Jump to content


Patterson-Gimlin Film: A New Tall Tale

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#81 shuseby



  • Inactive
  • 235 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:26 PM

Yep, I agree Steenburg...
  • 0

#82 NiceGuyJon



  • Inactive
  • 1,068 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:17 PM

Seems legit.
  • 0

#83 Incorrigible1



  • Inactive
  • 7,573 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

Put up or shut up.

Thomas Steenburg

Where ya at, Tracker?
  • 0
Who is John Galt?

#84 VAfooter



  • Moderators
  • 2,866 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:56 PM

The BF slaughter theory has been discussed on here before and I think that it has been pretty much debunked (or at least I think so...).
  • 0

#85 steenburg



  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:57 PM

The BF slaughter theory has been discussed on here before and I think that it has been pretty much debunked (or at least I think so...).

Yes it has. I also see that these last few posts were moved here from a thread of their own. But if anyone wishes to review the slaughter theory nonsense than go and review the Grendel Films thread. I really don't want to repost the two very long articles debunking this insanity here as well.

Thomas Steenburg


Edited by steenburg, 20 February 2012 - 11:00 PM.

  • 0

#86 kitakaze



  • Members
  • 7,758 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:47 PM

I would be intellectually defunct if I did not address this...

Man, don't hate me for this. I can only do this. I respect your intentions, but not this action. You came to the game, this weird game. You got tapped out. You came again with another jersey. You got tapped out again. Jersey #3 is not the way. These cats are not hearing your game. You know I don't think those casted tracks are the same. Whatever. Socks stink, man. It's not the way. If this platform is not having it, no worries, find another. If the message is real, the messenger doesn't matter.

Responsible skepticism doesn't work like this. Ninja moves should be used on hoaxers, not Internet forums.

Sorry, man, but if I didn't say it when I knew better, I wouldn't be real.

Kitakaze you assuming that I am river 127? Send me a pm with your email. I will confirm my identity.

So, are you advocating River's theory? You would be one of the few. And if member "can" is not River then I'll eat a bug.

Absolutely. And if I've wrongly called you out, I will give you a very sincere public apology. Ben is a friend of mine and I wouldn't want to mix you guys up.

I owe a very sincere public apology to two people. One is Ben River, the other is a woman I will call JB out of respect for her privacy. JB was can and can was not Ben. About two weeks ago I received an email from this woman whom I didn't recognize at the time asking me why I banned them from the BFF. She also gave me her full name and asked me to look her up on Facebook to confirm who she was. I realized it was can emailing me to confirm her idenity.

We had an exchange of about 10 emails where I was trying to assist her with a wrongful banning. BFF administration had information they felt was enough to ban can for as being suspected of being a River sock. River has had one sock - 127 - and Ben made no effort to hide 127 as being him. I don't agree with socking under any circumstances, but at least Ben was clear about it. What the main issue here is that I was wrong and more unfortunately, the BFF was wrong about can being Ben.

I won't comment publicly on all the info of why the BFF administration felt satisfied that can was Ben, but the main point is that it was wrong and forums admins aren't any less human than the rest of us. Can is a loss and can is not coming back. I was trying to play middle man helping JB, but also trying to represent the BFF's side of it. It stressed her out, soured her on the entire Bigfoot forum experience, and then her husband got involved thinking I was responsible for banning JB and being protective of his wife. It was a big, fat flailing mess and I was smack in the middle of it. It came too late that I confirmed for certain the can was not Ben.

To make matters worse, I had a person who actually was socking here at the BFF come to me shortly after this gong show with JB, the BFF, and her angry husband trying to use me to get their sock back in. I researched their posting history here and on another forum, found out who they were, and blasted hell at them. I ended up in a big sock clustermess of insanity.

To Ben River, my friend, I am sorry for publicly wrongly accusing you of socking as can. I thought can was definitely you, and in my sense of integrity, I would not be impartial if I said nothing. I did and I was wrong. I'm sorry.

