a group of Sasquatch back in 1967 by Paulides (Hoopla Project) and..company!

Read Bill Miller's rebuttal to their evidence here

http://www.sasquatch-bc.com/massacre.html

And for further discussion, more evidence and debate, please go here!

http://grandcherokee.proboards.com/index.c...=502&page=1


Mr. Paulides and company (Who are all familiar names to you..presents an example of 'tabloid' research which is so common in the past decade. People making wild accusations and leaving it up to the victim[s] 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 yell "fire" in a crowded room, just to have the notoriety of being the' first to respond'.

Thanks for sharing that cogent analysis of how pure madness can run amuck.

So, in 1967 Patterson & Gimlin managed to not only film a Sasquatch, and then kill, not one but a whole family.
Then they get John Green to help cover it up.

Yeah, that’s believable!

Many are still trying to film a Squatch to this very day with nothing as convincing since Oct. 1967.

Many want to kill a Squatch to prove its existence with no results.

These guys did both in the same day? Unbelievable

Moreover, according to this outlandish theory, they then buried the evidence, somehow dismembering the victims and causing pools of blood to form and be filmed . . . not even thinking that these supposed bodies might be of interest for scientific study of Bigfoot. We're supposed to believe that they were all scared to pieces that they might be accused of murder rather than self-defense.

I don't know why this theory gets under my skin. I guess it is because we're all so avid for sightings and true evidence, then are told that men we respect have been covering up this massacre for 40+ years. We needed a DETECTIVE to figure out that a crime took place.

Yeah, right. Well, count me among the skeptics this time.

Why does Bigfoot research turn toward error for so many people?

As we all know this whole story wasnt initialy ment to get public at least not at the point of research it was at the time.
I think anything should be allowed to be discussed.

Also the theory doesnt seem to hold any water, I like it as A STORY.

Already a thread going on this here Massacre Theory

i have no comments at this givin time LOL but to continue i guess.. ty bill

If Dave does write another book with this information, it will be interesting to read what he has to say, but I'll bet a lot of people will refuse to buy it. Already in his Tribal Bigfoot book, Chapter ten, he goes into detail about how the timeline is wrong for the events that Patterson and Gimlin reported happened on October 20, 1967. He wrote that there wasn't enough time for them to do those things and get from Bluff Creek to Eureka and back to Willow Creek. So already he wasn't believing their story and then this massacre theory came up and he apparently latched onto it. The problem with presenting this information after doing one of his detective investigations is that there's no judge and jury... just a book with damning accusations, and that's hardly fair for the accused.

Maybe it is time for him to retire, but I like what Bill Miller wrote in his article, "We all make mistakes and it’s been said that a mistake isn’t a mistake unless we refuse to correct it." Personally I think it is a big mistake to attack the integrity of an 80+ yr old man (John Green) who has been highly respected by Bigfoot researchers for decades.

Quite true. But this thread has nothing to do with any theories! It has to do with the film in question and the evidence..or lack thereof presented on those frames.. Hence it was posted in the appropiate area. imho

I agree with GrandCherokee. This thread has to do with refuting the drivel being spouted without factual evidence and a good write up by Bill Miller.

I think it's very telling that Paulides didn't ask to view John Green's or Dahinden's son's copies of the video.

I won't waste another dime on any of Paulides material, he's gone off the deep end in my personal opinion.

I guess Bob Gimlin the actual witness wasn't a profitable or a willing target so harass John Green and then lie about it (dark secret).

Thanks again to Gerry for bringing Bill Miller's rebuttal to my attention, and to the attention of the BFF members.

I think Miller's rebuttal is very well written.

This is very close to the Georgia Boys Bigfoot in a freezer story...except this might be dumber.............

Thanks for bringing this here GrandCherokee! Bill Miller has done a great job refuting Paulides and his theory.

The fact that Paulides basically lied to John Green about his "dark secrets" statement, and the fact that M.K. Davis admits to adding color to the film to show blood , tells me that both of them are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit.

Massacre at Bluff Creek....what a bunch of crap.

Probably because it's freakin' stupid!

x2

Its nice to see people actually looking into this stuff, and not just accepting what they are told.

I'm beginning to think there is a deliberate agenda on the part of MK Davies and those who assist him to discredit bigfoot research in general.

It gets under my skin to the extent that I'm just about ready to call it a day as I do not want to be associated with this whole damn business.

MK Davies has dengrated bigfoot research to a new low - it makes us all look like raving lunatics. Its embarassing.

I agree. I just can't see many other reasons for this madness.

Unless it's the old "any publicity is good publicity" thing.

Helluva way to call attention to yourself.

