Forums

We are way beyond that.   We have knowers on this very forum.

Part of being fooled is wanting to believe the thing one is being fooled by.     If a person has 100% belief there are no such thing as any life on other planets, they probably have a 0% chance of being fooled by a hoaxed lying saucer photo or story.     If a person is 100% convinced Martians are visiting earth, they are more likely to believe stories about UFO's and the like and thus increase their chance to be fooled by any hoax of such a topic.     This is why people who are die hard bigfoot skeptics will ignore all the holes in Bob Hieronimus story and be convinced he was the man a Patty suit.   When it comes to this new film (and I have not watched it) we have two main forces at work:   1) those who produce it as a work product will craft the story and film in any way which helps sell a smoking gun.   2) those who wish to believe it will dismiss things which hurt the narrative and elevate anything which they can stretch to fit the narrative.     Being fooled by something is easier if the person is already convinced before the fooling begins.            

Okay, I looked at the transcript of this video because it's a typical podcast or webshow which crams 4 minutes of information into 30 minutes....   Clint Patterson, the "witness" in the new film is 66-years old.  That makes him 7 years old when the P-G film was made and probably 12 years old when his father passed away.  Clint Patterson never states that his father admitted the hoax to him.    Clint Patterson claims that his mother stated that Bob Heironimus wore the P-G film suit.  Patricia Patterson is in this film (Edited to Add:  According to this reviewer, she does not say "The P-G film was a hoax."  She does call it a curse, which is not inaccurate, I'm sure.)  Clint P states that she "disowned him" after he stated that he was going to discredit the P-G film, but reading through this reviewer's comments, it sounds like Clint P was on the outs with his family long before that.  Clint P apparently hadn't seen his mother "in quite a long time."   This film apparently relies on Greg Long's taped interviews of people used for his book.  The film also shows clips from Greg Long's speaking tour discrediting the P-G film.    Clint Patterson supposedly didn't report "the truth" sooner because Patricia Patterson was making money off the P-G film.  (Then why would he discredit the film now?)   The "telling" reaction from Bob Gimlin appears to be that he stated at a 2024 Bigfoot conference that he was "ready to tell the truth," but never did the follow-up interview that he agreed to make.  This falls short of being a confession that he was in on a hoax in the P-G film.    It sounds like the key test for most people will be how close the Patterson Ahtanum Film shot man in a suit is to the Patty suit.  Notwithstanding Bill Munns' great work on the film, I think it still might be possible that Roger Patterson was such a bad filmmaker that even a film expert could be fooled. 

If Bob Gimlin confessed that the P-G film was a hoax, the director would have most likely said that up front.  If he said that he participated in an attempt to make a homemade movie about a Bigfoot, that is an NS2 moment for people who are immersed in the P-G film history and facts.  I'm not one of those people and even I know that there are stills from the earlier homemade film showing a bunch of cowboys and their trusty Indian guide (Bob Gimlin, who is part Native American, but who wore a costume) who were going to capture Bigfoot.      Adding to the interest in the breast thing, allegedly one of the pre-P-G- film magazine articles had an artists concept of how a female Bigfoot would look and it pretty much matches the Patty look-back moment.  While the text of that article can be found online, I haven't found one that includes the picture.  I hope to track down a copy of the magazine in the next month or two.

Of course the BF world blows up when I'm in the middle of some real world concerns.  So as I go through this thread I'll probably find that many of these things have been asked and answered.   While it is irrelevant who a witness (or victim) is, their reputation for honesty or lack thereof and past examples of dishonest behavior can be used to demonstrate that their claim in a specific instance cannot be credited.  A very long time ago, DAs almost never prosecuted alleged rapists if the victim was a known prostitute - who the victim was personally should have been irrelevant to the alleged crime.  And a convicted embezzler can be the victim of embezzlement.  However, his past convictions could be relevant to demonstrate that his claims that he was a victim should not be credited.  His past actions would go to the weight the jury would give to the testimony.  Unfortunately, Roger Patterson's past actions (misappropriating the camera he used, repeated dishonorable failure to repay debts) do give a reason to trust his statements about what happened at Bluff Creek less.  BUT, his statements are only one item of evidence.    Bingo.  Unfortunately, those who are not deep in the weeds won't know that this supposedly new adverse information was known and addressed.      What Meldrum said is that "there's several possibilities ... the first one is its bullshit ..."   Cutting off the other possibilities and claiming that Meldrum "stated that the P-G film is bullshit" is affirmatively misleading.  Hopefully, this is due to an innocent error on the poster's part and was not an intentional manipulation of Jeff Meldrum's statement.