 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
 Posted: October 4th, 2009 08:23 PM |
     |
|
This is and article written by Bill Miller that responds to the "conclusions" by David Paulides and M. K. Davis. Bill has had decades of experience analyzing and researching photo and video evidence and I know him quite well so you can rest assured that what he's talking about is more than reliable.
PBYodeler
The Massacre at Bluff Creek
just when you think you've heard it all!
by Bill Miller
Just when you think you've heard it all
there comes a story so bizarre that it boggles the mind as to how it could have possibly gotten started in the first place. As I looked into the matter for myself so to see what evidence someone could possibly produce in support of such a horrific claim as alleging that a family of Sasquatch were murdered in Bluff Creek, California in 1967 and were then butchered like something out of a B grade horror movie, I found myself in total disbelief as to the extent that someone would go to so to try and sell a story and how gullible others would need to be to buy into it. It was soon apparent to me that this tale was born not from fact, but rather from rumor and innuendo with an added slight of hand.
It has been said that the bigger the lie
the more people will believe it. These words could never of been truer in this case or how else could otherwise intelligent people of been taken in while what I refer to as 'tabloid research practices' had taken them over. Allegations being born through what I deemed to be poor investigational standards were quickly being leveled at select individuals before a real inquiry had even begun. Because so much of this story appears to have been created from fallacy, it is difficult to imagine that an agenda wasn't being fulfilled somehow by shooting first from the hip and then asking questions later. It wasn't long before a select few individuals were claiming to have inside information about a 'very, very dark secret' pertaining to Bluff Creek
and without first offering any specific substantiated details - they were instead demanding answers. In one particular case, the idea of taking a polygraph examination was being sought for John Green by one Dave Paulides (author of the books titled 'The Hoopa Project" and "Tribal Bigfoot"). But before I get started, I would like to share some of what I had pieced together of this alleged massacre at Bluff Creek by putting some of the widely scattered about and far too often unfounded assertions being made based solely on what I considered to be poor investigational practices and interpretations evolving around a darkened - over contrasted - multi-generational film copy.
The first I had heard of anything whereas Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin had partaken in the slaughtering and butchering of a family of Sasquatch in Bluff Creek back in the fall of 1967 came by way of Bobbie Short. Bobbie has one of most well known sites on the Sasquatch known as 'Bigfoot Encounters'. At the time I was not yet privy to the details pertaining to what was being alleged to have occurred in Bluff Creek concerning the killing of a family of Sasquatch. Instead I was offered a short simple generic response on June 11th of 2008 which said, "Let me take you back to times when Rene (Dahinden) used to say he had a secret about the filming of the Patterson creature. I know the real truth and I suspect John (Green) does too.... but the trouble is with advancements in technology, it would appear that keeping the secret isn't going to work any longer....... ask him. If he won't tell you, I will ....." It has now been 15 months since that time and Bobbie has yet to tell me precisely what this secret is that John Green was alleged to be harboring. However, after being offered an invitation by Green to read a series of emails and responses that Bobbie and others had sent to him over time, I feel that I've gotten somewhat of a better picture as to the conspiratorial mindset of some of those individuals who would later become a part of the fiasco leading up to what has been referred to as 'The Massacre at Bluff Creek'.
Despite John Green and others having written quite thoroughly about the events that transpired in the summer of 1967 at Bluff Creek, California
and again later that fall when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin had gotten a film of what appears to be a female Sasquatch in the same general area, there came no shortage of questions that could have been answered had the interested party of just taken the time to review the available materials already in print. One such source is 'On the Track of the Sasquatch' written by John Green and published in 1968. On pages 45 through 49 is a summary of the events that caused John Green and Rene Dahinden to merge upon Bluff Creek in the summer of 1967 so to investigate fresh foot tracks that were reported to have been left on Blue Creek Mountain the night before. During that visit, there was some movie film shot of the area by Rene, along with still pictures by both Rene and John so to make a record of their trip and what they had seen. My understanding is that some time after their return to Canada, Rene made an edited version of his film which was later used to give talks on the subject at various venues. Yet in some of the emails I had read between Green and Bobbie Short there were these types of questions being asked in which the apparent source for Short's information had involved MK Davis and a multi-generational copy of Rene's film that Chris Murphy had apparently shared with Davis.
Here are some examples of the types of questions that Bobbie presented to Green
"Have you ever sat down with MK and taken the time to understand it before you cast a critical eye?"
"Am I to understand that you did a quick turn-around immediately after Bud Ryerson's phone call ("what you're looking for is here") and flew back down to Orleans airstrip in a chartered plane with Rene to merely "look for more tracks" and that you waited for Don Abbot to arrive several days later, merely so he could look at tracks? Come on John, that doesn't fly with anyone least of all me...you hadn't been home 24 hours when that phone call from Ryerson came in. That's in your Ape book."
"You had already seen tracks in Bluff Crk
what did Ryerson mean when he told you
"what you're looking for is here."
"Why would you hire a handler & tracking dog to look for more tracks?"
"Why did Dale Moffitt insist on two rifles for protection? Protection from what, tracks?"