I'd be curious, as to MK's source for this " theory ". What was his motive. After all these years, and nothing but the same bits and pieces of evidence, some people's personality will make them try to find something, anything, to keep the ball rolling, and keep themselves in the spotlight as discoverers of evidence. How did MK come to this conclusion. What made him " see " this. What was the " ah ha " moment. Why did this film of Rene's suddenly come to the surface in this fashion. What's the provenance of that film, and why doesn't Eric have it. Why doesn't he understand that it is one of Renes edited films, and has no connection to PG.

One can only speculate, but if I were to look into the matter any deeper, then I would look at the time line when John Green first started becoming publicly critical of MK's claims of being able to see things in the Patterson film beyond the films capability. This certainly wouldn't have sat well with Davis. It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between Green's criticisms and MK's alleging that he has discovered evidence of a cover-up.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

That really doesn't wash in light of John's stance on killing one.

"I have few qualifications as a hunter and no expectation of being the man to bring a Sasquatch in. I do, however, have some very strong words to say on the subject. There seems to be a considerable tendency for people who take an interest in the Sasquatch to weave romantic fantasies of possibilities of communication with them. There is not one thing in all I have learned of Sasquatch behavior to indicate that their relationship to humans extends beyond their manner of walking. One of the ways that the Sasquatch will be studied is by dissection, and to do this adequately science will require not one cadaver but several, probably dozens at least. All these facts point in only one direction. What is required at this stage is physical evidence. A movie won't help. We already have one. The man with a gun may rightly pause to determine whether he is looking at some idiot masquerading in a fur suit. He may also wisely consider whether the gun he has is adequate to kill a huge animal whose physical capabilities are unknown. But if he is satisfied on these points, he should not hesitate further. Gun it down, cut off a piece you can carry, and get out of there. We have enough people now who claim to have shot a Sasquatch but can't prove it. There may be hassles to be sorted out afterward, but your first-person story alone is bound to sell for many thousands, and the scientists can collect the second one their way.

I'm sorry to have to sound so bloodthirsty. It goes against the grain. I don't kill anything much bigger than mosquitoes. But there is too much nonsense being spouted on the other side of this argument. It needs an answer.

The day may eventually come when man decides that it is not his right to do as he chooses with the other inhabitants of the planet, but that is not the situation now." -John Green,The Sasquatch File, pp. 70,71


http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/db3.htm

Just thinking out loud here. WHAT IF all this that David and MK is right on the money and there WAS a masscre? What will everyone say then?

There sure are a lot of flying pigs in the iced over flames of hell

I'd say "Good Shootin' Tex...." But there'd have to be a helluva lot more in the way of proof than will ever be presented by distorting stories and manipulating movie stills...


Which is easier to believe?

a.) There was a vast conspiracy originated by Weyerhauser to eradicate a sasquatch infestation involving John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, Eric Beckjord and all the others,

OR

b.) Someone whose ego has been bruised over the years with way too much time on their hands is sitting behind a computer messing with colors and shading and coming up with a load of crap based on combining stills from two or three separate films? For whatever purpose?

I actually "get" that. As twisted as it is.


What I don't get are the fairly intelligent people that seem to be satisfied with this nonsense and who are now on board with it.

Never will "get" people.

Grrrrr, I hate it when someone beats me to a sound scientific theory. I've been working on this theory for years and was about to present my findings when he beat me to the punch. Only my theory has more mind controlling talking frogs. You can see them doing their dirty work in the background. The facts are there. Y'all need to science up.

What you are suggesting is like asking what we would think if we found out that 2 + 2 was 44.

Until then ... here's another MK claim that may have had an influence on this entire fiasco ..............

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

Something stinks for sure Bill, and I don't think it's horse turds.


JMO of course.

Did anyone happen to notice that MK added some tinting to his insert and that coincidentally made the gray looking objects more brownish looking so to match the dung. Nice touch!

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

Just a few "clicks" of color, and you could change the world!

Like I said before on my blog, they need to dig up the bones of the massacre victims to prove the allegations. Relying on poor quality amateur films doesn't impress most people. (Bigfoot Massacre? Bloody Nonsense!)

I would like to say that this theory is the dumbest thing ever, but it would not be true. There have been dumber things. This would be around #7 or 8.

Dammit. I knew it!

That's actually one of my biggest sources of incredulity about this whole thing.. The complete unwillingness and hysterical resistance to even considering other alternatives to the manipulated images.

And the way certain other folks (some of whom I had a fairly high degree of respect for until this nonsense really got rolling...) who immediately started the same teeth gnashing, salivating and desk pounding about all this crap...

I don't understand that kind of contagion where this is concerned. Makes me wonder what else those folks may have proclaimed in the past, without considering alternatives...

I understand it in some.. But there are others I'm simply appalled by....

