Bigfoot Walks Again Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » General Discussion » Other » Bigfoot Walks Again « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 7:47 pm:   

In the old message board we had a discussion about bigfoot and I went on record as a sceptic. That has not changed.
However, there are recent bigfoot sightings right here in my area of Oklahoma in the past week, including supposed pictures! Two children claimed to have seen bigfoot while riding 4 wheelers (the children were on the 4 wheelers not bigfoot, who was afoot) on July 15. Their mother and a neighbor later had seperate sightings. Now, several men are claiming pictures. They supposedly set up game cameras, which use an infrared sensor the same as on motion detection lights to take pictures. A co-worker knows some of the people involved and has seen the pictures. I hope to get a look at the pics first hand in the next day or so and will point anyone towards current web postings.
I remain doubtful of bigfoot but prefer to examine evidence as it comes in.
By the way, he area is in Atoka County and is known as the Boggy Depot area, not Boggy Creek, which is the location of another famous sighting in Arkansas from years ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:58 pm:   

Here is a link to the story on a local TV station. The images they show to me look like a bear but I hope to see the pictures first hand.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/3439461.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:18 pm:   

That's obviously someone in a bear suit.

It's a shame the media gives obvious frauds the time of day when it comes to this subject.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:31 pm:   

It's obviously a skin of some sort a human is wearing. That ain't no sasquatch...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 7:25 am:   

I have a Kodiak bearskin rug and that my friends,is a bearskin rug. I'm surprised the guy remembered to put his beer down.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

L2829tad
Username: L2829tad

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:54 am:   

What if thats zodiac wearing his new bearskin hood?The Kodiak-Zodiac,kinda catchy...thardu..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:40 pm:   

I still can't believe you guys actually believe this stuff. Bigfoot is a complete fake!! So is the Loch Ness Monster! The most famous footage of both of these "monsters" have been proven to be fakes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

L2829tad
Username: L2829tad

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:47 pm:   

Has the Patterson film been proven a fake? Didn't know that..thardu..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:35 pm:   

Contary to popular belief and the media, the Patterson film has never been proven fake. Does that mean it's authentic? You tell me: 2 simple men (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense) somehow managed to, with limited funds, average intelligence and average education, concoct a hoax that science has been unable to disprove in almost 40 years?

Not only that, why on Earth would they have chosen to fake a female sasquatch??? Sorry, those "fake" breasts look pretty damn real to me; all fake (ie, plastic) breasts today do not move like that. How could a couple of good ol' boys have faked breasts like that in 1967 so well that they look real??? Making fake breasts look real is beyond the ability of our best cosmetic surgeons 4 decades later! That, if nothing else, is one strong argument in favor of authenticity.

BTW, on his death bed, Patterson swore that the film was authentic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:52 pm:   

Every year during TV sweeps, one station or another will dig up some huge redneck who is willing to claim it was he in the "fur suit." (I know of least three such claims.)

The 1967 footage most definitely hasn't been proven false.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:22 pm:   

I was not able to see the pics firsthand but did have time earlier tonight to do some photo enhancement on those pics from the net. What it looks like to me for all the world is a guy in a gorilla suit with a bear skin draped over his head and back! I also found out that one of the three men with the pics is a taxademist. That does not prove the pics are fake but a taxidermist would well have the skills to make a suit and have access to a bear skin.
The story first told by the 2 kids, on the other hand, holds up a bita better. A co-worker who knows the family says the kids are not the type to tell false tales. It could be some fool with the suit was scaring the kids.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:24 pm:   

Why not approach it from an ecological perspective? For example, what does it (and the others with whom it must inevitably coexist) live on? If it's strictly a vegetarian, like a gorilla, it must require huge amounts of vegetable matter to sustain its large bulk, and this fact would make itself obvious to anyone studying its supposed habitat. On the other hand, if it's carniverous, how does it catch enough food to survive, given the limitations of its human-like gait?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:40 pm:   

And like Douglas says, it and the others with whom it must coexist, because a species can't exist with just one or two, so any area like a county or region in Oklahoma that reports Bigfoot sightings would have to have several Bigfoots in the area, or Bigfeet or whatever their plural form is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:42 pm:   

Imagine some poor grammatically confused soul, excitedly exclaiming, "I saw a Bigfoot! On second thought, make that two!"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Warren
Username: Warren

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:18 am:   

I wonder if having a bigfoot means something else is big...

