Leaderboard

Oh its a problem. And one that is unique to this film only. They shot the trackway yes? Where are these "mime" bigfoot tracks you talk about? Why does Jim McClarin look like a midget next to the film subject? How would Bob H walk naturally in a suit that big? Would he not walk like the bundled little brother in the "Christmas Story"? You talk about the burden of physical proof laying with proponents, which is true. But in this case? The burden of proof that the PGF is a hoax? Lies with you......and all I keep hearing is your opinion on the matter. Where is your proof that the PGF is a hoax?

That's it? That's your response? You say I'm fixated on casting or not casting footprints and I've been saying all along the issue is with having to mount up and go get the plaster. I've said the mind of a hoaxer who actually planned all of what was said to have transpired wouldn't be at the site without plaster. But what did you do? Say I had a fixation on casting prints.....WRONG. After I proposed that a hoaxer would have taken more footage of Patty, and why I thought so, you say there may have been out takes.....wrong again. You don't address posts directly but continue to sling mud at me instead citing "predetermined belief", "cowboys as gospel", "fixation on casting prints", faux inquiry" and several other character undermining attempts. Typical Crowlogic attack the poster MO. Where do you get off with all that? And now I'm attacking you in defense. And I'm not just saying that just to have something to say. You've been in error and won't confront it. You make beautiful guitars but if you didn't spend so much time belittling your antagonists you'd have little to say. Report me if you wish- this is worth a warning as far as I'm concerned.

I have said all along that if Warner Bros or Universal Studios had stood up at some point and said "Yup....it was us, here is the suit, here is the guy in the suit, here is how we did it"? No problem. I can consider the possibility that the PGF is a hoax. But to claim three cowboys cooked that up? I'm from that culture....me and my buddies are going down to the Halloween shop and picking out a mass produced Gorilla costume and shooting it. Gonna spend 500 bucks tops..... And if the hoax convinces no one? Oh well....we tried. The skeptic side of the story on how these guys accomplished this is ludicris. IMO.

OK. I'll play your game Crow; but only this one time. There were "probably" no out takes and so they "probably" ran with the ONLY 59 seconds that they had. Is that better now that I'm stooping to speculation? No it isn't and it isn't for you either. You can speculate until the cows come home but at the end of the day you only have the film as we know it. Watering down this thread by dumping what-if's all over it is an old game and you do it somewhat well considering all the practice you've had. The bottom line is though the boys at Bluff Creek blew the chance to create and SHOW more footage of what people call Patty. Either because they only had the one chance or because they simply weren't that smart. They forgot the plaster after all so maybe between the two of them and during all the planning of making the suit, getting to Bluff Creek saddling the horses, and all the other stuff neither of them thought, "Hey, lets shoot some more footage for later". You see, you redid work, color and finishes on your guitar why? BECAUSE YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THE FAILURES THAT NEEDED CORRECTING. P&G didn't have that luxury. They wouldn't have KNOWN they needed out takes and even if they did have out takes they wouldn't have known which were any good so why waste film on a trackway and filming Gimlin running around on horseback leading another horse? After all they only had a little over eight minutes of total film capability. In all honesty Crowlogic haven't you ever asked yourself these questions?

