Jump to content


Photo

Patterson-Gimlin Film: A New Tall Tale


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#41 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:33 PM

Can, check out these videos:





I'm sure Bill will be happy to analyze Bob Patterson's massacree video as well as soon as it becomes available. :whistle:
  • 0

#42 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:52 PM

Are you guys talking about this site?

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com

I didn't see any errors in what they posted or see anything about rakes or moving rocks etc. Looks pretty cut and dry to me. The only thing I'm not sure about is if those can be related to the suit or not. It looks like the same casts. What errors do you see specifically?

Seems like anyone that speaks out against the pgf is looked down upon or is called into question. Personally some of the posts regarding hearsay is just boring. I found that website interesting because it deals directly with the film itself.


Word to you. +1. It's like going to a Sylvia Browne psychic medium convention and saying she's not psychic at all and showing footage of her telling grieving parents their child is dead when they were very much alive and listing off her many bogus predictions. It's like pitchforks and hate and how dare you? You get words like "scoftic" "denialist" "besmirch honour" and "lack of respect." One wants to ask, "Do you guys listen to yourselves? Do you know what you sound like? You can comprehend why people will not accept the PGF as proof of anything other than a very suspect man with a mission to get rich off of Bigfoot collaborated with wealthy rich brother-in-law and produced a film he wanted people to believe was of Bigfoot, yes?"

My fortitude as a PGF believer was greatly weakened in the early 2000's after seeing at the original BFF the way people doubting the film and asking important questions about it were shouted down and the film and it's makers iconized much like Sylvia Browne followers do with her. Things started to eat at me. Things like why do people say these guys tell the same story? Why don't people want to know more about the friendship between Heironimus and Gimlin and Heironimus' deep connection to Patterson? Why don't people care more about Patterson stealing Kunstler's rendition of the Roe story for his book only one year before Patty and describing the encounter and the creature near-verbatim? Stuff like that would gnaw at me and the issues I already had with her appearance. I had to willfully deny these things and put them out of my mind to maintain my belief. I had to engage in actual denialism to stay in the place and it got to a point where I asked my self why am I staying here? I didn't have an answer that wasn't based in sentimentality and found being a believer made no sense. That was the beginning of the end for me.

And that was long before I knew the things I know now.

We've come a long way since then and these are not the early days of the original PGF. Skepticism is an inevitability at this stage in the game and it is no longer a dogpile situation where people bringing it to the table are shouted down and hounded away. The plaster pour and cast display, the PGF provenance, the impossible timeline; these things are not going away and that's just to start. Skepticism is no longer a dirty word where the BFF and the PGF are concerned and I applaud the forum for that.

Edited by kitakaze, 08 February 2012 - 05:53 PM.

  • 1
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

#43 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:58 PM

None of that changes the fact that River presented his blog as irrefutable proof that PGF was a hoax. He based that on the two casts he presented as being the same, and they are very obviously not the same. I think this debunking hoax has been put to rest.
  • 0

#44 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:22 PM

It would be nice if River would take down his blog. Should I hold my breath?
  • 0

#45 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

Are you guys talking about this site?

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com

I didn't see any errors in what they posted or see anything about rakes or moving rocks etc. Looks pretty cut and dry to me. The only thing I'm not sure about is if those can be related to the suit or not. It looks like the same casts. What errors do you see specifically?



That's because he didn't post all the information there, if it seems cut and dry it's only because you're not looking at the details. The terrain is not the same between the photos which is a major discrepancy.

His site doesn't go into any of the details that he used to explain why the terrain is different. Here on this forum River went by "127", you can look up the conversation and his explanations for why rocks move, sticks disappear, the ground changes from dry to wet, etc. His theory relies on a rake and watering can which simply doesn't exist.

Seems like anyone that speaks out against the pgf is looked down upon or is called into question.

Just as anyone that speaks out in support of the pgf is looked down upon or called into question. That's typical of all debate no matter what topic.

Edited by roguefooter, 08 February 2012 - 07:29 PM.

  • 0

#46 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:01 PM

Just as anyone that speaks out in support of the pgf is looked down upon or called into question. That's typical of all debate no matter what topic.


No, I'm sorry. That is inaccurate. Allow me to quantify that for you in a meaningful way. Amongst my friends list on the BFF, there are currently 19 people that are proponents if the PGF. I do not look down upon a single one of them, though I do question there support of that film and do so regularly. Their belief in the film is their prerogative and does not in any way alter my enjoyment of them as people.

I also do not look down on you, Rogue, though I disagree with many of your opinions, such as the statement of yours I'm now quoting. In fact, I find you refreshing as a debate partner and enjoy our exchanges. Intelligent debate is something I enjoy and you are intelligent and good at defending your position. You write in an articulate manner, do not litter your posts with bizarre writing, punctuation, allcaps, and emoticons, and do not gif spam every topic with non sequiturs. I have engaged people here in discussion who make posts I can barely extract a coherent sentence from. It's not that they are stupid, it's just the computer and keyboard can be daunting for people not technically savvy. I myself do not use a spellchecker and on occasion type with the oven mitts on.