I know I've said it myself before, but let's not accuse anyone of being light in the loafers. (not that anyone has in this thread) We can discuss the alleged massacre, but let's be civil about it.

I don't agree with MK's theory of a massacre but I'll be the first person to say I don't have all the information regarding why he thinks there was one. I'd like to think I'm open minded. I haven't seen anything so far that would swing me over to thinking a massacre took place.

One thing we must understand ... We do not have the ability to force intelligence and/or integrity on someone who doesn't want any part of it or who isn't capable of having it. Paulides referenced the Dahinden film as never before seen sequences from the Patterson/Gimlin film. In other words the man was making mistakes based on his being ignorant of the history pertaining to the materials he was attempting analyze. However, I don't wish to put him in the category of those who still support MK's erred claims about a Sasquatch massacre having happened in Bluff Creek.

Let us look at their position for a moment ...

1) They were wrong about Dahinden's film being sequences from Patterson's film and don't seem to give a damn

2) They didn't seem to care that one film was shot with lush green backgrounds while Patterson's film shows an abundance of fall colors ... one is supposed to just ignore that important detail so to keep up appearances that the two films were shot at the same time.

3) They were wrong about the man in the film being Bob Titmus, thus the assertion that a taxidermist was brought in to skin the hide from one of the Sasquatch that were killed, but this doesn't matter either.

4) Lets not forget that the skin claim laying on the ground was also bogus. Immediately below is a far superior image than what MK displayed in support of his silly claim and all that is visible is some damp soil littered with sticks and rocks of various shapes and sizes. And even as clear as that image is ... its still a photo of a film in motion, thus the film was even sharper. None of those individuals supporting MK's massacre allegations have bothered to view the better images because if they don't see them, then they don't have to admit that Davis screwed-up big-time!


5) They don't care that Green had nothing on his hip when seen in good light as long as when in deep shadow he appears to possibly be wearing a pistol holster.

6) They don't care that Green is really holding a 35MM camera in many of the better lit film frames just so long as they have MK's darkened over contrasted film frame making it look like Green could possibly be holding a large movie camera when seen at a certain angle.


Paulides asked Green why he was he standing in a hole, yet I saw no hole. What I did see was rolling high and low spots all through the area. In the photo attached to #4 shows this very thing. The opening sequences of the Patterson/Gimlin film also show this as the creature's lower body is partially hidden from view by the sand being mounded between Roger and his quarry. In 2000, I spent a week in that area and the high and low spots were all over the place. People should not lose sight that a film is a mere 2D image and often makes surfaces look flat when in reality they were not.

In some cases there will be those people (the followers) who live for a conspiracy, thus it becomes a position based solely on belief and not evidence. Then there are the less educated on the matter who are targeted for support. These are the types of people who would walk into a mirror while thinking there is another room in front of them. They are very gullible. Then there will be those who don't care about the truth as much as wanting to appear to be right and those people you'll find closer to the source of the claim.

There is an old saying that says that the difference between a smart person and a stupid one is that the stupid person won't ever know when they are wrong. I don't believe that many of those involved in this fiasco are stupid people, but are intelligent people who made a stupid mistake. I have seen their mistakes, thus there is no question in my mind about their errors. My only question now pertains to their character and whether or not they are able to admit they made mistakes and have the good sense to apologize to those they carelessly offended.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

It doesn't really matter what other info MK has to justify his bizarre speculation (not going to call it a theory), because what he has put out there has been modified to support his claims. And why put out a bunch of garbage and save the best stuff for last? A monkey could spot all the tampering and gaffes, which IMO has malicious intent. No one with MK's tech knowledge could possibly add some tint to a specific part of an image and suddenly declare it was a "river of BF blood". No one! And not a single retraction after every claim was debunked by Bigfoothunter and others.

There HAS to be some sort of nefarious agenda, otherwise, the only other implication is that MK has lost his loafers. I'm not sure what's worse tho, but I'm convinced this has to do with notoriety and $$. How else are you gonna make a buck in this biz? This is prime tabloid fodder. Book deal anyone? Better lawyer-up tho.

I would assume that Patricia Patterson knew about this massacre, and massive cover-up, yet she still allowed MK (and others) access to the "incriminating" evidence. Why would she do that?

Good thing there aren't legal ramifications of massacring a tribe of BF in 1967, out of season, otherwise, MK could be held libellous. Especially when it's so obvious all this "evidence" was fabricated. Mindboggling!

I predict (as you just mentioned G.) that this is a preamble to selling a book. I'm sure we'll see it soon.

It's funny that several of you have mentioned the possibility of Paulides doing a book on this moronic claim. I was looking for the tape Steenburg gave me so I could reference the show and date where Paulides was asked if any more books were in the making or words to that effect and his answer was that if he had been asked that question after his last book, then the answer would be 'NO". He went on to say that he had recently been handed information that may cause him to write another book. I suspect that was over the crap MK brought to him.

