was that MK Davis brought to you people a copy of a copy of a copy ... and each generation removed from the in-camera original film's state will suffer remarkably. In this case things like color shifting took place - deep shadowing within the image - and clarity are among those changes. As should be known by all by now is that what MK was viewing was a poor multi-generation copy of the Blue Creek Mountain film that he thought was part of the Patterson film. The happen-stance of making that mistake falls solely on Davis and is excusable to all that follow until the record has been corrected, then to overlook the known facts when analyzing this film becomes inexcusable. Any splice seen on a film that is now known to have been spliced so to be added to the Patterson/Gimlin footage for public viewings back in the late 60s and 70's should be of no surprise to the researcher. Furthermore, one should at least consider that a film that was used to give multiple talks and was shown through the an old time movie projector was very susceptible to being damaged. So the point should be whether the camera original or copies made prior to the one MK used had such a splice on it or not. Even the copy Murphy had which was the source for MK's copy is a different print than the other one John Green has ... I know this for I have watched them both. In other words, Green had more than one print that was created for public speaking venues. So even if MK's print had half of it showing splice after splice ... it only means that it was his copy that was damaged and has nothing to do with prior copies that show no such damage. My advice is quite simple ... watch a better copy than what MK settled on. The next part of the post was about the height comparison of Titmus and Green ... If I did the math correctly ... there was roughly 9" difference between the two men. Below is the image of Green and the pilot who some continue to speculate as being Bob Titmus. Both men are in front a log laying on the ground and there can't be half a side-step between their varying distances from the camera. The camera is above the horizontal plane on several reference points of their person marked with yellow lines. (see below) The yellow lines match very closely to particular reference points on each man's person. We don't know that the ground is perfectly flat and most likely wasn't. Green could be elevated an inch or two higher than the pilot and visa-versa ... that area was very uneven, but who cares about an inch or two when the difference between Green and Titmus in height was around 9". Think about it! When Dahinden's filming location is looking downward below the horizontal plane, then two alike reference points will appear slightly higher than the other even if they were not. The point is that Titmus was very short compared to Green and the two mens reference points seem to match up rather well when thought through thoroughly. The alleged dog print should be embarrassing to those who have given even just a little thought to all of this. The alleged grave site and blood pools were more than a mile and probably closer to two miles away from the Patterson/Gimlin film site. Seems pretty asinine to think a dog tracked blood over sand and through streams for two miles and managed to leave a print on Patterson and Gimlin's sand bar. But what about MK's scenario ... Patti is alleged to be fleeing the massacre as it was happening. Someone make a guess at just how blood would be spilled from an animal covered with thick hair and laying on sand or in a creek? How much blood could pool out onto the ground so the dog could walk in it in a matter of seconds as Roger started filming just as Patti started walking away. How could this have happened and have the dog make a single track on sand where no other prints are seen and manage on top of it all to be out of sight from Roger's camera? When one starts considering these things, they they are forced to see that this scenario can't stand under its own weight. I have come to believe that the ***** site is meant for the cult minded for it is such groups who don't want their people to think for themselves and would then try and squelch a post such as this that exposes their lack of forethought and sense of fair play. Monster Hunter showed his colors to me ... he is MK's 'Baghdad Bob' and is willing to oversee a double standard to downplay their screw-up. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 13, 2009 23:24:16 GMT -5
I share what some poster writes because I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant as to write the following remarks ...
"In regards Mr. Green... by Monster Hunter Yes you have made the points you wanted to make...and I do disagree...there is evidence with many suspected involved...you label this as ridiculas speculation based on old copies of the film...the transparencies of the film are copies of the original film and are hardly ridiculas...they do provide significant amounts of evidence of blood not bark as previously proposed...the bark theory, proposed by Miller, is "ridiculas speculation"...
And I do disagree that gun shots were not fired and creatures shot...the film evidence does provide us with highly questionable circumstances that occurred at Bluff Creek...