Anyone who speaks in support of the PGF is most certainly not looked down upon. Believing in it or Bigfoot does not make one stupid or cultish. I believed both and I was neither stupid nor cultish. What I didn't have was all the information. I also had a lot of misinformation from other Bigfooters who either did or should have known better. Having either belief or skepticism should not be a team jersey that enables hooligan behaviour. Intolerance is foul and I speak against it whether the person doing it is a believer or skeptic and have done so for years. If I thought people who believe the PGF were stupid for doing so, I would disrespect my own past since I was one of you.

Bigfoot/PGF believers here do not get this kind of raw seething hatred...

"This idiot actually passed a lie detector test on national TV declaring that the PGF was fake.

He's lied about it for so long he actually now believes the lies himself.

He will do anything to make money or to be on TV. This is his only claim to fame.
He could have supported the truth of Patty.

Why did he go against the film being of a real BF when he had to know that it was true at one time?"

"He has also lied for so long he probably believes it himself along with being a sociopath.

He'll do anything and say anything for money and publicity."

"Then we have this jerk telling lies on the Lie Detector show. That show didn't last very long because it's few episodes didn't hold up any better than a lie detector does in a court room."

"I just noticed the creep doesn't ever change his shirt. Look at those 2 videos, he's a bum! He lies to make a couple bucks and he still can't afford a new shirt."


Patterson doesn't get that, Gimlin doesn't get that. That is the emotional product of passionate belief. I know because I experienced the passionate belief myself without the hatred. That behaviour was what alienated me from my own peers when I was a believer.

Belief is most certainly called into question and always, always should unless one aspires to a mutual backpatters society. Belief is not what is looked down upon, however. Intolerance is what is looked down upon and always, always should be looked down upon because it is foul and repulsive.

See the difference?

Edited by kitakaze, 08 February 2012 - 08:03 PM.

  • 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

#47 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:28 AM

Kit said,

"River argues that the cast shown in the trackway scene and the plaster pour are in fact the same right feet. Nope. I don't think so. I think the TWS shows the right and the PPS shows the left. He feels it is just the perspective that creates that illusion and I think it is in fact no illusion."

Kit,being a responsible skeptic,and an accomplished critical thinker,did you step up and offer this opinion when this was presented as proof of a PGF hoax? Did any of the critical thinkers that viewed it on this forum?
I pasted this over here,since the question went unanswered,and got lost in the haze on the other thread.
  • 0

#48 Guest_can_*

Guest_can_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2012 - 02:09 PM

I did not mean to start a huge debate here. I just tried to tell it like I see it. Personally, I think that website was accurate with the footprint stuff. I do not see any errors in the post at all and it is a little weird seeing the responses about the author here. It kind of solidifies exactly what I said earlier. I'm also sorry to have to say that I think Mr Munns d not get it correct this time. Why is everyone so quick to dismiss what looks to be clear cut evidence that prints were faked? I see attempts to disassociate the footage, or claims it is not part of what was represented as 2nd reel footage. It just seems odd to me. Reminds me of the old saying, you can lead a horse to water...
  • 0

#49 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,513 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 03:36 PM

can,

I mentioned earlier, if you look at what River suggests as common feature relative to the distance from the casts, if you rotated the casts, you'll notice with one, it would touch some of his suggested common points, in the other image, they won't. These are his points he suggests are similar, common features, simply my opinion, they aren't common features. I don't think it's a matter of bein' quick to dismiss his observations or opinion on the matter, many of us discussed it here when he brought it up, with him.

Pat...
  • 0

#50 Guest_can_*

Guest_can_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:05 PM

I think it matches perfectly and especially where its most important directly around the cast. Who knows how many days passed between those two scenes being filmed or how much brush blew around. The ground features directly surrounding the cast match 100 percent. Do you believe Patterson moved that ground area to another location in order to film it? I guess it just looks very obvious to me. I don't think they proved the suit fake but they did a good job pointing out the mistake Patterson made. In order to not take it seriously you have to also disregard Krantz and his statement about Patterson making fake tracks and filming it too. Just seems like there are more and more things you have to ignore in order to nbelieve". The footprints have been proven fake.
  • 0

#51 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:17 PM

I did not see the previous discussions, I was on here then, all I saw was a claim that it was proof of a hoax because they where the same cast, and they obviously are not.
  • 0

#52 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,513 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:34 PM

can,

The pourin' plaster cast appears to be a left track, based on angle an shape of top of cast, in my opinion, the cast from trackway is clearly a right track based on a left bein' behind it, an a left infront, so naturally, the in between would have to be a right. I spoke with Bob, an he said he didn't film Roger makin' a fake cast, he did however film Roger makin' a cast of the sasquatch footprint left by the subject they filmed shortly before.