The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way. Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why??? Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case. The PGF does not stand on solid legs. Here's is me standing up and publicly stating my case as a skeptic why this film is not depicting a real animal. It cannot be argued that because Roge told people where he filmed means it must be real. Ray Wallace hoaxed his tracks where they could indeed be seen and were seen. Furthermore he tipped Roge off that Roge should go to a place where Ray had been plying his art. Why should Roge and Ray even know each other? Roge was a artsy cowboy and Ray was a road builder. They both shared an interest in bigfoot? Are we to assume that Ray became interested in bigfoot because of his hoaxing activities? Ray sends Roge off to Bluff Creek laughing all the way knowing Roge would take the bait. It's also worth remembering that Jerry Krew worked for Ray and isn't that a bit convenient that Jerry casts the very first bigfoot track while in the employ of the stomper king himself? Fun times to be Ray Wallace and easy times to be a bigfoot hoaxer as well. Now then about that film Roger shot. One either swallows it or they don't. In order to swallow it the one must get down the fact that the bigfoot craze sweeping the PNW in the late 50's-mid 60's was largely created by hoaxers fueled by Sir Edmund Hillary's Yeti reports (also still as unproven today as it was then). In order to keep the film swallowed one must flavor it with luck and bottle lightening. It must be given further confection by ignoring the shady story of it's developing that even professional film analysis must be ignored if the game is going to go into play and lead Patty to the goal line in victory. Sure let's look at the film but let's not look at the human world the film emerged from. Well we have to look at that human world since it was a human who wielded that camera and it was a human who sold it to the world. The PGF springs to light from nowhere and it leads the viewer nowhere. It fades off the screen and in the half century of diligent researchers, authors fans and "scientists" provides nothing in the way of what it was where it went and how can the trail be effectively resumed. However the trail just may have rightful heirs. It's rightful heirs are in the form of the Ivan Marx, Todd Standing, Rick Dyer, Ray Wallace, and a host of unidentified pranksters carrying on the tradition for better or for worse. We are actually better than a half century into the modern bigfoot age and it is still nothing more than the myths that the indigenous folklore presented it. However I sense that we're more in the twilight of the myth. The folks who were memorized/terrorized during the bigfoot golden age are now mostly old men. It is curious watching Krantz age to gray and frailty, it is equally interesting watching Meldrum do the same, and Rene and John. A lot of good men have staked their life's work on what is supposed to be on that film and one by one they are beaten and go to their long night unvindicated. At some point perhaps the ghost of a parent or grand parent needs to tap us on the shoulder and tell us to grow up it was all just a joke there was nothing ever to it. Absolutely not!!!! If you are standing up and going public with your "work"? Then what is your name, credentials and what town do you hail from? Do you plan on any national tours or lecture circuits in which to showcase your work? Where can I buy a ticket to hear your lecture? Espousing your "opinion" on a public forum under a pen name is NOT going public. And as of yet I have not seen you conduct any scientific work concerning the PGF. So indeed your simply one of the ones in the shadows throwing rotten fruit at the film. Until your approach or any of the other approaches prove my position and the those with the same position wrong that position stands. I have stood up and offered a not uneducated opinion that predates your experience with the issue. I have not made a pea to authority but unless having read the volumes of books and reports since the film was released doesn't equate with an education towards an opinion about the issue then both proponents and skeptics alike need to toss them. So then what are we left with to draw conclusion about? Sorry that the best bigfootism has to offer left i nothing to build on and gave rise to the squadron of hoaxers following in it's wake. Look, you can continue to just shout in the wind or you can choose to make a real stab at the PGF as Bill Munns has done. As I pointed out earlier a type specimen is still very much necessary to prove the existence of the species. The PGF does not negate that need one way or the other. But I have not seen anything as professional or as complete as Bill Munns work coming from the skeptical side......sorry. I see a lot of character assassination coming from the skeptical side and not much else. Which is too bad because if the film is a hoax? I would like a scientific explanation as to why. If there was a Munns quality rebuttal to Munns work I would be willing to consider it. But just waving your hand that "surely" its a hoax......just because? Doesnt cut it.

In my opinion you cannot do both. You cannot wear a suit convincingly WHILE wearing stompers and taking extra big strides and trying to mash tracks into the ground. I think its impossible. Think about it..... we know exactly where the film site is. We have track casts that correspond to the film and the site. We have follow on investigations including a 6 ft 6" man walking Patty's route across the creek bed with corresponding deadfall and trees matching up in both films!!! Todd Standing doesnt tell you where he is shooting his Sasquatch films, nor does he share it with other researchers. The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way. Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why??? Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.