Theses are but a few of the questions that were being put to John that a mere reading of his books would have all but answered them. As for me personally, I have a method that I like to utilize in such matters which is called 'Occams Razor'. Occams Razor is quite simply a principle whereas 'entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary'. In other words
it was most logical and certainly acceptable that John Green would want to be called if fresh tracks showed up again in the Bluff Creek area so that a tracking dog could be put on the scent as soon as possible. It was also quite reasonable to believe that the dog handler would want rifles on hand in the event that his highly skilled dog was able to lead the group to their quarry. Let us not forget that no one really knew what they were dealing with or what would happen in the event of a confrontation with what ever it was that had been leaving the large tracks on the ground at that time. Keep in mind that it would be almost two months later before Patterson and Gimlin came upon and filmed one of the creatures responsible for leaving the large foot tracks on the ground. Until that time the world had only heard general descriptions from eye witnesses as to their being a large upright ape-like creature roaming the Pacific Northwest. It only made sense that the dog handler would want to play it safe and have the added protection for his canine.
In further review of the correspondence record between John Green and several other people who were seemingly hinting that something sinister had happened at Bluff Creek, I came across an email whereas Dave Paulides had said this to Al Hodgson
"I actually got my hands on a fairly old copy of the PG film, full framed with segments on it nobody has seen. It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out. I actually believe that John Green and Gimlin are harboring a very, very dark secret, really."
To those who don't know who Al Hodgson is
Al was the man who owned the hardware store in Willow Creek, California at the time Roger Patterson shot his famous film. It was the same evening after Roger Patterson had filmed the Sasquatch (October 20th of 1967) when Al had got a call from Roger who was using the pay-phone outside of Al's store so to tell him what he and Gimlin had just witnessed only hours earlier.
While Dave Paulides has been careful not to commit himself to certain specifics, he had made particular references that pointed in the direction he appeared to be heading in this ridiculous tale of slaughtered Sasquatch. In one of his emails, Paulides attached some images to John Green that were not of the P/G film as he had mistakenly thought, but rather from the Rene Dahinden film taken during Green's return visit to Bluff Creek in late August of 1967. It appeared that Paulides may have been unaware that the old film he had told Hodgson about coming into possession of was actually the edited version of Dahinden's film on Blue Creek Mountain that had been attached to a copy of Patterson's film for public showing purposes and other venues. I still find myself wondering how anyone could think that the two films (Dahinden's and Patterson's) were shot at the same time. The facts was that the lush green scenery of late summer in Dahinden's film compared to the deepened red fall colors seen in Patterson's film is quite discernable.
Needless to say that Green wasn't impressed with the accusatory remark Paulides made to Hodgson on July 15th of 2009 about John harboring a 'very, very dark secret'. Green responded that if Paulides wanted to know about what he saw in Bluff Creek during his visit there in the last week of August 1967, then the thing for Paulides to have done would be to of gone to who would best know the answer John Green! In an emailed response to Green on that particular point, Paulides arrogantly writes: "Telling me how to be an investigator is like me telling you how to be a journalist. Telling me I should go to you first is the EXACT opposite protocol to ANY investigation."
So just what should a good investigator do? Let us review once again what Paulides wrote to Al Hodgson
"I actually got my hands on a fairly old copy of the PG film, full framed with segments on it nobody has seen. It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out."
In a later email to Green from Paulides dated August 17th of 2009 Paulides asked this about the film he has had in his possession for at least one month
"What is the man pointing to on the ground that you appear to be looking down at with something on your shoulder? What is on your shoulder? We had our experts determine what was on your shoulder and with 99% accuracy they determined it was the attached and inserted camera. I trust your integrity, but please tell me what is on your shoulder?"
The multigenerational still frame from Dahinden's movie that Paulides was referring to when asking what Green had on his shoulder is seen below. The second image with a movie camera inserted is a crop of the same frame that Paulides also presented to Green. The inserted camera illustration was presented to Green alleging it to be the large movie camera that Paulides (unnamed) experts were 99% sure of seeing
(see below)
Still capture believed to have
originated from MK Davis
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/79...ecameralens.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/51...roppedfroma.gif
The problem I have with Paulides and his alleged unnamed experts claiming with a 99% certainty that Green is holding a large movie camera is that they are using a very dark over contrasted copy of Dahinden's film. Areas that are dark all blend together, thus making borders all but impossible to determine most of the time. Areas that are brightly lit and heavily contrasted are expanded out of their original borders, thus often giving the interpreter a false image of what's really there. It's also known or should be known that movie film, especially Kodachrome II film like that which Patterson used, had a highly reflective property and was made for outdoor light exposure. As often happens when copied by way of artificial light
color shifts within the image take place. In other words, colors often look differently on a copy film than they were seen on the camera original. As I looked at these images, I had to ask myself what kind of expert looking at photographic evidence would want to make a call so bold as to proclaim a 99% certainty of anything from such a poor image source as the one being provided by Paulides. It would seem to me that a logical and responsible approach to take would be to want to see the original film which would undoubtedly be better lit, clearer, sharper, less contrasted, and offer a more accurately colored image for study compared to those images that these alleged experts were willing to rest their hats on. Let's be honest
Who has ever felt that one can see more detail through a dirty window vs. a clean one. As of September 17th of 2009, I am told by John Green (owner of a 1st generation copy) and Eric Dahinden (current owner of the camera original) that Paulides, nor anyone representing him, has sought to see either man's film which is of far better quality than that Paulides was using.