I would think you would be one of the first to mention witnesses sign sworn affidavits to go along with their story since you were the one that began using affidavits...are you willing to sign sworn affidavits that creatures were not shot and that you are telling the truth by all accounts?... " (end)
This joker want's to still support the idiocy that blood is seen in the Blue Creek Mountain film. The fact that Green was there two months before Patterson shot his film means nothing to this character. And what does this guy even know about what is and what is not seen on the ground when these boobs couldn't tell a small 35MM camera from an alleged large movie camera slung over Green's shoulder.
Personally I think the guy is purposely trying to make Bigfoot researchers look like complete idiots by pretending to be someone who can't tell which season in a given year comes first - Summer or Fall. He talks of a polygraph for John Green and I for one wish that Green would entertain the idea as long as Monster Hunter would also take one as well so to see if he really believes the diatribe he promoting. I suspect that he does not!
I can say with 100% certainty that he has not seen Green's best copy of the film, nor the camera original that Eric Dahinden now owns. To do these things would be an attempt to be aware of the facts, so my question is why has he not made arrangements to be a responsible researcher and want to see a film print first hand that leaves no doubt whether a camera is a large movie camera or a small 35MM ... wouldn't others like to know?
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Oct 14, 2009 10:57:40 GMT -5
Wow. Just wow. I want to jump in there to defend Mr. Green, but I see he is handling it swimmingly. The sad thing is that he shouldn't have to be!
Bill, thank you for handling this matter on behalf of all of us on this board. You are concise and eloquent and don't miss a thing. This entire matter should have been laid to rest long ago, I don't know what these people think they are going to 'discover' by hammering away at Mr. Green like this. They have clearly made up their minds as to the course of events at Bluff Creek and they will take no alternative explanations. What a ridiculous waste of Mr. Green's time and talent, not to mention the amount of time Bill has had to waste in reiterating the facts over and over. People like this don't want facts though, they want sensastionalism to spice up their boring, meaningless lives. Aren't there enough versions of 'Law and Order' on TV to fill whatever void they have in their lives?
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 14, 2009 14:52:08 GMT -5
Then there is this type of lunacy from someone who should know better ....
Re: Taped interview with witness that called Patterson... by Bobbie Short
I believe that phone conversation between Al Hodgson & Roger Patterson occurred on Monday of that week. (Green's "Apes Among Us" 1978 Chaper 4 Bigfoot at Bluff Creek) Hodgson is also on tape placing his son and Bob Titmus meeting John & Rene's chartered plane at the Orleans airport. Or as Rene called him... "dat bugger, Titmouse."
Patterson had plenty time to drive down to Bluff Creek because Rene, John and Titmus waited for Don Abbott to arrived from BC until Thursday. They were all there. John, Rene, Titmus, Dale, the dog, Roger and Bob until at least until the end of the week; explaining Roger's lack of beard in one photo (arrival) and his substantial beard, same clothes in another on his departure.
Once Bill Miller verifies the date the pilot filed the flight plan; when he left BC & when he flew the chartered plan out of Orleans & back to BC., he'll come to understand the full picture.
At the same time, the pilot's license will have his mug shot on it, proving he looks nothing like Bob Titmus as John insists...
Fwiw, and this is just my own observations, I think the Patterson film was shot during John's second trip down via the chartered plane and not in October. I presume (if we believe the testimony of Sheriff Charlie Edson & Red Collier) that Bob & Roger went back down in October only to shoot new fall footage for the movie Roger was making and to make it look like it happened then. This would explain how the film got processed so fast too. Bobbie (end)
While it may be true that Hodgson thought the pilot could be Bob Titmus in the beginning because he was being shown a very dark degraded copy image that could give the impression that it was Titmus, Hodgson certainly knows better now. For instance, Bobbie short takes a photo of Titmus taken 10 years prior to the Patterson/Gimlin film and attempts to pass it off as a match for the pilot in the Blue Creek Mountain footage and believes it to be real research in the making. A logical approach in my view would be to compare a photo of Titmus at the time that the Patterson film was shot and compare it to the pilot in the Blue Creek Mountain film. By then Titmus would have been 10 years older than seen in Bobbie's carefully selected photo, but then again maybe that is why she chose not to do that ... you think???
