Jump to content


Photo

The Stick-To-The-Film Mantra: Ignoring The History Of Hoaxing In Bigfootery.


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#161 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 06:53 PM

The reason the Debunkers and Denialsits keep up on the "backstory backstory backstory" meme is because they can't refute the film.

So they go ad hom on Roger (he welched on a debt, he kept a camera, etc therefore he MUST have hoaxed the PGF).


That meany debunker/denialist Peter Byrne!

Posted Image

Why'd he have to go to the source with Ivan Marx?...

Posted Image

He besmirched his honour with his dirty, filthy ad homs! Why couldn't he stick to the film!? He besmirched Peggy's honour, too. She was right there beside Ivan!...

Posted Image

No suit! No confession! Ivan went to his grave swearing it was real. Peggy continues to claim it was real to this day. Watch her interview at the ten minute mark in Bigfoot: Beast on the Run as she explains the day Ivan and her filmed a Bigfoot. She's like somebody's sweet grandmother. And those people saying she's lying through her teeth! Of course Rog... Ivan Marx filmed Bigfoot. He was looking for one as part of his documentary that was not called "Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman"...





How dare people attack Marx. He sheltered wild animals and cared for them! He played with puppies!

Posted Image

And who would think to put genitalia on a suit?

Posted Image

There's just no way 4-way stretch was available back then...

Posted Image

Why did Byrne have to drag the Marx's name through the mud? Just because he was suspicious of the film subject and didn't think it looked like a real Bigfoot?

Everybody thinks this looks like a real Bigfoot, right?

Posted Image

It's not like the person who created that would deceptively present the work of others...

Posted ImagePosted Image

It's not like he would deceive audiences with fictional characters and impostors...

Posted Image

You're right, Mulder - stick to the film! That way we can return the PGF and Marx footage back to where they belong as precious and unique films of Bigfoot in the wild. Marx and Patterson can be returned to their vaunted status as visionary documentarians and wildlife enthusiasts.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#162 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,413 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 08:17 PM

kitakaze wrote:

You're right, Mulder - stick to the film!



Sure....Patty was a REAL BIG-foot... ;) ...


Posted Image



Posted Image

Edited by SweatyYeti, 06 January 2012 - 08:23 PM.

  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#163 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 04:02 AM

And who would think to put genitalia on a suit?

Posted Image

There's just no way 4-way stretch was available back then...

Posted Image

These pics were made years after the PGF- which was obviously the inspiration for adding the genitalia. Why make comparisons with a suit made well after the fact?

It's not like the person who created that would deceptively present the work of others...

Posted ImagePosted Image

There is nothing "deceptive" about this- it's a common practice with artists to make renditions of somebody else's work. Even Picasso did it.

You're also talking about a time when copyright laws were different and pulp magazine's were full of copied art. It didn't mean they were being deceptive- it was common practice.

Edited by roguefooter, 07 January 2012 - 04:20 AM.

  • 0

#164 Primate

Primate

    Oh Mah

  • Inactive
  • 566 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 06:29 AM

I seriously don't think the Marx films needed any backstory to be disproven..
  • 0

#165 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 03:21 PM

I seriously don't think the Marx films needed any backstory to be disproven..


Welcome to the world outside of the tiny subculture of Bigfoot believers and the PGF. The world outside your subculture looks at this and sees a manky suit...

Posted Image

They don't care or know about just how absurdly bad the provenance of the PGF is. They just see a bad suit. Is that acceptable for you? Do you know somehow better and are gifted with a superior sense of fine perception compared to all those people that see an obvious suit. Can you convince them you know better?

Watch here from 38:36...



An Oscar-winning FX artist looks at Patty and sees an obvious suit. No source investigation, no back story. They look at it and dismiss it by sticking to the film.

*ping*...

Posted Image

Off it goes. It isn't tolerable in your belief system. Sticking to the film and seeing a hoax is not tolerable to the PGF believer. Going to the source and concluding a hoax is not tolerable for the PGF believer. The film is not the issue, the believer is the issue. Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

Primate, you go up against all the Marxfoot believers. They are not an imaginary construct for debate purposes. They exist and they will not be swayed by any filthy besmirching of Ivan and Peggy Marx's honour. They were gifted naturalists and documentarians that worked with and sheltered injured and orphaned animals. Don't you dare call them hoaxers and have no proof, they will say.

So you do that. You take this...

Posted Image

And you take this...

Posted Image

And you prove it's a fake. You don't offer opinions like those of the Oscar-winning FX artist that bounced off your believer teflon because it didn't fit with your belief system. You prove it. You make all the Marxfoot believers accept that you have proven the film a hoax and you stick to the film. No opinions and no Byrne material.

The Marxfoot film is not the mystery. The Marxfooot believer is the mystery.

Address that problem in a way that makes a meaningful distinction from the subculture of PGF believers that is applicable to the real world outside that subculture.

These pics were made years after the PGF- which was obviously the inspiration for adding the genitalia. Why make comparisons with a suit made well after the fact?


