Last night I received an email from a person named Ben Rivers. I have no idea who he is, I have never heard of him before and I am not sure how many others he sent this email to.
It appears Rivers has created a blog for one purpose only; to expose the Patterson-Gimlin film as a hoax.
From reading his "expose" it appears that he has not done much research. The core of his report stems from a paragraph taken from page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz, 1992.
'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'
Did Grover Krantz believe that Patterson documented a hoax?
Ben Rivers has no other posts. His blog can be accessed by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Sounds like another pseudo-blogger, that didn't want to post his true identity. Anyways he proves nothing and sounds like he has been sending a lot of spam to others. Thanks for posting. As for me, PGF is still authentic!
ReplyDeleteHis whole website is based on a lie. here's a summary. the rest of it is on his post. (copied from my reply to his post)
ReplyDeleteUnbiseptium,
After I sent you that post conceding that what I thought was the print wasn’t the print, I took a another look and realized that as some have said up above, the reason you can’t see the print is because it is the left foot and final print. I think I can give a significant amount of evidence to substantiate this.
Before I get into the details I’ll just summarize.
1. The four pictures of the bottom are matched up incorrectly. The two prints on the left are one and the same print. The bottom one is just elongated because of the angle of the camera. If you look at the details of the two left prints they are exact. The prints are of the right foot, second print back. The print on the top right is the left foot and the last print patty made that is supposedly missing from the picture. The print is much wider and the details around the print do not match the print on the left.
2. The three rocks used for “common features” are not in the same place. The apparent rocks near rodger as he is casting the print are about 8 to 10 inches further away from patty’s print, thus they cannot be used as a “common feature.”(by using patty’s print for scale the distance can be determined)
3. In the lines that supposedly match the “common pathways” there is not one common feature yet there are some debris left in each picture.
4. The mud pile/stick directly in front of the print bob is standing over which according to the theory is the right foot, second one back left absolutely no trace in in the picture (at the bottom of “b”)(which is supposed to be both prints after they are finished) what appears to be soil that has not been touched or effected since the last rain or heavy wind.
His whole site is based on a lie, here's a summary, the rest of the evidence is on his site.
ReplyDeleteUnbiseptium,
After I sent you that post conceding that what I thought was the print wasn’t the print, I took a another look and realized that as some have said up above, the reason you can’t see the print is because it is the left foot and final print. I think I can give a significant amount of evidence to substantiate this.
Before I get into the details I’ll just summarize.
1. The four pictures of the bottom are matched up incorrectly. The two prints on the left are one and the same print. The bottom one is just elongated because of the angle of the camera. If you look at the details of the two left prints they are exact. The prints are of the right foot, second print back. The print on the top right is the left foot and the last print patty made that is supposedly missing from the picture. The print is much wider and the details around the print do not match the print on the left.
2. The three rocks used for “common features” are not in the same place. The apparent rocks near rodger as he is casting the print are about 8 to 10 inches further away from patty’s print, thus they cannot be used as a “common feature.”(by using patty’s print for scale the distance can be determined)
3. In the lines that supposedly match the “common pathways” there is not one common feature yet there are some debris left in each picture.
4. The mud pile/stick directly in front of the print bob is standing over which according to the theory is the right foot, second one back left absolutely no trace in in the picture (at the bottom of “b”)(which is supposed to be both prints after they are finished) what appears to be soil that has not been touched or effected since the last rain or heavy wind.