The end result of trying to interpret poor multi-generational and over contrasted images must have surely led in part to the series of questions that Paulides put to John Green in his email of August 17th of 2009.
Some of those questions were
Question #1- What is the man pointing to on the ground that you appear to be looking down at with something on your shoulder?.
What is on your shoulder?
Photo #2
John- you say that isn't a camera on your shoulder? What is it then?
We had our experts determine what was on your shoulder and with 99% accuracy they determined it was the attached and inserted camera. I trust your integrity, but please tell me what is on your shoulder?
Photo #3 Has same content as #2.
Photo #4 It appears you have something on your belt just above and in front of your left elbow. What is it on your belt? Is that a pistol holster?
It should be noted once again that it was on July 15th of 2009 when Paulides wrote to Al Hodgson and said that he and his experts had in their possession the film in question. However, it appears that neither Paulides nor his experts had ever actually watched the entire Blue Creek Mountain sequences of John Green in motion or else they would have known that Green had nothing on his shoulder. As the film advanced they would have been forced to see Green's left hand pull away from his shoulder and in it he would only be holding a small still camera. (See top right of the illustration below)
Going back to the question Paulides put to John Green where he asked what it was that Green had on his left hip
Paulides: "It appears you have something on your belt just above and in front of your left elbow. What is it on your belt? Is that a pistol holster"
No better example could be made for what not being thorough can do when attempting to interpret images because had Paulides or his alleged experts of just taken the time to study the film, they then should have noticed that when Green turned into the sunlight that it was quite obvious that he had nothing on his belt that would make someone think he may possibly be wearing a holster or a holstered pistol on his left hip.
One of several still captures sent
to John Green from Paulides
Even a simple lightening of an image can often times eliminate unnecessary erroneous interpretations, none of which Paulides or alleged experts appeared to have done. This method that I speak of is mere common sense in my view. I mean
does not a person who enters a darkened room first consider turning a light on so to better see what's around them
I certainly do!
No holstered pistol visible on left hip
(Photo of film frame taken by Barry Blount)
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/9615...lsterongree.jpg
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/7507...eenshipcomp.jpg
If Paulides and his alleged experts did in fact watch the Blue Creek Mountain film footage in motion, then they have some explaining to do as to how it was that each one of them failed so miserably in not catching these undeniable points. Paulides had written to John Green on August 16th of 2009 and said the following
"The job of a professional researcher/ investigator is to not pick and choose who they feel is honest and only follow those leads, but to thoroughly and professionally investigate all angles of an incident. This process vindicates the truthful, which, I know this is what you want." I have a hard time believing that Paulides or his alleged experts implemented that approach when they looked at the images from the Blue Creek Mountain film footage. If anything it appeared that they did just the opposite or how else could have many of the questions being put to Green ever of been considered in the first place.
So how did all this nonsense come about and who was it that started this ill-fated fiasco? Because so little has been learned by those seeking these answers because the accusers have been vague in their so-called evidence of Green and Gimlin harboring what was alleged to be a 'very, very dark secret', I can only speculate.
Please let me share what I believe may have happened
.
Several years ago Chris Murphy sent MK Davis a copy of the Blue Creek Mountain film footage so to make some still-captures for a project Chris was working on at the time. At some point after that
Davis started analyzing the footage in question on his own. Along the way and for what ever reason, Davis started thinking he was seeing things within that Blue Creek Mountain footage and from that he formulated the notion that a slaughter of Sasquatch had taken place in the Bluff Creek area on or around the time that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were there and had gotten the now famous film that Roger shot. From the reading of an email that I received from Bobbie Short it was apparent that Davis had shared some of his thoughts with her, which then led to Bobbie telling me about Green having a secret that she believed that she now knew and if he wasn't going to tell me what that secret was, then she would.
It wasn't until earlier this year that I started hearing about Davis having posted numerous clips on Youtube.Com whereas MK was alleging that he was finding things within the Blue Creek Mountain footage that pointed to a mass murdering of Sasquatch at Bluff Creek. Among some of his claims was that he was looking at a gravesite that Green and Dahinden were present at that a man seen in those images holding a rifle was none other than Bob Titmus that red blood could be seen on the sand at the gravesite location that the presence of blood could also be seen on the ground near a pool of water along with alleged Sasquatch skin seen laid out on the ground not to mention several other outlandish claims.