This pic was made a year after Do abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Why make comparisons with a suit made well after the fact?

Prove Marxfoot is a fake to the satisfaction of all the Marxfoot believers, Rogue. No Byrne material and no besmirching Ivan and Peggy's honour with filthy ad homs. Don't call it a suit unless you can prove it's a suit by sticking to the film. Where's the suit, Rogue? Where's the confession? Marxfoot teflon is strong and you can't get through it without those things.

There is nothing "deceptive" about this- it's a common practice with artists to make renditions of somebody else's work. Even Picasso did it.


That's funny, because Mort Kunstler's representatives had a decidely less apologist believer view than yours.

Picasso said, "good artists copy but great artists steal." Picasso was inspired by the art of others. He didn't blatantly actually steal and copy in intricate detail the art of others and present it as his own. Patterson blatantly plagiarized the work of both Morton Kunstler and Louis Glanzman in his book in 1966. He straight yoinked it and in the real world beyond apologist belief culture people see it is what is is - theft.

Patterson had no qualms about deceiving people with his art just as he had no qualms with trotting around an impostor Gimlin playing the impostor wise native tracker when barnstorming the PGF. Deceiving people was not a problem for Roger Patterson as long as he could sell belief in Bigfoot.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#166 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,413 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 06:30 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Off it goes. It isn't tolerable in your belief system.




But kit......we have REASON....not "belief"... :D ...


Posted Image


OUCH....SLAMMED over the head with your own frying pan... :lol:


Howz it feel, kit?! :lol:


kitakaze wrote:

That's funny, because Mort Kunstler's representatives had a decidely less apologist believer view than yours.



Whoop-de-doo. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti, 07 January 2012 - 06:33 PM.

  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#167 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 06:42 PM

But kit......we have REASON....not "belief"... :D ...


Posted Image


Yes, Patty has floppy feet that look very fake. So does Bronston Delone in a suit (33:29)...



Posted Image
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#168 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:46 PM

That's funny, because Mort Kunstler's representatives had a decidely less apologist believer view than yours.

Picasso said, "good artists copy but great artists steal." Picasso was inspired by the art of others. He didn't blatantly actually steal and copy in intricate detail the art of others and present it as his own. Patterson blatantly plagiarized the work of both Morton Kunstler and Louis Glanzman in his book in 1966. He straight yoinked it and in the real world beyond apologist belief culture people see it is what is is - theft.


This only goes to show that your agenda is what determines the definitions in your arguments. For one man it's inspiration, for the subject of your agenda it's deception and plagiarism. Theft is theft isn't it? Or only when it suits the argument?

Regardless, that doesn't dismiss the fact that it's has always been a common practice and is still in use in the art world today. Obama's "Hope" poster is a blaring example- by law it's called plagiarism but by the art world it's called art. Should we assume Shepard Fairey a deceptive person because of this? Should we crucify the man for following standard practice which is even taught in art classes? I'm sure if we had an agenda against him the answer would be easy.

That's not even taking into consideration all the people that have copied the basis of that poster for their own purposes and profits. What about Obama for using it in his campaign? Are these all deceptive people for using plagiarized work? Or were they just accustomed to the common practices in the art world?

Edited by roguefooter, 07 January 2012 - 09:03 PM.

  • 0

#169 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:58 PM

This only goes to show that your agenda is what determines the definitions in your arguments. For one man it's inspiration, for the subject of your agenda it's deception and plagiarism. Theft is theft isn't it? Or only when it suits the argument?


Picasso never in intricate detail blatantly copied the work of another and slapped his name on it. Patterson did that when he plagiarized the work of Kunstler and Glanzman. Kunstler's representatives have no anti-PGF sentiment. They simply looked at the lift, considered it a rip off, and wanted to know how it was being distributed.

Do all the people who look at this and see a blatant yoink have an anti-PGF agenda, Rogue?

Posted ImagePosted Image

When Patterson was fopping around his impostor Gimlin while barnstorming the film, was he being honest and genuine with his audience rather than deceptive?

Posted Image
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#170 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:11 PM

When Patterson was fopping around his impostor Gimlin while barnstorming the film, was he being honest and genuine with his audience rather than deceptive?

Posted Image

Patterson was apparently adding drama to the story- the same as they do in every movie made about an event. Another common practice, but because it was Patterson there must be criminal intent behind it.
  • 0

#171 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:30 PM

Patterson was apparently adding drama to the story- the same as they do in every movie made about an event.


I don't think you can do a more texbook apologism.

Putting a fake Bigfoot on film as if it were real is also creating drama.

Another common practice, but because it was Patterson there must be criminal intent behind it.


I don't think Roger was a criminal. I'm saying he was a hoaxer. He used and manipulated others. He was an ill man who wanted to make a million dollars, never work for The Man, and provide his family with financial means beyond his own mortality. When I show the PGF as a hoax in my documentary, Patterson will be shown for the person he was, not the person Bigfooters wish he was or the way Long showed him. People have motivations that are not two-dimensional and Patterson was not the two-dimensional villain Greg Long made him out to be with the "sociopath" talk that believers equally apply to Bob Heironimus. The people who knew Patterson and Gimlin knew they were highly motivated to make a fortune with Bigfoot and movies.

