Leaderboard

Off topic here slightly - please forgive.. There are so many ways to look at an event or an action. For instance, while it might damage Roger's reputation with some, I actually think that the overdue camera is a vote for the authenticity of the film and a definite strike against the idea of a hoax. You can't pull off a hoax as intricate as this would have had to be, and be dumb at the same time. He's carried out insane level research into hominid physiology, foot morphology, primatology and bio-mechanics beyond the reach of science at that time. He's mastered better-than-cutting-edge costume, prosthetic and make up techniques on little budget. He's pulled all the logistics together for this one shoot. No way on earth is he allowing it to be filmed with a camera that was so overdue. If you're planning a hoax for October, you don't hire the camera from May to July (or whenever it was due back). You hire it just for the time you need it, and take it back early. You want to be as invisible as possible. You definitely don't let an arrest warrant be issued for you 3 days before filming your hoax.

Yes, exactly. The implication, though, is that secondary is not the same as irrelevant, rather, it is additive. The film itself can be .. has been .. repeatedly reviewed / scrutinized. It is .. tangible. The witness account is not. Minus the film it is testimony without evidence .. considerably weaker. Attacking Roger, and Bob, is an attempt to avoid confronting the strength of the primary evidence, the film itself. Nobody has been successful yet.

I prefer to call it Witness plus Evidence. That is true and must occur if sasquatches are real just as there must be witnesses who lack evidence. Had Roger gone up Bluff Creek alone and returned with the claim that he’d seen a sasquatch, with no film or casts, even if he’d sworn an affidavit like William Roe, he’d be quickly discredited (if the skeptics would have been bothered) and forgotten. But since there is strong supporting testimony and evidence, and so far unimpeached despite furious efforts to do so, skeptics go absolutely bananas escalating efforts to destroy credibility in the event. Roe returned from Mica Mountain with no supporting testimony or physical evidence whatsoever. When called a liar in published print, he marched right into a notary and swore his account on paper and had it legally recorded for all time. Does that strengthen his testimony? It does in my book, having sworn countless statements to legal authorities and signed my name to them. It also enshrined his claim in the annals of sasquatch history. But the skeptic industry waves Roe off without much more than a blink of an eye because they don’t feel their ideology threatened. Over the past half century, pilots, both military and civilian, have openly testified seeing UFOs, and at great risk to their careers. Now enter military radar evidence leaked by naval personnel (or naval authorities?), and suddenly, it’s a brand new day. Take Project Blue Book and toss it right into the fireplace. The media has been grooming us into belief of little green men since War of the Worlds, and suddenly, the Pentagon surrenders……….I guess……. The media and a very small handful of scientists have been slowly grooming us for the acceptance of sasquatches since 1967. The more the media depicts them as lovable, moral, harmless cousins, the more acceptable they become. In the end, it’s all about *belief*. If one rejects testimony…….or even evidence…….., even the obvious can be denied. It will always be this way.

Been getting out there more now that my last of 6 kids graduated and I moved to a Townhouse to finally start downsizing! Here are some pics from the other day.....first pic is right at the creeks edge, and a pic of the creek after, and the next 4 pics was a trackway leading down to a Spring that usually flows all summer, the last pic, so it's a popular spot to get a drink:)

This is essentially Evidence over Witnesses. A strong case was built based on tangible things where witnesses are helpful but not solely the determining factor. In fact, had the camera somehow been set up remotely (like a trial cam or security camera) we wouldn't even require witnesses. As your 5 points make clear, the PGF makes a pretty strong case. As bigfoot goes it is the strongest potential proof of Bigfoot out there. It is the gold standard of Bigfoot to the point people Q because there aren't more such encounters. But why is that? Is it because Roger's story as a witness was so compelling or unique? Was it because Roger himself was some unimpeachable witness? Isn't it because of the potential evidence it shows. I am not saying witnesses or the credibility of someone isn't important, just secondary. Don't tell me, show me. Roger showed me. We have debated since what it means.

Hey I'm Nick, and I'm from Tasmania home of the once thylacine or so they say iv been interested in bigfoot for many many years if I had to guess I'd say about 11 years I joined the forums to see if he is real and to see posts about sightings I'm also interested in the newzeland moehau man aka NZ bigfoot so if anyone has information on that it would be greatly appreciated or the yowie

What helped Patterson's claim exponentially was what came back inside of that overdue rental camera, along with: * Gimlin's story * Footprint casts, both feet * Footprint photos, from said overdue rental camera as well as Laverty's camera snapped three days later in the presence of a forest cruiser crew * Yet more casts taken by Titmus several days later * A previous 12 years of reported sightings and footprint finds in the area from at least a dozen different people You are correct: Patterson (alone) was not *believable* because he could be easily discredited by the lawyer mentality. Doubt in his word could be easily instilled, a tactic so easily done to almost anybody that it is done everyday in courtrooms worldwide to everybody so unfortunate to find themselves there. Conversely, it would be impossible to tally up all the people executed worldwide solely based on the testimony of others. Testimony is critical evidence, as weak as it ultimately is. Its value lies not in proving anything, but in laying the foundation to obtain proof or support other evidence. Patterson and Gimlin were there at Bluff Creek precisely because of previous testimony. I review BFROs newly published reports every month or so. All are essentially testimony. Most I dismiss entirely. A few times per year I find real gems there. Frankly, they tend to be better because of the depth of the investigation and subsequent reporting. I tend to *believe* some, even not knowing the witnesses at all. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=76973