In reviewing several of MK's clips, it wasn't always being made clear by Davis that he was altering images. However, having seen a far better quality copy of the same film, it was apparent to me that this was exactly what he had done. Several such examples can be seen under the title 'MK Davis Illustrations' that are shown below
MK Davis illustrations
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/4913...beillustrat.jpg
It would seem to me that to anyone with any knowledge at all of the Blue Creek Mountain film footage and considering the lack of image quality that MK Davis was using
that they would see how unreliable the interpretations of MK's could be and how important it would be to seek out a more reliable film source. The fact is that the pilot (top left) in the Blue Creek Mountain film footage was not Bob Titmus. The much younger looking pilot than the 48 year old Titmus in 1967 was as tall as John Green who was 6'4" when Bob Titmus was around 5'7". In one illustration it was obvious that MK Davis had manipulated the color of the hands of the pilot (top right) so to imply they were bloody. The same seemed to have been done with the fast flowing stream as well (bottom right). Other copies of the film in question did not show red hands or a red stream.
MK Davis Illustration enlarged
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/3395...streamofred.jpg
In some instances there was text added to the illustrated frame stating that the image had been altered. "Three clicks of color
" was admitted to, but no reference as to what one click represented in intensity. Meanwhile at the same time MK appeared to be suggesting to the viewer other things that he simply had no proof of, but could be implied having now adjusted the color of certain selected areas of the image. For instance, on Green's copy of the same film a scene starts at the tail end of the pilot having just pet the tracking dog. The slight of hand came when MK made the hands appear bloody while offering a tale of a dog attack having just occurred. (See below)
MK Davis Illustration admitting to color intensity alteration
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/1608...lightofhand.jpg
In fact, the stream at Bluff Creek flows so fast that I believe it reasonable to say that a 55 gallon drum of blood could be poured into the water and it couldn't turn the stream red from shore to shore before quickly being swept away downstream. To most people it was quite clear that the assertions that Davis was making couldn't stand under their own weight when thought through and yet it appeared that some people had bought into his claims without first properly analyzing them. Another such example was in Davis suggesting that he could see blood at a location that he purposed was the gravesite.
Photo of a Single film frame from John Green's Film Copy
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/6127...llustration.jpg
(Photo of film frame taken by Barry Blount)
Inserted in the above film frame is a view of the log behind John Green. As the movie film advanced, Green moved away from the area marked with an 'X' and behind him was seen a spot on the tree whereas the bark was missing. The color of the bark matched that of the blurred reddish brown spots on the ground. Because blood turns very dark rather quickly when exposed to the air, it didn't seem logical to me to believe that I was looking at blood on the ground. However, it seemed logical that in an area where logging had been taking place and it being obvious that other pieces of bark was scattered about
that the spots asserted to be blood by MK was nothing more than pieces of bark on the ground
Photo of myself holding a large section of bark
that is reddish brown in color on its underside.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2096/52216943.jpg
(Photo taken by Barry Blount)
What a ridiculous affair this had turned out to be! It seemed that the more outrageous the allegation the more eager some individuals would embrace the possibility. Whether purposely done or by carelessness
rumor and innuendo would take the place of fact and the implementing of overly darkened contrasted images from a multi-generational film would help sell the story. White had become black and black had become white. What is truth?
In one email Dave Paulides wrote to Green on August 15th of 2009, Paulides said, "I never stated that you were harboring a dark secret" and yet one month before and to the day Paulides had said to Hodgson that "I actually believe that John Green and Gimlin are harboring a very, very dark secret, really." Those emails are seen below (email addresses have been substituted with the senders name)
From: Dave Paulides
Date: 8/15/2009 2:04:07 PM
To: John Green
Subject: Re: Re: FW: Book
John
I think you have me confused with someone else.
I never stated that you were harboring a dark secret, ???
I never called you any names. John, I wa the COO of a major technology company, I don't belittle people. I don't call people a "fool", and, again, I have absolutely no understanding why you are treating a supporter of you like this, its bizarre behavior, respectully speaking.
Dave
From: Dave Paualides Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:10 PM To: Al Hodgson
Subject: Re: Book
Al
Thanks for the email.
I hope your time with Francis isn't too laborious.
I actually got my hands on a fairly old copy of the PG film, full framed with segments on it nobody has seen. It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out. I actually believe that John Green and Gimlin are harboring a very, very dark secret, really.
The info on the RR came from the SP museum in Sacramento, heck, I shouldve just contacted you.
I miss talking with you. If you're ever down here seeing your son get ahold of me.
Tribal Bigfoot was twice as hard to write as the Hoopa project, I really do hope you like it.
Your good friend!
Dave
Another thing that should have come to mind to a seasoned investigator and his experts in my view would have been to want to know what other footage of the scene might be found on the original unedited film that Rene Dahinden had taken. If for no other reason than to know if close-ups of this alleged 'large movie camera' could be seen so to be certain of the facts before making what could otherwise end up being seen as part of an unnecessary careless slanderous claim against other individuals.
It should be said here and now for the record that I recently followed up with both John Green who has a far superior edited copy of the film in question than Paulides obtained and Eric Dahinden who has the camera original that his father (Rene Dahinden) took at Blue Creek Mountain to see if Dave Paulides has contacted either of them to see their films. As of September 19th of 2009, it appears that Paulides, nor his alleged experts, have attempted to see either of these men's films.
On August 22nd of 2009 Paulides wrote me saying
"I tried my best to explain that we have much more evidence, better evidence, more complete evidence then anyone seems to understand." If Paulides has other more complete evidence than the handful of images attached to his emails, then I am sure that the accused would like to see it. Of course his email to me was written before he will have seen this article, thus he may think differently now and not wish to be so arrogant when it comes to the abilities of his so-called alleged nameless experts
at least when it comes to photo interpretation.