Pat...
  • 0

#53 Guest_can_*

Guest_can_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:54 PM

Pat are you implying Krantz made it all up? Or gimlin? Because if I have to choose its not going to be the one with motive to lie. Krantz simply documented Patterson. Also I think you may be fooled by the camera perspective. I think the one he's casting is still wet and not full or done yet. Looking at the photos they posted you can see it is the same piece of dirt dam around the cast.
  • 0

#54 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:09 PM

Man, I'm getting wicked deja vu. ;)
  • 1
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#55 Wheellug

Wheellug

    Chiye-tanka

  • Sésquac
  • 807 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:11 PM

Motive to lie? World Trade Federation?
  • 0

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

 


#56 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:22 PM

Ol' man river, dat ol' man river...........Perhaps this discussion needs another thread.

It's not difficult to find information on Beckjord. One of the first articles I read after discovering the Internet wasn't just about selling stuff was Scott Forslund's The Nature of the Beast. Cedric Jon Erik paid a visit to Paul Freeman. He barged right in.

The Great Bigfoot Massacree certainly got a lot of publicity, at least on message boards.
  • 0

#57 Wheellug

Wheellug

    Chiye-tanka

  • Sésquac
  • 807 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 06:34 PM

LAL that's funny to hear. I find humor in the story myself.

Edited by Wheellug, 09 February 2012 - 06:36 PM.

  • 0

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

 


#58 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,064 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 06:12 AM

I think it matches perfectly and especially where its most important directly around the cast. Who knows how many days passed between those two scenes being filmed or how much brush blew around. The ground features directly surrounding the cast match 100 percent. Do you believe Patterson moved that ground area to another location in order to film it? I guess it just looks very obvious to me. I don't think they proved the suit fake but they did a good job pointing out the mistake Patterson made. In order to not take it seriously you have to also disregard Krantz and his statement about Patterson making fake tracks and filming it too. Just seems like there are more and more things you have to ignore in order to nbelieve". The footprints have been proven fake.


If you believe what you're saying- that days passed between those two scenes and brush just blew around, then you've just disagreed with River's theory.

If you believe the ground features are the same between the two scenes then you need to visit the thread that we went over all of this and showed that they were not the same. There are object shadows, rocks, sticks, etc that are not found in both scenes, and the idea that Roger raked and cleared the area with non-existent tools doesn't cut it. It's about 10 pages long so get comfortable.

http://bigfootforums...s/page__st__180

This is not a case of "ignore in order to believe"- I'm not a believer and I can see the obvious differences between the two. I know it's easier to just generalize your opponents by making a believer statement but that's not the case here.

Edited by roguefooter, 10 February 2012 - 06:32 AM.

  • 0

#59 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,338 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:09 AM

Patterson doesn't get that, Gimlin doesn't get that. That is the emotional product of passionate belief. I know because I experienced the passionate belief myself without the hatred. That behaviour was what alienated me from my own peers when I was a believer.



I would have thought that your peers alienated you when you started talking nonsense on such things like 'If I found that the creature in the P/G film was too tall to be Bob H, then I would just figure that Bob H was confusing the Patterson film site with another that he must have walked over for Roger.' That one still brings out a good laugh around the old camp fires.
  • 1

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#60 Guest_can_*

Guest_can_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:59 AM

If you believe what you're saying- that days passed between those two scenes and brush just blew around, then you've just disagreed with River's theory.

If you believe the ground features are the same between the two scenes then you need to visit the thread that we went over all of this and showed that they were not the same. There are object shadows, rocks, sticks, etc that are not found in both scenes, and the idea that Roger raked and cleared the area with non-existent tools doesn't cut it. It's about 10 pages long so get comfortable.

http://bigfootforums...s/page__st__180

This is not a case of "ignore in order to believe"- I'm not a believer and I can see the obvious differences between the two. I know it's easier to just generalize your opponents by making a believer statement but that's not the case here.


If you believe what you're saying- that days passed between those two scenes and brush just blew around, then you've just disagreed with River's theory.

If you believe the ground features are the same between the two scenes then you need to visit the thread that we went over all of this and showed that they were not the same. There are object shadows, rocks, sticks, etc that are not found in both scenes, and the idea that Roger raked and cleared the area with non-existent tools doesn't cut it. It's about 10 pages long so get comfortable.

http://bigfootforums...s/page__st__180

This is not a case of "ignore in order to believe"- I'm not a believer and I can see the obvious differences between the two. I know it's easier to just generalize your opponents by making a believer statement but that's not the case here.


Rogue the images do not carry an "opinion" like many here do. I will stick to the images. If you can look at those matchiing features and declare its not that's perfectly ok. I'm only calling it like I see it. They match and I've looked very closely at the images. I'm quiite amazed really at how this subject is adressed by the believers. To me that is the only mystery concerning those images.

Edited by can, 10 February 2012 - 09:02 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users