Leaderboard

He was my mentor. He was one of my best friends. I will miss him. Thomas Steenburg

My view is that people love to share their discoveries...until they realize that THEIR discovery is also someone else's, and that these people love to do it to. Simple exponential progression. Add the internet and your hope of ever keeping your little cool corner of the world private is a forlorn one. I'm guessing it is far too late to put that jinn back in the bottle.

Nothing personal, but if I knew, I couldn't tell you (and whoever else might read this post). Like Utah Sasquatch, I, too, am concerned about the safety and peace of mind of the BF in that area. Fortunately, I have no idea where the location of this particular group of BF is being discussed.

Ohhhh man...sad news, indeed... I too was first introduced to BF through his writing, in my case it was On the Track of Sasquatch, which my parents bought for me as a wee lad at the Seattle Science Center, adding a whole other dimension to the trip through B.C. and Alberta, eyes on the tree line, asking my mother "how tall is 9'? His work impacted all of us here, no doubt and for that and more I raise a large hairy glass in his honor, and to his essence. Here's to you, John green, thanks again for that which you brought to us!

Very sad news, a true pioneer of Sasquatch research. His vision of, decades ago, of collating, organising and analysing Sasquatch sighting reports is obviously very close to my heart and head where this subject is concerned. He was argubly a man well ahead of his time. I hope that one day with what we are doing where report analysis is concerned, we can take his initial ideas and plans to a whole new level and really make good progress with the subject and I'd like to think John would be looking down on us doing so with a smile on his face, wherever he is, when doing so. Count yourself lucky Tom that he was part of your life for so long and be happy with that as opposed to being sad that he has passed. RIP John.

You are right. In your mind P/G film, not a bigfoot, Brown video, not a bigfoot, Idaho falls video, not a bigfoot. My footprint pictures, not a bigfoot. Anyone else's pictures, not a bigfoot. I doubt that the Utah guy could ever come up with anything convincing on a FLIR. Not sure I could either for that matter. I dare say you would not believe in bigfoot until it chases you down and starts to eat you. You notice that there is a BFRO expedition in Western New York? Your chance to go and explain to them how they are all crazy and convert them to your cause. Bigfoot is never going to chase anyone anywhere. I dare you to stand and deliver your "proof". Daring me to do anything is pretty humorous, when I have been within yards of a bigfoot solo. Nothing I do other than delivering a bigfoot body to your doorstep will be your proof. Quite frankly I could really care if you ever know the truth when if you harbor the slightest possibility they might exist, you could get your tail out in the woods of New York and find out for yourself. That BFRO expedition might be a way to do that. If nothing else you can have fun with the fools that actually believe in bigfoot and enjoy some nature at the same time. I assume you believe that nature exists. I dare you to do at least that. You are not going to find out anything sitting in front of your computer.

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.

Just finished reading this thread from start to this point. If I'm grokking hiflier's point, it is that a "hoaxer" would probably use an extra reel of film to shoot more footage of the "creature", and/or, if you were going to obtain footage of casting, the added backstory of having forgotten the casting material would detract from the perceived credibility of the "hoaxer" as a serious researcher. If that is correct, it makes some sense to me. That said, perpetrating such a deception is so far out of my wheelhouse that I'm probably not the best person to be second guessing the thought processes of someone who would. What jumped out at me is that many of the comments, as Norse alluded to, indicate unfamiliarity with Bill Munns' rigorous research work on the subject, culminating in his book "When Roger Met Patty". As with everything he addresses, Bill details the process of loading/changing film reels in the cine camera. He also explains in great detail how he determined that the film was not spliced and the footage we see of "Patty" was filmed in one take at the end of the reel. If you have an opinion, pro or con, of the legitimacy of the PGF, but have not read that book, it is opinion unsupported by readily available knowledge. The late Col. Townsend Whelen, noted soldier, hunter, writer and rifleman once opined "Only accurate rifles are interesting." Speaking for myself, only informed opinions are interesting, on any subject. Can't help it, kind of obsessive/compulsive in that regard.