I would also like to say that I am not attributing the ideas and claims of MK Davis to those of Paulides. What I tried to convey that from the record and the timing of the events that what ever it was that lead to the types of questions that Paulides was presenting to John Green were most likely born out of the erroneous suggestions being made by Davis. That between the poor darkened over contrasted images combined with the power of suggestion, not to mention the altering of some of the images by MK that Paulides had been mislead and relied too much on the materials Davis had used. What I have attempted to do is look at the evidence as it has been presented so to see if it had legs or not. My conclusion is that it did not!
We all make mistakes and it's been said that a mistake isn't a mistake unless we refuse to correct it. I believe that there is ample evidence that points to Paulides making a huge mistake when he claimed that Green and Gimlin were harboring a very, very dark secret. In my view there are several people who owe a big apology to John Green, Bob Gimlin, and anyone else they wrongly implicated is this most ridiculous tale. As the character of the accused was called into question, the tables have now turned and many of us will be watching to see if the accusers will have the character to admit their mistake. So far, MK Davis has removed all his video's from Youtube.com.
Special thanks to John Green, Eric Dahinden, Al Hodgson, Thomas Steenburg, Chris Murphy, Sebastian Wang, and Loren Coleman for their role in helping me gather the information that I sought. Also, a very special thanks goes out to Barry Blount for taking the time to go with me to John Green's home on two occasions so to view and take photos of the edited first generation copy of Rene Dahinden's Blue Creek Mountain film. While maybe not as clear as seeing Green's film copy in person, it was Blount's photographic efforts that allows the reader of this article an opportunity to compare the quality of Paulides film image source to that of John Green's.
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research
(Edited by PBYodeler)
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
| Posted: October 4th, 2009 09:08 PM |
|
|
I copied this article from another site and it appears that the links to the photos haven't come through properly. I'll get it fixed as soon as possible.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
monongahela
Approved
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: October 4th, 2009 09:40 PM |
|
|
PBY, just delete the ".th" from each photo url and they come through fine. That link is to the thumbnail image that often represents a larger image in a web album.
Monongahela
sites.google.com/site/mongahela |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
| Posted: October 4th, 2009 09:54 PM |
|
|
Thanks. It's all fixed. Computer illiterate that I am I needed help figuring that one out. 
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 01:05 AM |
|
|
The above is yet another view that Paulides and his so-called nameless experts should have noticed, but had failed to do so. The similarities between the two cameras are quite obvious in my opinion.
Isn't it funny how a good quality image can bring to light something that a poor dark over contrasted image was hiding. My question is this ... How many years investigative experience should one have under their belt before considering doing the obvious?
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research
(Edited by BigfootFieldResearch) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 01:31 AM |
|
|
The vicious dog attack that never happened.
While I suspect that Davis was relied upon for direction in this alleged massacre at Bluff Creek ... it was apparent to me that MK had fabricated the dog attack claim and then altered the color of the pilot's hands so to make them appear bloodied.
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ladyliza
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 02:44 AM |
|
|
Thank you for posting this, it sure clears up the confusion i had on the subject. And hopefully within the next day or next few days the wronged parties with get their apologies and this big mess can be put to rest...
Northwestern Pa, McKean County |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 780
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 12:44 PM |
|
|
It amazes me that people are buying into this.
And it disappoints me that Mr. Paulides seems to believe it.
Think about it for a second...if this happened, there would be a wealth of physical evidence available. Isn't that the "prize"? Why wouldn't any of this evidence be presented for analysis, even 40 years ago?
Are we to believe that these men, who were out searching for Bigfoot, killed several and left them? No samples, no "trophies", nothing?
I can't even imagine how this crazy story got started, and honestly, I don't care. I've only read a few posts on this board and others, and the whole thing just turns me off.
It does, however, serve one purpose: it identifies those that would buy into this kind of thing (based on their supportive commentary) and alerts the rest of us. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JJG
Approved
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 06:18 PM |
|
|
It's funny how all of the witnesses in "The Hoopa Project" report the same facial similarities, until you learn that all the witnesses were paid for their stories. I don't recall that vital bit of info being mentioned in the book. Whoops!
I'm not saying the reports aren't true, but people might remember certain details differently when a payment is involved.
I'm paraphrasing, but he also claims to be the only full time professional bigfooter. Wrong. Sounds like something Biscardi would say.
Josh |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
Careful guys. Let's try not to take the discussion away from the topic of the thread. We have plenty of information to back up the claims in Bill's article but bringing up "The Hoopa Project" and saying anything that might cast a shadow on it's credibility without proof is just doing exactly the same thing that was done with the Patterson Footage.
If we keep the discussion on the article at hand everything will be allright.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lost hiker
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 07:23 PM |
|
|
| From my perspective, starting with a bad or faulty assumption leads to a bad or faulty conclusion. Garbage in garbage out. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pevarnikd
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: October 5th, 2009 08:54 PM |
|
|
Mr. Miller, I want to thank you for your hard work on this issue. It's hard to believe this theory even got started. Your time was not wasted and I'm greatful for your effort.