What if this creature had small feet; would we be this excited? Is there a Clubfoot? Higharchfoot? Stubbedtoe? I'll see if I can get footage (nyuck, nyuck) of ol' Stubbedtoe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:14 pm:   

Has anyone seen the motion stabilized version of the patterson film. The "bigfoot" looks alot more human.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:27 pm:   

Here's the footage.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:50 pm:   

Looks like a guy in a planet of the apes suit, to me, but who am I to judge. Didn't the guy who film this work for a movie company and the death bed confession should not used as evidence that its the truth. I'm sure this film made alot for Mr. Patterson and his family, and he would want his family to still be able to make money from it after he was gone.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:54 pm:   

Tom, I think there is an even better one then this somewhere. It's stabilized and blown up so you get a real good look at its face. I remember when I was a kid, I was so into bigfoot. Now I got to tell ya, it is just an urban myth, or in this case a rural myth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 6:58 pm:   

Here's a link to the other one I was talking about. Lets here everybodys opinion on this: Bigfoot, Man or undecided!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:22 pm:   

There are life forms no bigger than a pinhead that haven't gone undetected. This guy, whoever he is, has a mother, a father, grandparents, great-grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts--where are they? Don't tell me they're shy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:59 pm:   

Neither Roger Patterson nor Bob Gimlin made significant (if any) money off of the film. Patterson died within a few years of taking the footage, and his daughter (or some close relative) sold it for a small amount of money.

Recent attempts to duplicate the authentic qualities of the alleged costume have failed miserably, so I hardly think two ranchers back in 1967 could have pulled it off.

In the image below, a still from the 1967 footage, note the spine, buttocks and flexed calf muscle.

REARVIEW
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 8:09 pm:   

I'd also like to point out the footprints of the subject in the film had a consistent stride measuring well beyond an adult male human. Also, the creature was tracked (and backtracked) for a total of several miles, and that stride was maintained uphill, downhill, etc., with footprints sinking far deeper than a humans.

Within a short period of time after the footage was taken, a man named Jim McClarin performed a reenactment. McClarin, about 6'6", walked the same path as the creature, while being filmed from the same spot -- and with the same type of camera -- as Roger Patterson. When the two pieces of footage were compared, it was then possible to determine the size of the creature compared to McClarin.

The creature was slightly taller than McClarin, even though it was hunched over. The mass was the biggest difference; the creature was at least three times more thick than McClarin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 8:16 pm:   

When you watch the footage, you see a subject that doesn't fully extend its legs when walking (unlike humans). Yet it still managed to maintain a consistent stride -- over several miles and without stretching/reaching -- that was much longer than an adult human male.

The subject features flexing muscles, swaying breasts, was nearly 7' tall and weighed approx. 500 pounds, yet displayed no sign of being rigged with weights in order to have deep footprints.

Until such detail can be duplicated, and as yet it most definitely can not, I find the footage to be fascinating.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James78
Username: James78

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:10 pm:   

So Tom, Do you think its a real Bigfoot? My mind tells me no way and your explanations which I've heard before leaves room for doubt that its not real.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:20 pm:   

It's either a real creature, or a legit 7' tall, 500 pound, extremely muscular man (or woman) wearing a costume so thin we can see his muscles flex, with legs proportionately shorter than the rest of him, yet able to walk with a stride well beyond the length of a regular man, even though he never stretches or straightens his legs while walking. Let's not leave out the impossibly wide shoulders, which aren't mere padding, as the arms and hands move normally and don't just helplessly dangle as they would if under fake shoulders.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James78
Username: James78

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:31 pm:   

I watched the ancient mysteries episode on BigFoot. Through a few recordings of bigfoot, the one you show,is the only one that has not been found a hoax, like you said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

L2829tad
Username: L2829tad

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:24 pm:   