This was Roger in 1966...

Posted Image

And Bob Gimlin...

Posted Image

Does Bob Gimlin feel he was treated honestly and fairly by Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley, Rogue?

Bigfoot hoaxers use impostors to lend drama and create the desired atmosphere for their hoax. You know that.

Here's our scientist come to examine our Bigfoot. He has great credentials and you should believe what he says. This is all completely on the up and up...


  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#172 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:50 AM

I don't think you can do a more texbook apologism.

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.

Putting a fake Bigfoot on film as if it were real is also creating drama.


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?

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.

Prove Marxfoot is a fake to the satisfaction of all the Marxfoot believers, Rogue. No Byrne material and no besmirching Ivan and Peggy's honour with filthy ad homs. Don't call it a suit unless you can prove it's a suit by sticking to the film. Where's the suit, Rogue? Where's the confession? Marxfoot teflon is strong and you can't get through it without those things.


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? 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.

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?
  • 1

#173 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:53 AM

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)...

http://www.blogtalkr...with-bob-gimlin

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...

kitakaze wrote:

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.

  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#174 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 10:18 PM

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...

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.

Okay here goes- Sweaty, your mouth/eyebrow movement is not proof okay? Keep this up and no soup for you.

Did that work Sweaty? Are you convinced now? :)


I have absolutely no problem with Sweaty or anybody else having a different opinion on the matter, and I see no reason to argue the point because it's nothing but opinion. People like Bill Munns have an obvious passion for examination of the film, but at the end of the day it still boils down to his personal opinion.

If they present it as fact then that's their belief. Will it somehow change the thinking of science? No it won't. So what difference does it make? It's just a film, film doesn't equal proof, at least not in our society. It's been well over 40 years and Sasquatch is still not on the list of living species- that should be all the proof that anybody needs to back up that claim. It's still an interesting subject though and Munns has given us a lot to think about when forming our own opinions.
  • 1

#175 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 11:24 PM

You got a plus from me, Rogue, because I think that is as fairly and frankly as you can state your perspective, not to mention doing so in a civil and articulate way.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#176 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 12:04 AM

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.

Not under-informed, I just don't subscribe to your opinion. Especially when you sit there and try to tell me everything that Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson were thinking throughout the years.

If Roger was planning a bigfoot hoax as early as 1961, testing suits and faking tracks at the time, then it makes no sense to suddenly go legit and invest in a documentary instead. Then completely trash all that you just invested and change gears back to a hoax when you suddenly have financial backing. There is no consistency with that, especially when you're talking about what was supposed to be a golden ticket premeditated event. Remember that Roger was supposed to be a focused individual when he really wanted something- not a guy who flip-flops all over the place like some aimless opportunist. Yes he had inventions and other things going but he also had to eat and pay the bills apart from his hobby.

Edited by roguefooter, 09 January 2012 - 12:05 AM.

  • 0

#177 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:33 AM

I try my best to try and kept the film separate from the story, it's just easier for me to understand.


I'm not sure I comprehend what you mean by "understand". Does it mean something similar to "accept" or "conclude"? Because, the movie and the film, when all spread out on the table, provides plenty of additional understandable elements. Certainly when the story, or various stories, are laid out on the table, acceptance is more difficult, and the conclusions start to become quite different as well.

If Roger was planning a bigfoot hoax as early as 1961, testing suits and faking tracks at the time, then it makes no sense to suddenly go legit and invest in a documentary instead.


Actually, working on a documentary would give the much needed opportunity to the story. "I had been interested in bigfoot, and decided that I wanted to do a documentary about it. While in the process of interviewing people in an area known to have fresh footprints, and while looking for those footprints, we stumbled upon the real deal!" A documentary gives a reason to be in the area, it gives him reason to have a camera, and it gives him the perfect innocent opportunity to be at the right place, a the right time, with the right equipment. People ask "why" all the time. If someone has a sighting, the questions would always include why were you there, what were you doing, how did you come to have this sighting. A good story, a good reason, is vital.
  • 0
Tontar

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
- Monty Python, Argument Clinic

#178 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:47 AM

If Roger was planning a bigfoot hoax as early as 1961, testing suits and faking tracks at the time, then it makes no sense to suddenly go legit and invest in a documentary instead. Then completely trash all that you just invested and change gears back to a hoax when you suddenly have financial backing. There is no consistency with that, especially when you're talking about what was supposed to be a golden ticket premeditated event.


And then go further off track and display behaviour inconsistent for a master long term hoaxer by then getting hoaxed himself and running around in a wild goose chase in the middle of winter 1970 trying to find a captured bigfoot being held prisoner down a mine by Joe Metlow.

Hoaxers do the hoaxing. They are not the gullible hoaxee like Patterson was on more than one occasion.
  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users