To JB and her husband CB, I am sorry I thought JB was Ben. I did my best to help once it was established you weren't. I'm sorry you were banned from the BFF, but I respect your wish for privacy and to be done with it. CB, I understand you were being protective of your wife. You said you read all the emails between JB and I, so you should have realized I was not BFF staff, just a regular forum member trying to help her out at her request. Your anger was misplaced. Needless to say, I'm pretty sure neither you or JB will ever read this.

To the socker SA/W, I wrongly suspected you were Ben, whom you are not. You're still a socker and you still tried to use my good will to manipulate your way back in. It was trying to play me and it was not cool. You should have known better that being a strong skeptic, I would find you out for myself.

For Giganto, yes, we were wrong. You should have said you'd eat an arthropod, which are bugs, too, but can also be these...

Posted Image

If I were you, I'd go for the inago...

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

#87 Gigantofootecus



  • Members
  • 2,212 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:52 PM

Kit, I need a bit more proof before I eat a bug but I admit those arthropods do look yummy. "can" can contact me if he/she wants an apology, but I've had several PM exchanges with Ben over this and I came away skeptical that he wasn't behind the can fiasco. I believe a woman was involved, but I'm not convinced she wasn't associated with Ben attempting to clear his name. That said, I don't feel I need to apologize to Ben for thinking he was can. He's had at least 4 confirmed socks since BFF1.0 and has been banned 4 times from both forums for various indiscretions, including multiple infractions of sockpuppeteering. I have no problem with Ben personally, I just don't trust him is all. He has a track record that extends far beyond being member 127.

Ben was also posting quoted links from members here over at the JREF, as if he had a membership at the BFF. I realize this can be accomplished with some effort as a guest, but it's much easier if you use a sock and mask your IP address via a proxy server.

Member "can" certainly did her utmost to appear to be Ben River. A member with an account over a year old suddenly begins her posting history with a link to Ben's blogsite then defends it like she wrote it. Can quoted Ben verbatim, even with quotes that Ben told me in confidence. That's how I discovered he was 127. He outed himself by quoting 127 over at JREF with info he PM'ed me in confidence. And River DID deny it at first, but he got caught so he fessed up. "Can" you imagine why Ben would change his MO?

Maybe can isn't Ben River, but no one can be blamed for thinking he/she was. Can's sudden and exclusive support of Ben's blogsite still smells fishy to me. Ben is pretty obsessed with his "proof of hoax" theory, and I wouldn't put it past him. Sorry, but that's my level of trust with Ben. I'd wager there is another sock lurking in the wings once the heat dies down. Now where's my delicious bug..of my choosing? ;)
  • 2
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#88 LAL



  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:38 PM

Lobster for two, Gigantofootecus, with drawn butter and a side of sautéed asparagus with hollandaise sauce.

There is a right to appeal - far, far better than sneaking in with socks - or nylons or other peoples' socks. Reading the Rules & Guidelines before posting isn't a bad idea and can prevent all sorts of unpleasant happenings such as suspensions and banishment.
  • 0

#89 roguefooter


    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,437 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:27 PM

I don't blame anyone thinking it was River, because if it wasn't then it was definitely someone channeling River.

Rogue the images do not carry an "opinion" like many here do.

What's on the film doesn't have an opinion.


I knew someone had said that to me before.

Just the manner of the way they both speak and the things they say, you would swear you were talking to the same person. I'm with Giganto on this- I still smell something fishy.

Edited by roguefooter, 28 February 2012 - 07:33 PM.

  • 1

#90 Tontar



  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:01 PM

Reading the Rules & Guidelines before posting isn't a bad idea and can prevent all sorts of unpleasant happenings such as suspensions and banishment.

FWIW - Reading the rules and guidelines and trying to abide by them is no guarantee that you will not be suspended. The rules and guidelines are subject to personal interpretation, like many other things, and one might just be suspended or banned based on an interpretation of such guidelines, even when reviewing them does not reveal the cause.
  • 0

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

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users