Mr.Voigt,As always,fantastic job!As Tom points out,when we watch this Hominid walk,the muscular definition is something that just can't be faked.Also,if we look at the still frame above,the calf muscle is consistant in both shape and size with an upright walking creature of such mass.(Put all your weight on one foot and reach down and feel your own).The left upturned foot when compared to the tree trunk in the background,(which I belive is a spruce;Average trunk diameter 18 to 22 inches)measures about the same, 20-22 inches given approximate distance.[Warren,You're beginning to frighten me..lol..]Lastly,as Ed N iterates;The breasts:Rather large,pendulous,but also very non primate.To paraphrase Ed WHY.Why fake the breasts,titties,melons,knockers,can cans,ta tas,the twins,hooties,...Sorry,I got carried away.IMHO,for what it's worth:Smoking gun.Real hominid of some sort,and for Johno upstairs,you're right,perhaps one of the last of a dieing breed due to shrinking population.....The above thoughts are strictly those of the idiot writing them..They have nothing to do with this station or any of its affiliates.....Later.........thardu.........P.S... Tom,I left a little something under the coffee cup for ya......
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 8:24 am:   

Patterson went to the so called bigfoot expert at the time, a man was the first to find "bigfoot" tracks. He asked this man where is a good place to spot a bigfoot. He was told the exact spot near Bluff Creek. The man who told him this has now admitted that all the tracks and spotings of "bigfoot" he reported where hoaxs. Now do you guys really believe that a person who faked all his bigfoot sightings somehow picked a place where a bigfoot actually happened to be!! The mans name was Mark Chorvinsky. All the stuff about the size and the gait and the flexed calf muscle are just hogwash!. Its like crop circles! Do any of you actually believe in them? I'm not saying it was not a clever hoax. It was. However I just can't believe it? The other videos reporting to be bifoots or whatever are really bad. This one at least was well done. Not real though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 3:42 pm:   

Scott_ben, Mark Chorvinsky was only 13-years old in 1967.

The man I believe you're thinking of is Ray Wallace. Here's a link about his story:
http://www.bfro.net/news/Wallace.asp
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 5:44 am:   

I haven't checked but I'm sure there are plenty of active Bigfoot web sites out there. Tom, since Z has become as elusive as Bigfoot maybe you can start one (a web site that is). <shrug>

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 10:55 am:   

Oops, sorry for posting the wrong info. I will be more careful in the future.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Breakout
Username: Breakout

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 12:21 pm:   

I checked out brfo.net and assumed I would find some sightings here in the mountainous counties of Eastern Tennessee (Appalachians). Surprisingly there were none. I guess if Eric Rudolph can hide in them for 5 years with the FBI on his trail and not be seen perhaps BF can too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 7:13 pm:   

Here's an interesting question, probably worthy of another thread/discussion: since there are so many doubters out there regarding the bigfoot phenomenon (along with other paranormal things), I have to ask how skeptical they would be if some guy confessed to being Z on his deathbed and actually mentioned something known only to the original investigators that has been held back since 1969. Considering the skepticism Patricia Palmer/Margaret Gibson's deathbed confession of killing William Desmond Taylor is still being met with today, I suspect that the real Z's confession would be written off as the ravings of a madman.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Breakout
Username: Breakout

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 5:55 am:   

That's something I have pondered too. There's as good a chance that Z is still alive as him not being alive. It is all just speculation as to how a deathbed confession would be met. I guess it would depend on how much publicity this possible confession would get (should it be told to a person who chooses to dessiminate it) and what evidence in said person's background could further link him to the crimes. I do hope something like this does eventually happen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   

It would be easy enough to prove. Palm prints and if he is able to be elimated via DNA.

ET

Back to Bigfoot. Aren't those the funnest commericals on TV were those three guys keep messing with Bigfoot.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Angie
Username: Angie

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 7:30 pm:   

YES! The beef jerky commercials? LOL - I love those!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Username: L2829tad

Registered: N/A
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 8:15 am:   

Ed,Great think...IMHO,only heresay,Just a thought,When ALA was on his "Deathbead" He said nothing..If it was me,I'de at least go out laughing..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

L2829tad
Username: L2829tad

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 8:17 am:   

Above is ME
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 12:52 pm:   

When I was a kid in the early 70's in my neighborhhood, people stated reported seeing or saying they where chased by a man with a hachet who was wearing a giant bunny costume. This is not a joke. You can look it up on the internet. Numbers of people reported to the police seeing this man of being attacked by this man at night and he was always wearing this big bunny costume. They started calling him the bunnyman. A story went around that there was a mental hopital out in the deep woods here in Virginia and this man had escaped from there. Every weekend more people would report it. Now remember this is suburben Washington DC/Northern Virginia area. These where not hicks or mountain people reporting this. Well over the months that follow it gradually went away and now is sort of a kind of urban myth. Now of course none of it is true. In fact most of the people later recanted there stories. I give this as case were you can say almost anything and somebody will pay attention to you. Bigfoot is another urban legend.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 12:58 pm:   

Here is a link to the Bunnyman story.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/library/branches/vr/b unny/bunny.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 8:37 pm:   

myimage
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 9:04 pm:   

Looks like a bulge of tissue to me.

