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.

I see I little streak of hypocrisy here. I would base nearly everything on the claim itself. Then, I would find what ancillary evidence support the claim. Even someone I might uphold as a hero can still get it wrong. All kinds of posters here on the BFF continue to say all the time: The fact Roger Patterson has cheated people, cheated Gimlin, had arrest warrants, and so on should have no bearing on if Bigfoot or the PGF is real. What they are really saying is Roger's character flaws should have no bearing on if the PGF claim is real. Just look at the film. Many of those same people are saying if the person is a hero (Wife, Brother, Sister and so on) then we should trust the claim. That would mean the opposite should be true. If the person of poor character than you should reject the claim. Again, those same people though will look the other way on roger's deficiencies. Base any bigfoot claims based on 1) The claim itself first 2) The ancillary facts supporting the claim then.... 3) The credibility of the person making the claim. It can't be the other way around.