Darren Pevarnik
I believe in a God that I have never seen and I'm called a man of faith. I believe in a Big Hairy Ape that I have never seen and I'm called crazy |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 11:09 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the kind words. Be assured that had I of found that there was evidence in the photo record that such a deed had in fact occurred, then I would have pointed it out to the reader with the same conviction as I did concerning the mistakes I had found being made by the accusers in this story.
If one really thinks about all this .... we have a story that appears to have Roger and Bob coming up on several Sasquatch which Roger was wanting to prove existed and which would have made his documentary complete.
We are then asked to believe that Roger and Bob had then for what ever reason ... had started shooting the hell out of these creatures in some sort of St. Valentines Day Massacre fashion.
That Green, Dahinden, Titmus, were there in Bluff Creek at the same time and being the blood thirsty ghouls this tale would portray them all to be ... they not only participated in the slaughter of these creatures, but had also helped dismembered them. The allegation of skin being seen on the ground implies that at least one person (erroneously alleged to be taxidermist Bob Titmus) had shaved and peeled the hide right off of one of the creatures.
While there were no laws in place against the killing of a Sasquatch, we are to then believe that all those involved had decided to never tell anyone about what they had done and/or witnessed, but rather just film it to show at public venues. (Yes you read that correctly - smile~) This is where the accusers lack of forethought was most obvious in my view. I can only presume that it was overlooked that any one of these individuals could have merely retained a piece of one of the slaughtered Sasquatch to accomplish their original goal to prove the animals existence.
We are next expected to believe that it wasn't until 40 years later that someone like MK Davis would come along and see what no one else could. These individuals didn't so much as first find out what could be learned of the history of the Blue Creek Mountain film. In fact, the Blue Creek Mountain footage was being referred to as sequences of the Patterson film that no one had seen.
Had Paulides of just gone to Green in the first place, then he could have prevented himself from making so many erred assumptions. It may have become apparent that Davis was manipulating images from a poor quality film. However, Paulides didn't do these things, which can possibly mean that he didn't have the ability to properly know how to investigate this matter or he could have had a motive for not doing what should have been common sense to anyone seeking the truth.
I tried to tell Paulides that he had been led astray and he didn't seem to want to hear it from me. I found him arrogant and unwilling to be told anything that he didn't seem to want to hear. To that I decided to write about what I had witnessed in my reviewing of the record as I found it.
Paulides has no one to blame but himself. Paulides 15 minutes of fame resulted in his 15 minutes of shame in my view. The best thing Paulides could possibly do and hope for is to apologize to the accused and hope that they accept it. Until that time and as the saying goes ...
'Let Justice be done though the Heavens fall!'
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRUTH-SEEKER
Approved
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 572
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 01:34 PM |
|
|
I just wonder how many people actually believed this Massacre crap.. Do you think if Patty was actually shot like MK says she was, in the thigh and shoulder.. Do you really think she would just walk off like she does in the video..? I don't think so.. For one thing she would of been limping when she left.. And not only that, I think she would of been running ( and running with a limp ) not walking as shown in the video.. Heck, she didn't even grab her leg or shoulder where she was supposedly shot...!!!! In my opinion, that alone is proof enough that this Massacre story is BS...!!! Besides, the Bob Gimlin I met, would not do such a thing...!!!!
"He who seeketh long enough and hard enough will find the truth, whatever that truth may be." Roger Patterson
When you realize the value of a life, you dwell less on what is past and concentrate on the preservation of the future. Diane Fossey
Expeditions Attended:
2008, 2009 Washington Cascades
2008, 2009 Wa. Olympic Peninsula
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
Approved
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2388
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
Truth-Seeker:
Excellent, excellent, excellent.
seeing is believing |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JJG
Approved
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 07:27 PM |
|
|
Sorry PB,
The general theme I took away from the first post is that Paulides is not a thorough investigator. He's someone who is willing to overlook details to achieve his agenda.
I thought my post was relevant to the original topic.
Josh
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 07:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJG wrote:
Sorry PB,
The general theme I took away from the first post is that Paulides is not a thorough investigator. He's someone who is willing to overlook details to achieve his agenda.
I thought my post was relevant to the original topic.
Josh
|
That's OK. It's just that there's really not enough to back up any statements about his books like there is with Bill's article. I just wanted to keep the conversation on track and not let it get out of hand. We don't know that he did anything wrong with the book so it would be extremely wrong for us to even suggest that he did. We do know that he made errors in his statements regarding the Patterson footage so that's what we're talking about here.
I've got one of his books and there are things in it that I may not agree with but I'm not going to say anything that will prevent anyone else from buying and reading it. It's his book and he can say and do whatever he wants with it. The problem we have with the outlandish "conclusions" that MK and Paulides had made about the Patterson creature are that they attack the character of people that we know very well and we know 100% for sure that they're honest straight up people who were there researching and documenting evidence that supported the film.