Still, I bet I could post pics of real, known animals that would appear to have "sewn seams" too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 11:15 pm:   

Hawk, the Patterson film has been scrutinized for decades by experts (ie, people who produce movies as well as scientists) and they have never found evidence of a zipper or anything. What you have pointed out is not a seam or zipper in a costume, or the experts would have pronounced it fake by the end of October 1967.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 2:47 am:   

Ed, prove it's not. You and Tom seem so intelligent but yet you two believe in something you cannot touch. That freaks me out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brad
Username: Brad

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 6:02 am:   

"Ed, prove it's not. You and Tom seem so intelligent but yet you two believe in something you cannot touch. That freaks me out."

Do you believe that outer space really exists, Hawk? Have you touched it? How about amoebas? Radio signals?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 4:52 pm:   

Other less popular Patterson films:

- Santa Claus on a rooftop
- The Tooth Fairy puts quarter under pillow
- The Easter Bunny hiding eggs
- A leprachon counting gold coins
- Aliens making a crop circle
- John Kerry Vietnam combat footage
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 6:36 pm:   

Brad, Outer space,amebias and radio signals have been confirmed, Bigfoot has not. So whats your point?

Johno, lol
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 6:50 pm:   

It wasn't all that long ago the gorilla was considered a myth.

Not only that, virtually every month you can find not only cases where animals thought to be extinct have been found alive and well, but also new species being discovered.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 6:53 pm:   

It's funny how people refuse to believe something just because it can't be seen at the zoo. No one believed in things that were so small we couldn't see them that might cause disease, until bacteria and viruses were discovered. No one believed in contintental drift and laughed at Alfred Wegener's theory for 50 years until it was proved in the 1960's. And there are many other similar stories.

As far as bigfoot is concerned, I don't think there is any doubt that people are seeing something. And yes, people are faking bigfoot prints and pics as well, but that cannot account for everything. And the fact remains that the Patterson film is probably one of the most scrutinized pieces of film in history and science cannot prove that it was faked. How can two simple men possibly have managed to pull off a hoax so incredible that they have managed to hoodwink science for nearly 40 years???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 7:01 pm:   

Johno, not only has the Patterson footage never been proven to be a fraud, the handful of people over the years who have claimed to have "faked it" have never been able to duplicate the "costume," or even come close for that matter. One such alleged faker actually claimed it was a simple horse hide. (Apparently he'd never seen a horse hide.)

So far in this thread I've seen several skeptics taking the ol' "the footage must be fake because there's no such thing" route, and nobody really dealing with the facts.

*If it's a fake, how was the stride so great over such a long distance?
*How did it sink so deeply, much more than a man?
*How did the muscles flex?
*How did the "fake feet" perform like real feet, complete with moving toes that made adjustments to the terrain?

Those are just a few questions that so far I haven't seen any skeptic at this board even attempt to deal with.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 7:15 pm:   

We have a good example of this in today's news. NASA is trying to find the one surviving male Ivory Billed Woodpecker in Arkansas. Gimme a break. NASA should put this technology at the borders of the US.----Maybe NASA could help us find Bigfoot!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 10:26 pm:   

*There is no evidence of a great stride in the film. There is nothing in it to suggest that it is anything taller than a six foot tall man.
*There is no evidence of the person in the suit sinking much more deeper than a man. No camera followed the so-called creature to the spot where it walked for visual evidence of fresh depth. Fake casts of prints were made.
*A tight fit will flex and the flexing to me looks like the movement of fabric and padding. Thers' no defined visual evidence to indicate those are muscles.
*The terrain is a nice open flat area of the woods very convient for filming a bigfoot walking. Not much problem for a guy in suit to traverse as long as he doesn't walk to fast which he doesn't. The funny thing with the walk is that when it turns around to look at the camera it almost loses his balance. He looks down at his feet for a moment when he completes his turn to realign his walk.

