I'm not apologizing for anything, it's truth. I see no reason to make harsh accusations against someone for doing something that's common methodology in the field.
Wow. You are seriously excusing Patterson presenting an impostor Gimlin in his presentations as being standard procedure regarding the presentation of Bigfoot evidence. From a friend on the impostor Gimlin subject...
...Patterson would have had to inform this guy about the details of the encounter and his relationship with the real Gimlin, in case anyone in the audience had questions. It could have been quite interesting to watch a stand-in deal with the situation:
Audience Member: "Bob, you are an Indian tracker. Are you full blooded, or part Indian?"
Fake Bob Gimlin: "I've got some Indian in me."
AM: "Was your father or mother Indian, and who taught you your tracking skills?"
FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin."
AM: "What kind of rifle did you have with you when you encountered the Bigfoot?"
FBG: "It was a shooting rifle."
AM: "How many rounds did you typically load into this rifle?"
FBG: "I had the bullets in it. A couple or few, but not many. The extra bullets were kept outside of the rifle."
AM: "Where did you keep these extra rounds?"
FBG: "They were there at Bluff Creek, just like I was. The Bigfoot was there too, and we startled it around the bend in the creek. Science and many people do not think this animal exists, but Roger and I were there to get it on film. It was pretty tense if I say so myself."
AM: "Are you planning to go back there with Roger to try to get some physical evidence of the existence of this animal?"
FBG: "Yes. We are planning to go back there if we decide to go back there."
AM: "Bob, can you afford to take all of this time away from your work and family?"
FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin. I was with Roger Patterson when he filmed the Bigfoot. My hair is long because I'm an Apache Indian. Bigfoot is real."
How does Gimlin feel about Roger having hired a fake impersonator, Rogue? Did Gimlin feel it was honest? You don't need to wonder about that...
In Gimlin's own words during his MNBRT interview, he says that a friend named Jim living in Arkansas contacted him after attending a film showing of the PGF in which the impostor introduces himself as Bob Gimlin. Jim was said to then get up and say, "Hey! You're a damn liar!" and then get thrown out by security. Do not take my word for it (from 43:15)...
By your definition of Jeff Pruitt being a hoaxer, Roger Patterson was a hoaxer.
That's Gimlin himself talking about Roger deceiving audiences with an impostor of him. Was it honest, Rogue?
If Roger put a fake bigfoot on film for drama, then he inexplicably threw a lot more drama right out the window which he already had in the can. That makes no sense for something that was supposedly premeditated from the very beginning.
Roger supposedly was planning a fake bigfoot film from as far back as 1961(according to Long's book)- so why spend all that time and money over the years making a movie and then throw all that work in the trash when you finally get your fake bigfoot film finished?
You simply are under-informed about Roger Patterson. His 1961 hoax effort did not have the backing of Al DeAtley. He was experimenting using a stock Hollywood gorilla costume that could not be modified in any way due to its being a rental.
Patterson went to Hollywood with Jerry Merritt to seek investment for his fictional movie which he didn't get. That is when DeAtley stepped in. DeAtley had zero belief in Bigfoot and nothing but disdain for Bigfoot chasers. DeAtley is not going to trust the brother-in-law he thinks is a screw-up to actually bag a real Bigfoot for his investment. DeAtley does not operate on that level. If DeAtley needs a Bigfoot on film to generate the capital to take his father's failing company out of the red and secondarily provide his financial delinquent brother-in-law an income, he is going to make absolutely sure they get one on film.
The notion that he sent Roger into the woods of NorCal for weeks and Roger had only enough film to pull out the camera just by astronomical chance on the same afternoon he filmed Bigfoot is absurd.
You're also making the mistake of acting as if Roger was consistently between 1961 and 1967 trying to get rich with a Bigfoot movie. Roger was trying to get rich in a number fo ways over those years that didn't involve Bigfoot, such as with his hoop and prop lok inventions. It was the intervention of Al deAtley that made anything he did in the fall of 1967 with Bigfoot possible.
Of course if you get the real deal on film then you won't need all that work anymore- that makes more sense than some big convoluted conspiracy theory.
Al DeAtley's involvement in a PGF hoax for financial gain is not convoluted at all. It is the best scenario by far, even to the acknowledgement of Bigfoot proponents. Fundamentalist PGF believers are extremely confronted by it because it makes their real Bigfoot scenario only slightly less absurd than the real Bigfoot massacre theory. They end up way down the ladder of reality. No scenario involving a hoax will ever be anything but convoluted to the PGF believer. They simply will not allow or tolerate for such a thing to be.
Film and photos are not solid proof of anything, so why spend a lot of time trying to prove it's not real to someone?
This is not what committed proponents of the film are telling us, Rogue.
The PGF believers are exactly telling is the PGF is proof. Do not take my word for it...
To prove the PGF was real, you need a matching specimen
Or mouth/eyebrow movement.
Who then is correct here? Is it Rogue or Sweaty? Are you ready and prepared to successfully argue to Sweaty that the PGF is not proof of anything? Can we have a sample of your debate technique to convince Sweaty that this mouth/eyebrow movement he is saying is proof is in fact not? I would like to see this be something you can achieve.
I already know it's not substantial enough, otherwise Sasquatch would already be in the books of real species. People can claim they're real from film and photos if they want to- that's their choice. Doesn't bother me either way because everyone has an opinion. I see Marxfoot as an obvious suit- if others don't then they don't.
People also see the PGF as an obvious hoax. You luckily don't get to live in a world where you can somehow enforce your opinion of Patty as being superior to theirs. Fundamentalist PGF believers do in fact try to do this. That's what makes them fundamentalist. They can not allow for validity to be given to any opinions that don't compliment their own. You may be able to, but this is the exception, not the rule when it comes to the issue of fundamentalist belief systems.
The Bigfoot believers that are Marxfoot supporters will take you down to Chinatown if you besmirch Ivan and Peggy with dirty ad homs. Stick to the film, they will say, and you will be there with your hands in your pockets when they demand a suit and/or confession. They will make you watch Bigfoot: A Beast on the Run
, and when sweet and elderly Bigfoot matriarch Peggy Marx comes on and insists about what she and her husband experienced filming Bigfoot and you say she is lying through her teeth, you will be an evil denialist attacking with your scoftic agenda the honour and integrity of good and decent people, one deceased who is not here to defend himself against the slander.
Why people are so intent and serious about disproving the PGF is a mystery to me since these people already KNOW it's not proof of anything to begin with. Do you just not want the possibility to exist?
It's a specific claim. I examine specific claims of Bigfoot evidence. If you have a hard time understanding why anyone would seek to resolve such a specific claim, maybe you can ask Bill Munns to offer a treatis on the subject.
Edited by kitakaze, 08 January 2012 - 03:08 AM.