That's one of the things that bugs me. "Researchers" that draw wild conclusions from looking at a few frames of a film, seeing what they want and ignoring all of the surrounding evidence.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TRUTH-SEEKER wrote:
I just wonder how many people actually believed this Massacre crap.. Do you think if Patty was actually shot like MK says she was, in the thigh and shoulder.. Do you really think she would just walk off like she does in the video..? I don't think so.. For one thing she would of been limping when she left.. And not only that, I think she would of been running ( and running with a limp ) not walking as shown in the video.. Heck, she didn't even grab her leg or shoulder where she was supposedly shot...!!!! In my opinion, that alone is proof enough that this Massacre story is BS...!!! Besides, the Bob Gimlin I met, would not do such a thing...!!!!
|
I have seen where MK believed he could see enough detail in the Patterson/Gimlin film to see a tooth on the creature and old bullet wounds on its body ... the one thing MK didn't claim to see was fresh red blood spots from the animal being shot up.
Like I have said before ... the claims can't stand under their own weight. Below is an example of what using poor degraded images can do. MK claimed that he was seeing horse dung on the ground at the Blue Creek Mountain site. I personally saw lots of things that could be called dung in MK's chosen frames, but it was obvious to me that there were other more logical options.
For instance, I noticed that what MK was calling horse dung had shape like squared corners. Several stones or pieces of wood laying in close proxmation to each other could also appear to be dung when seen on a blurry piece of film.
Below is MK's horse dung claim ...
While in the bush yesterday - I was looking at rocks that when seen slightly out of focus on film they looked like the objects MK called horse dung in his Blue Creek Mountain illustrations. I have taken the liberty below to show how even wood can look like the objects MK saw as dung. It is a simple matter of showing something out of focus - wash out the color and add contrast and you have dung that when seen in a sharp image - it was obviously pieces of wood.
While it is possible that MK Davis didn't know about or even considered any other options for what he was seeing, I have a hard time understanding how Paulides and his three unnamed experts made the same mistake!
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 09:08 PM |
|
|
Hey Bill,
We ask everyone to create a Flikr or photbucket account for any pictures that they want to show so that there is only a link here on the forum. A lot of times the posts with the photos wind up getting quoted and the pics get repeated every time so that it takes up a lot of space on the forum.
On another note, a lot of the pictures everyone is seeing here have never been publicly released in the past so you're all looking at a piece of BF history.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 6th, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
|
I do have a Photobucket account and did use its links to place the images to my post. Hopefully if anyone quotes me ... they will not repeat the image in their quote.
Thanks!
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lbattson
Approved
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: October 7th, 2009 10:30 PM |
|
|
| Mr. Miller, Thank you for your hardwork. It sickens me that the legacy of Titmus, Dahinden and John Green have been attempted to be tarnished. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillbilly in Cali
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 8th, 2009 12:50 AM |
|
|
| I only know about Bluff creek what I have read here. I will say one thing that I know is a fact. Peopel cannot keeps secrets. I have a government job and deal with classified information daily. If what I work with is secret or higher, how does it end up on CNN? Therefore I dont think anyone could kill a bunch of BF's and not told some one, showed the pictures, grave sight or something by now. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Boqs
Administrator
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 754
|
| Posted: October 8th, 2009 11:33 AM |
|
|
I continue to view Green, Patterson & Gimlin as men of integrity. . . and nothing, here, changes that. Even if things had played out as Paulides suggests we would still have gotten the straight dope (or something pretty close to it) back in `67. We should remember that the idea of killing a sasquatch was -- at that time -- far more acceptable than it is now. Tom Slick, afterall, had hired professional hunters & dog handlers for exactly that purpose. Whatever happened (or may have happened) at Bluff Creek, Patterson, Gimlin, et al. had no reason or apparent motive to lie or engage in a coverup. The story of that day's remarkable events has been told, I think, pretty much as it happened.
(Edited by Bill Boqs)
On the internet, no one knows you're a squatch. . . |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 8th, 2009 02:08 PM |
|
|
You folks are thinking logically and rationally and if you want to see what the believers of the massacre see, then you are going to have to stop looking at this in an intelligent way.
Last night, Tom Steenburg went on the Grey Area radio show and touched on some of the silliness in this massacre at Bluff Creek nonsense and even though the event is some fallacy created from poor research practices and tools ... the lesson to be learned from it all is important and should apply to future research.
For instance, the scenario of a massacre occurring at Bluff Creek came about when when someone(s) mistook Rene Dahinden's film as part of the Bluff Creek film Roger Patterson took. It's like thinking you see someone somewhere they shouldn't be, but when you approach them about it ... you discover they are not who you thought they were, but what the heck .... you just pretend it was them all along regardless of the facts because that's where the story was supposed to go, so why correct it. This is basically in a nutshell what's happened here.
So what came next ... it appears that this particular someone(s) believed they saw Bob Titmus with John Green in the so-called undiscovered film sequence in Patterson's film and must have wondered why they were all there together and yet the official record doesn't mention any of this. If you look closely at the things Bobbie Short and Paulides had said in emails to John Green and others, it appears that the questions raised were born from the erred assumptions that were made from the onset. Green - Titmus - vicious guard dog and handler ... yes, everything must have appeared to be falling into place. No one need to check the age of Titmus at the time Roger got his movie or even Bob's height because the story is shaping up in a desirable way, so why risk derailing the whole story with facts and details - right!