Patterson to make a good hoax even better should have followed the path of his bigfoot to look for and collect hair samples which he didn't.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 10:39 pm:   

Johno, your information is incorrect. If you are truly interested in this subject and not just in convincing people it's a hoax, you should research all that was done to investigate the footage and the facts I stated in the above post. It's easy to find online.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 11:07 pm:   

I believe two things are true about the Patterson film:
1. It looks impressive, and it looks like a real animal.
2. Two or three men could have made a convincing fake.
The question I do not have an answer for is which of the above statements is closest to the mark!
I have vacillated over the Patterson film ever since I saw it on the Joey BIshop show way back in 1968 or so (Roger Patterson was a guest!). At that time I was not nearly so skeptical of bigfoot as I am now. That is purely due to the passage of time with no corpus delecti being found, no bigfoot killed by a car and no hunter dragging a body out of the bush with a 4-wheel drive.
What would it take for me to believe? I can answer that: either the body of a bigfoot, living or dead, examined in detail by biologists and printed in a scientific journal or tissue or hair samples with unknown DNA written up in said journal. Anything else might be faked. As I have said, I am skeptical, but do not rule out the possibility of the existence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 11:15 pm:   

Tom, I'm not new to this. I remember when the film footage first came out and have read more of the pros and cons of it than I care to even think about in the past 39 years and I stand by it being a hoax and not your so-called facts. Sorry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 11:31 pm:   

Johno, you may not be new to the Bigfoot phenomenon. However, hoax or not, your statements indicate a rather narrow knowledge base.

Within days of the original footage being taken, non-Patterson investigators were scrutinizing the scene. Skeptics were in abundance. Measurements were taken, film was made. Therefore, a record exists. It's not like we only have the word of two ranchhands to go by.

With that in mind, I find your statements questioning the size of the subject to be rather troubling, as well as those involving footprint depth, etc. It's a matter of record. Unless of course you believe Patterson employed an army of conspirators...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 12:17 am:   

There were other investigators at the site within hours of the sighting, if I am not mistaken. It's not like Patterson & Gimlin just showed up with the film without explaining the circumstances in which it was made and taking others to the actual location.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 12:23 am:   

There were no investigators at the site within hours. A forestry worker the next day took six color slides of tracks. He had worked that area all summer and had seen no bigfoot creatures or no tracks before or after these.
A taxidermist from Canada and his brother-in-law showed up nine days later and discovered tracks where the film was shot that led up a hill.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 12:30 am:   

Johno, I have the footage that Patterson and Gimlin made of the tracks that very day.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 1:48 am:   

I am new to Bigfootery, but I find it interesting that the Patterson film depicts a female, as seen in Tom's film post of July 29. When the creature turns and looks back, you can see the breasts. If this were a suit created by hoaxters, why would they go to the trouble of creating a female Bigfoot costume?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 4:47 am:   

Maybe they were clever enough to realize that if they made it a female it would lend even more credibility to people who would rationalize something on the order of, "if this were a suit created by hoaxters, why would they go to the trouble of creating a female Bigfoot costume?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 6:39 am:   

I could have sworn that the Patterson film was proven fake within the last year. I'm sure I'm wrong on this because someone into more than me would have remembered, but, I thought that someone involved in making the film came out and admitted it fake. I'll have to do some research to see if my bad memory is even worse or the same.

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 8:54 am:   

I would love nothing more than for someone to capture a BigFoot, But,I see flaws in what I think is a suit. Logic tells me it's nothing more than a hoax.

Tom, be fair, the new species being found today are the size of rice and smaller, and most of them are being found in the oceans. These are big ass oceans. We're talking about a 7ft-8ft 400lb half man half ape on land.

With today's technology, Satellite,Infrared thermal imaging and night vision, no person has ever been able to capture one of these alleged creatures.

There's never been any evidence found like skeletol remains, hair etc...
Those who claim they have seen one, only see one. These alleged creatures just roam around by their selfs and not in groups. I find that suspicious in it's self.

Sorry, but I feel it has all the earmarks of being a hoax.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 9:35 am:   

Not only that, but the bulky size of it, and the fact that it's fur-covered, suggests it's a vegetarian; something like a gorilla, which gets the bulk of its energy from low-caloric substances like bark and foliage. In fact, the crest on top of its head suppors that idea, because, as in such species as gorillas, and the extinct robustus form of australopithecus, the crest is needed to anchor jaw muscles used for heavy-duty mastication. If that's the case, we should be able to go out into the woods and see a definite ecological impact on its habitat, just as we can observe with gorillas, who can defoliate large areas of forest just to get enough energy to stay alive.