Just last week when talking to Al Hodson, Al said to me that it was he who picked up Rene, Green, the dog and its handler, and the pilot and took them to Bluff Creek. Bobbie says Al said it was his son and Titmus. Green wrote over 30 years ago that it was a different man and back 30 years ago when memories were fresher and records easily available ... no one was challenging Green on that claim, not even Hodgson. Instead, people like Short wait until some of the players are dead and the remaining others having to deal with faded memories all in the name of what - good research? At 80 years old my late father was telling stories that he had told again and again over the years, but now mistakes like giving credit for something that involved me to my brother was being implemented into the story. While the stories had remained basically the same ... dear old Dad was simply getting the players confused which wasn't happening all those years before.
Short writes that once I verify the pilots flight plan, then I will see the full picture, so does this mean that Short has done this and if so, why not share it so to offer me that full picture? Does not the claim maker have the obligation to run those records down ... I think so.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 15, 2009 22:48:51 GMT -5
It has been asserted by Davis that the mouth of the Patterson creature was altered. When I noticed on 'Bigfoot Central' that Davis was talking about the mouth of the Patterson creature being altered as if conspiratorial ... I took a look at it for myself. It took all of about 10 seconds to see that one film was contrasted more than the other. Anyone who has added light and contrast to an image has observed that once you go past a certain point, then the image will start taking on a different shape as over contrasting will alter borders. Below is an example of this ... Once information has been removed from an image and then saved ... it cannot be brought back. On the other hand ... information on an image can be degraded to the point of removing information. A simple test of this took the better image showing the flat mouth and by simply adjusting the contrast and brightness ... I was able to get the same shape mouth as was seen in the second image. So it appears that no one added a flat lipped mouth, but rather contrasted a Patterson/Gimlin print and created the odd shaped mouth. Opinions and questions are welcomed. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 16, 2009 13:35:42 GMT -5
Its interesting for me to see just how little actual data is implemented into Davis's explanations and how his followers blindly accept his claims without question. One such example is the claim Davis made that a muzzle flash is seen on the Patterson film. Below are three consecutive images from the Davis animation whereas he claims the white spot seen in two frames is the result of a muzzle flash ... Here is the animation MK uses to show the alleged muzzle flash ... Lucien Haag's article regarding muzzle flash ("Muzzle Flash!," Nov/Dec 2007). A muzzle flash lasts only between 0.017 and 0.033 seconds. The spring wound camera Patterson used ran at a speed of 18fps. In other words the best Roger's camera could do is capture a single muzzle flash at some point from its total duration. The data shows that it is physically impossible for a camera like Patterson's to capture the life span of a muzzle flash at two points. So what is the cause of the white spot. One explanation comes from a fellow researcher who said 'the alleged muzzle flash looks like nothing more than a rub on the film. That any rub or burn will expose the light behind the film and appear white. That it can easily be reproduced with any bit of filmstrip.' The explanation re-stated here is possible and surely explains why the diagonal tree trunk seen near the white spot was totally eradicated - the claim that Patterson's camera was able to capture a muzzle flash on two consecutive frames that were filming at only 18fps is IMPOSSIBLE. Once again a piece of evidence that was said to support a slaughter at Bluff Creek doesn't appear to have been investigated thoroughly and cannot stand under its own weight. Bill Miller
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 1:46:11 GMT -5
I've been following this story for some time now and just wanted to add a few things. Monster Hunter posted this gif on his forum on Oct 15th. The first part of the gif claims to show Patty's hand clenching in pain as she is shot (which he circled in blue)- IMO the 'hand' is just a piece of dirt which appears in line with other pieces of dirt on that same frame (which I circled in red)- all of which disappear together in the following frame.
|
|