Next they take some well chosen still frames from the alleged never before seen sequences of the Patterson/Gimlin film and lay claim that they can see an elongated chrome looking lens on a very large movie camera that Green is supposed to have slung over his shoulder. From that comes the idea that Green, Roger, and possibly one other person was involved in the filming of the massacre that took place. No explanation is offered as to how all these individuals were able to ambush a group of Sasquatch in the first place because we know that these creatures have had no problem being elusive in the past, but what the heck again ... who wants to think logically and rationally when such a good story is in the making - right!
So now comes the slaughter of this alleged group with one Sasquatch getting away. Patterson shows no other creatures in his film but the one, but what the heck again. We are then told that the Patterson creature had taken a round, but yet nowhere on the film are we shown a single flinch from the animal that it had just been shot. Bluff Creek had just been given a presumed 'Magic Bullet Theory' of its own.
People who came across the film site shortly afterward never saw but just one set of tracks. Lyle Laverty being one of them ... McClarin another. While visiting his parents in California, the real Bob Titmus wanted to see the film-site for himself. It was only after Bob had been there and had cast several tracks that he wrote John Green and told him of what he had seen and done. Until then, John Green was unaware that Titmus had gone to the film-site. Titmus had looked to see where the animal had gone. There was no mention of other various Sasquatch tracks found near the film-site.
So what comes next is MK's allegations of seeing things within the mistaken film sequences thought to be from Patterson and Gimlin's film. Red spots on the ground - large sections of skin - large movie cameras resting on John's shoulder - a red stream - bloody hands - are said to be seen. As I sat with Steenburg on one occasion and Blount on two others as we watched Green's 1st generation film copy, we could only shake our heads as we were viewing what looked to be remarkably good film quality and the things alleged to be seen in the poor degraded copy that Davis used just were not present in the good film copy.
So I then write about what I had witnessed at John Green's home. Green did nothing to try and persuade me in any way. What Green did was allow us to be a witness to the insanity that he had been subjected to over the past little while. Here was a man who was in the latter years of his life and finding himself taking care of he and his ill wife while at the same time having to deal with people who were basically throwing crap needlessly at a wall in hopes of seeing if anything would stick. If these people who did such a poor job as to not even know what film they were looking at before even making a single allegation were not ashamed of themselves, then let it be known that I am ashamed enough of their actions for all of them. I found myself wanting to apologize to Green, Gimlin, and the rest for my fellow researchers being so reckless as to conduct such a witch-hunt based on rumor and hearsay brought about by someone looking at dark blurry images on a multi-generational piece of film. Like the article said ... 'just when you think you have heard it all .... !'
My wish for those guilty of such nonsense ... 'Let Justice be done though the Heavens fall'
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research
(Edited by BigfootFieldResearch) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Giantfoot
Approved
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: October 8th, 2009 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PBYodeler wrote:
We ask everyone to create a Flikr or photbucket account for any pictures that they want to show so that there is only a link here on the forum. |
I have found ovi to be the best free pic site and I have researched many. I didn't care for those two above compared to it so I just wanted to offer that as another option to consider since you mentioned them incase anyone is not aware of that site.
Wow look at the guy inside that big ape suit jump clear across that 20ft creek and sprint up that steep hill so fast! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armydude
Approved
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: October 11th, 2009 11:49 PM |
|
|
Good report. I had heard of this incident years ago and in conversations with investigators dismissed it as lore. I had completely forgot about it until I saw this report. If something like this would have surfaced before programs such as Photoshop it may have at least grabbed my attention..........next.
Expeditions 2008
"I have seen enough evidence to believe." |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2009 09:44 PM |
|
|
"Link removed"
If 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)
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/...llustration.jpg
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
(Edited by PBYodeler) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1859
|
| Posted: October 13th, 2009 10:09 PM |
|
|
Hey Bill,
That site is one that we don't allow any links to. We know what they're like over there and we'd rather not send them any business in a way of a link.
I also adjusted your photo to just a link so that you're not "breaking" any rules that we make everyone else abide by as well.
If you'd like you can copy and paste John Green's replies here because they're pertinent to the topic but we must keep the tones of any posts polite. Otherwise you can talk about anything you want here on the BFRO forum.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
semi p
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: October 14th, 2009 12:17 AM |
|
|
| I have tried to stay quiet, but this entire debacle is rediculous. I cant believe such pertinent names and influential people have been involved in this obsurd premise. Thank god for the even keel's out there and in this forum that can differentiate between logic and speculative broo-ha-ha. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BigfootFieldResearch
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: October 14th, 2009 12:58 AM |
|
|
It seems to me that if Monster Hunter really believed the things he post, then he would welcome debate and not run from it. Had my response on other forums other than his own of been in support of MK Davis and his claims, then I am certain he'd embrace it regardless of which forum it was posted from. The guy has not only shown himself to be ill-informed, but also the kind of a individual who feels that the rules should be different for those who promotes his opinions vs. those who do not. There is no place for discrimination in an honest debate.
Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