(Incidentally, I did a google search on the terms "gorilla" "crest" and "mastication," just to make sure I had my facts right, and the first site I hit was one debunking the bigfoot myth. So I seem to have reinvented the wheel here.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 10:25 am:   

Etphoto, just about every year during TV sweeps some huge redneck will get his 15 minutes of fame by claiming he was the "man in the fur suit." It's happened several times.

Doug, the sightings have shown bigfoot to eat all sorts of things, from leaves to fish. If it exists, it's definitely not a vegetarian.

Hawk: There have been plenty of sightings of these creatures in groups.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 11:49 am:   

I want to believe. I've wanted to believe ever since I was a kid, but . . . logic tells me other wise. I remember the big arguement years ago. "If there is a bigfoot and with all the video cameras out there, how come no one has good footage?" Then an answer to that was, "Okay, we know there are plane crashes and with all the video cameras out there how come no one has footage of a plan crash?" Well, years have gone by and with more and more video cameras there are videos of plan crashes. But, still no good footage of a bigfoot.

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 12:14 pm:   

Tom, I'm a big hillbilly beer drinkin redneck, I Want My Fifteen Minutes!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 12:34 pm:   

If you think about it, this is a great alibi. How could you disprove it since any defense attorney can easily produce an expert witness to say Bigfoot exist.

http://www.doenetwork.us/cases/217dfca.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 5:57 pm:   

Doug, those sites are meant for people like you who are intent on "re-inventing the wheel." You have to go to a less rigid site! If Bigfoot does exist, he\she probably eats fish, mushrooms, bugs, snails and slugs, frogs, berries, and small rodents, in addition to bark, plant leaves and stems, tips of evergreens and deciduous trees, dandelions, mussles, and other native foods.

There have been reports of Bigfoot sightings and tracks near Baltimore, Wash- DC, and NYC. In park and preserved areas. I'm not ready to believe they are in the East yet, but how about Ape Canyon near Mt. St. Helens?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 7:05 pm:   

Actual reported Bigfoot sightings in Michigan's Upper Peninsula where I grew up.
- 1950's - (no exact date found) Ontonagon County - Logger reports two Bigfoot rescued him after a tree fell on him.
- 1963 - Dickenson County - Family sees a Bigfoot standing under a tree in their back yard.
- 1967 - Chippewa County - A police chief chases an ape-like creature into the woods near an Air Force base.
- 1970's (no date found) Marquette County - Family finds footprints and hears screeming in the woods. Two days later in the same area a couple sees a big foot on an old road.
- 1984 July - Marquette County - Large smelly creature heard screeming in the woods.
- 1984 - Marquette County - Bicyclist who was one of the family members from the 1970's incident hears screeming in the woods identical to his earlier encounter.
- 1990's (no date found) Chippewa County - Two hunters find footprints and see a Bigfoot.
- 1998 August - Baraga County - Two bear hunters find three sets of tracks. Two that are 8-10" and a third that are 15-16".
- 1998 August - Ontonagon County - A bear hunter sees a bigfoot. Two days later the logger from the 1950's incident takes the hunter to the spot of his encounter and they find several sets of tracks.
- 2003 July - Ontonagon County - A sceintist on vacation with his family hear primate-like whoops in the woods like a chimpanzee might make.

Seems like a lot of screaming Bigfoot living up there. Of course with all the mosquitos and biting black flys and deer flys I'd be screaming too if I had to live in the woods all the time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim_nelson
Username: Jim_nelson

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 10:20 pm:   

Check this eleven page article:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is _4_28/ai_n6145280
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 1:04 am:   

I'm sure I read where there were some investigators at the site within hours, but I don't recall the source. I'll have to see if I can find it...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 11:26 am:   

I read that yesterday Ed. There were supposedly investigators at the site within hours of the sighting and they couldn't find anything. Then a few days later some bigfoot searchers showed up and supposedly found footprints.

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 3:45 pm:   

Quite the contrary, what I recall reading was that Patterson & Gimlin had legitmate investigators there within hours of the sighting and there were footprints, etc. I can't for the life of me remember where I read it, though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 4:06 pm:   

"There were supposedly investigators at the site within hours of the sighting and they couldn't find anything. Then a few days later some bigfoot searchers showed up and supposedly found footprints."

