For the rancher or farmer who would decide to keep a camcorder in their vehicle or on their tractor or horse on the off chance of a possible encounter with BF, should they succeed in capturing video footage even good footage at that, they would be in no better a position than Roger Patterson was in October 1967. Roger Patterson had at that time what he thought was proof enough i.e. 952 frames of 16mm color film of an alleged BF that without its dead body to back up the footage, people then said what people today would say concerning any footage,"it's just a guy in a monkey suit, albeit a well-made monkey suit." Had Roger Patterson used his rifle or had his partner Bob Gimlin used his own 30.06 in tandem with Patterson's footage, even if the BF still ambled away not to be seen again, the film would have been better received. Had either of them felled the BF, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. Even if they had only wounded the BF, then its spoor could have been followed up. As it was Gimlin was going to ride after the BF that they'd filmed but Patterson called him back fearing that there might be other BFs in the area and he was now on foot (Patterson's horse threw him, he managed to grab the camera from the saddlebag at which point his horse promptly took off...Gimlin had let their pack horse go loose on sighting the BF...he kept his 30.06 at the ready in case the BF charged...needless to say hindsight shows that the don't shoot unless it charges policy that Patterson and Gimlin had agreed upon wasn't the best choice as far as gathering conclusive proof of BF.)
Posted on Sep 15, 2002, 5:38 PM from IP address 205.187.139.41