Leaderboard

I mean that for some reason many skeptics view Patterson's keeping the rental camera too long as some kind of indication of a hoax. I don't follow the logic here. I view it entirely the opposite, as a nod toward authenticity. You can't be a stupid, careless or risk-taking hoaxer and also have your hoax fool at least some of the global scientific community for nearly 60 years and counting. Those two don't mesh well. A careless hoax probably lasts about a day tops. Hypothetically, to pull off the PGF as a hoax you would have to be some kind of a time-travelling certified creative genius (sarcasm), and any self-respecting certified genius wouldn't forget or just not bother to take the rental camera back on time leading to an arrest warrant being issued - purely for the reason written in my first sentence. It casts suspicion and gives you unwanted attention. Plus - If you're hoaxing, you have complete control of when, where and what you shoot. So Patterson's sitting on the camera for 6 months and then only actually filming in October when the camera was past due makes no sense from a hypothetical control point of view. Of course, what likely happened is he had the camera since around May 16th. I don't see why he wouldn't have taken it with him and Gimlin to Mt St Hellens, as they went there specifically to look for evidence. Then as soon as they got back to Yakima, Patricia passed on the urgent message from Al Hodgson about the Blue Creek Mountain trackways and they would have immediately switched focus to packing everything up for California given the urgency. Patterson may have had to make the choice at this point to extend the rental at Sheppard's Camera Store or just keep it and take the consequences later - which intentionally or not, he obviously did. To go south without it would be pointless (although M K Davis is adamant he also took a Bolex to Bluff Creek) This kind of illustrates the logical tussle that Long has throughout his book - one which he does particularly poorly at. He has to make Patterson seem super-clever for readers to buy that the PGF is hoaxed. He repeats that phrase multiple times in summarizing every interview in almost every chapter. But Patterson's actions are frequently anything but clever and Long never manages to bridge that gap imo.

No one is the same mind as me.

Hello All! Growing up in Oregon, I've always had a passing interest in Bigfoot, especially having been the prime age for the mid-90s documentaries on Discovery and TLC (back when it was actually focused on learning.) My grandpa also introduced me to The Legend of Boggy Creek at what was probably too young an age, because for a while, every sound against the house on a windy night was the creature trying to get in. Looking forward to being here and expanding my knowledge.

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

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.