Etphoto, I'd really like to know your source, because that story is 100% rubbish.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   

Tom,

My source is very unrealiable. Even more unrealiable source than the media. My sourse is the internet. When I posted above stating that I heard sometime in the past that the Patterson film was hoax I did a search on the internet and read about the footprints on one of the dozen or so web sites I reviewed. In looking for that source you asked for, I came across an article that verifies what Ed said.

ET

PS: rubbish? I don't see that word used to often. Are you from the United Kingdom by any chance?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 4:50 pm:   

No, but I lived in Australia for 11 years. I use it on occasion (maybe Tom's been hanging out with me too long??? lol).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim_nelson
Username: Jim_nelson

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 5:27 pm:   

Another article to check: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/8/ 5/nation/15060926&sec=nation
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:37 am:   

I cannot find any reference to this on the internet however I am sure (going strictly by memory here) a number of years ago, I saw a show on A&E or something about bigfoot and the patterson film. This show went in depth into the background of a movie I recalled being released in the early 70's. It was a documentry about bigfoot. Kind of a "In search Of" type thing although this was released into theatres. Anyway this show traced the actual owner ship of the "patterson film" to the film company that released this movie. Also I seem to remember a corresponding book. Patterson was evidently an employee of this company and worked as a cameraman for them. It basicly said that the whole thing was a hoax by this movie company. Has anybody else heard these rumors.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:51 am:   

Scott, just about everything you posted above is incorrect. (I would have said you were 100% wrong, but since you spelled Patterson's name correctly, I can't do that.)

At least you could attempt to verify the info before posting it. I mean, I just don't feel like spending my free time tracking down and posting sources for the correct information, when I know that even if I post it here, those determined to cry "hoax" will still do so. Not to mention the fact that if you were actually interested in knowing the truth, you and others are more than capable of finding it online.

There is an excellent accounting of the events of that day (and those that followed) back in 1967. I'm fine that you don't believe it. However, please quit posting unsubstantiated information. If you can't link to it and provide at least a second source, forget it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:07 pm:   

I'm pretty sure that I posted this link once before, but it seems few took the time to click and read. Here it is again.

Now, if someone has contradictory information and they can actually provide the sources, that's great. Please post it. Otherwise, what's the point of further debate?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:12 pm:   

From what I remember reading, Patterson and Gimlin were filming their own documentary on bigfoot, which is why they had a camera. I recall seeing a program many years ago where some of the other footage from their expedition was shown; it was to be incorporated into their documentary, which was obviously never completed. Whoever started the rumor that a movie company perpetrated a hoax is probably basing it on this fact and twisting it to suit their own agenda.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   

-- The footage was taken the day before this story. The story quickly made the wire services and appeared internationally. Considering it was Roger Patterson who called the reporter, and considering bigfoot was already a hot topic, I don't see any evidence of an attempt at secrecy. In fact, this shows the opposite. And yes, others were at the film location within 24 hours --

The Times-Standard
Eureka, Calif
Saturday, Oct. 21, 1967

A Yakima Washington man and his Indian tracking aide come out of the wilds of northern Humboldt county yesterday to breathlessly report that they had seen and taken motion pictures of "a giant hominoid creature."

In colloquial words they have seen Bigfoot!"

Thus, the long sought answer to the validity and reality of the stories about the makers of the unusually large tracks lie in the some 20 to 30 feet of colored film taken by a man who has been eight years himself seeking the answer.

And as Roger Patterson spoke to The Times-Standard last night, his film was already on its way by plane to his home town for processing while he was beside himself relating the chain of events.

Patterson, 34, has been eight years on the project. Last year he wrote a book, "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?" This year he has been taking films of tracks and other evidence all over the Northwestern United States and Canada for a documentary.

He has over 50 tapes of interviews with persons who have reported these findings, and including talks with two or three persons who have reported seeing these giant creatures.
- o -
BOB GIMLIN, 36, and a quarter Apache Indian and also of Yakima, has been associated with Patterson for a year. Patterson has visited the area before and last month received word of the latest discovery of the giant footprints which have become legend.

Last Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night.

Yesterday they were in the Bluff Creek area, some 65 to 70 miles north of Willow Creek, where Notice Creek comes into it. They were some two miles into a canyon where it begins to flare out.