I'll try and get the show and date referenced when I find it.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

I take it back this even more silly and stupid than the Georgia Bigfoot in a freezer.....

hey admins everyone if mk just did enhandsments on the creature animal primate in this film and nothing around it then this whole situation would never happened but to be continued just my opinion..

I'll add this pic too, in addition to the ones Bigfoothunter has posted..


Click to view attachment


I thought I'd point two things out..

1. Patterson's coat in the pic on the left, is not buttoned. His arms are holding the edges of the coat together, but you can clearly see the buttons are not engaged through any button holes. In the pic on the right, he's moved his arms and the front edges of the coat have fallen apart (not sure why that's of any relevance anyway). Bet if you watched the actual movie that still was taken from, you'd see that pretty clearly.

2. The shirt in the standing-by-the-tree pics is obviously different from the inset pic of the cast being taken. The shirt in that pic is plaid with white stripes and darker squares. The shirt in the standing pics are plaid with dark stripes and lighter squares.

It's pretty obvious. And that overall pic is an illustration as to the standard of observations that have been consistent in this "investigation."

Absolutely boggles the mind....

Tried to post this elsewhere, but it seems like perhaps my membership stuff is out of date and/or it's not going to be approved. C'est la vie.

Coats unbuttoned. LOL Maybe he got warm and opened it between pics? How bout the keen observer noticing the same tuft of hair hanging down form under his hat being the exact same in both pictures? Same exact spot and ammount of hair from under his hat.

Wow, this is one of the silliest arguments I've seen. Seriously folks, I think if Patterson were alive today, he'd get a good chuckle out of this.

Cheers

You seem to be missing my point.. The two pictures of him holding the casts were obviously taken at, or very near the same time. No issue there. Maybe or maybe not they were taken with two different cameras, as seems to be implied. I dunno.. I'm no camera expert. Those two pics are not an issue - except for the erroneous note that the coat is buttoned and then unbuttoned... Whatever that has to do with anything.

The inset pic is being purported to be RP collecting a cast at Bluff Creek immediately (?) after the Patty filming.

And the inference of the pic as a whole seems to be that there had to be other people at Bluff Creek at the same time as the Patty Filming.

Why there, must've been... For RP to have been filmed by two cameras and wearing the same clothes as he was when he was photographed making that cast and then holding casts... (which he's obviously not...)

Well.. I don't know where any of those pics/films were taken. But it's pretty obvious that he's not wearing the same clothes in the holding-the-cast pics as he is in the inset pic (purportedly from Bluff Creek). Which is the point of my post.

Lotta inuendo and poor observational skills. And I still don't get the seeming importance of the coat being buttoned or not.. Like I said, watching the actual film would put a quick resolution to whatever that issue is supposed to represent.

Oh well.. pretty moot point.. Not going to be a lotta convincing of you or the rest of the MK crowd that some of his crap logic is, well, flawed.

in supporting MK's assertions, you cant possibly be serious.

It is correct that Roger is not wearing the same shirt in the inset. The images of Roger holding the two cast are taken from a film that Bob Gimlin must have shot of Roger before they left the area and obviously well after Roger poured plaster into the track impressions. I am trying to recall ... did Patterson have a shadow of whiskers on his face in the plaster images? This might offer a time frame to relate to.

Also, these men had been in Bluff Creek for at least three weeks before getting their film. It would be fair to say that these men had a change of clothing with them on that trip, if not several changes of clothing.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

To all,

I erred when I agreed that the two shirts on Patterson appear different. The fact is they are the same. In a good quality image photographed by photographer Barry Blount at Green's home ... Rogers shirt at the tree while holding castings is a match for the shirt Roger was wearing when pouring the plaster. (see below)


Roger was filmed pouring plaster into the foot tracks left behind by the creature. Upon the plaster hardening, Roger was filmed holding them by the large tree. The tracks and castings were captured on the second roll of film. Both films were then sent to DeAtley later that same day.

Below is a view of Roger's coat opened and then closed as he moved his arms around.


I apologize for the error for I should have checked the best images before responding to the matter.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

It looks like he is doing some kind of weird bigfoot dance in the above post ^^^^^^

I don't think his wardrobe will give up any secrets. That looks like it could be his Monday through Saturday outfit.

LOL! You took the words right outta my mouth Bill!!

hey col ty for above reply to me to be continued indeedy.......

Anybody know what that black lattice like pattern on the tree behind Roger is? It's not fissures in the bark. Seems way too dark for a shadow. Very unlikely to be a plant since there are no plants that grow like that around here.

Any ideas?