Patterson was still an excited man some eight hours after his experience. His words came cascading out between gasps. He still couldn't believe what he had seen, but he is convinced he has now seen a "Bigfoot" himself and he's the only man he's heard of who has taken pictures of the creature.

Here is what he reported:
- o -
IT WAS about 1:30 p.m., the daylight was good, when he and Gimlin were riding their horses over a sand bar where they had been just two days before. They had both just come around a bend when "I guess we both saw it at the same time."

"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

"My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."
- o -
GIMLIN was astride an older horse which is generally trialwise, but it too rared (sic) and had to be released, running off to join their pack horse which had broken during the initial moments of the sighting.

Patterson said the creature stood upright the entire time, reaching a height of about six and a half to seven feet and an estimated weight of between 350 and 400 pounds.

"I moved to take the pictures and told Bob to cover me. My gun was still in the scabbard. I'd grabbed the camera instead. Besides, we'd made a pact not to kill one if we saw one unless we had to."
Patterson said the creatures'(sic) head was much like a human's though considerably more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

"It's arms hung almost to its knees and when it walked, the arms swung at its sides."
- o -
PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

"She never made a sound. She wasn't hostile to us, but we don't think she was afraid of us either. She acted like she didn't want anything to do with us if she could avoid it." Patterson said the creature had an ambling gait as it made off over the some 200 yards he had it in sight. He said he lost sight of the creature, but Gimlin caught a brief glimpse of it afterward.

"But she stunk, like did you ever let in a dog out of the rain and he smelled like he'd been rolling in something dead. Her odor didn't last long where she'd been."
- o -
LATE LAST NIGHT Patterson was anxious to return to the campsite where they had left their horses. He had been to Eureka in the afternoon to airmail his film to partner Al De Atley in Yakima. De Atley has helped finance Patterson's expeditions.

He and Gimlin were equally anxious to return to the primitive area. "It's right in the middle of the primitive area" for the chance to get another view and more film of the creature.

He said there's strong belief that a family of these creatures may be in the area since footprints of 17, 15 and nine inches have been reported found.

The writer jested that these sizes put him in mind of The Three Bears.

"This was no bear," Patterson said. "We have seen a lot of bears in our travels. We have seen some bears on this trip. This definitely was no bear."

Patterson is also anxious today to telephone his experience to a museum administrator who is also extremely interested in the project. "He may want to bring down some dogs. We don't have dogs here."

He's not sure how much longer they will remain in the area. "It all depends."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:11 pm:   

I hope this thread doesn't die. If only the skeptics of the footage would research the facts and come up with valid points, we'd have plenty to talk about.

With all of the quick resources available on the web, there's no need to rely on old memories of what someone might have maybe said decades ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 1:36 pm:   

Tom the truth is there are no "facts" other then 2 men filmed what they say was a Bigfoot. Thats it. All the rest is utter speculation one way or the other. Facts are also that people have found all over the world fossils millions of years old, yet never has a bigfoot bone, fossil or rement ever been discovered. The amount of fraud commited, recanting of testimony, draws a huge shadow over every Bigfoot sighting. This has amounted to rendering the subject a moot point and an effort in futility. It was great to talk about in 3rd and 4th grade, almost like a existing ghost story. Face facts though, those days are long gone my friend.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 2:22 pm:   

Scott, if all there was to the story was the claims of two men, how do you explain the footprints? And before you dismiss them as "fakes" and again mention the fourth grade for the millionth time, the truth remains that scene was scrutinized within a day or so, the prints existed, showed no signs of being faked according to the professional trackers in the area and were far larger and deeper than a man could have made. Not to mention the toes showed natural movement when the terrain changed.

If you have a logical explanation for the above, let's hear it and then we can move on to other variables regarding the footage. But let's start easy to begin with. However, if you're unwilling to acknowledge anything besides your incorrect info, there's really no point in further discussion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 2:38 pm:   

What did I state incorrectly? You keep pointing to trackers who examined footprints. That they were scrutinized within a day or so. Was Tom Voigt there. Are there any police reports, or even a scientific report written by a ichnologist. What I suspect is you have a bunch of bigfoot hunters, out there verifing that someother bigfoot hunter found something. Good one about "the 4th grade". I liked that. The truth is Tom, you really don't know what happened and what could have been faked and not faked. I agree the film is kind of fun to watch but I still can't believe you really believe this stuff!
Your such a smart guy!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 1:08 pm:   

Let's continue this discussion here.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration