Big Foot is real ?

[norseman]

54 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

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.   

 

 

Your comparing a very compelling film that has real data points in the film that can be scientifically scrutinized. I.e. Logs and trees, etc?

 

With a story.

 

If Roger came out of Bluff Creek with just a story? No body would have believed him. But if Roger was a Forest Ranger with 30 years of impeccable service? Maybe some people would believe him. But it doesn’t matter.

 

Again for me? Its not about belief. Its about proof. We need proof. And the only way we are gonna get proof is to go out there and try to get our pound of flesh.

[Backdoc]

55 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

If Roger came out of Bluff Creek with just a story? No body would have believed him.

 

 

Some might because every year people make claims with zero proof and are believed.  Further if there was no PGF but at least a trackway video and the plaster prints that would at least help his credibility.  If it was just a story, I have to believe Roger's reported reputation (fair or unfair) would have a bearing.  

 

 

55 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

But if Roger was a Forest Ranger with 30 years of impeccable service? Maybe some people would believe him. But it doesn’t matter.

 

 

I would be more likely to believe a generic Forrest Ranger limited to just a claim than Roger with just a claim.  But even then, I would be cautious in going all in on their claim.  Essentally the Forrest Ranger might be reluctant to come forward. 

 

It would have helped Roger's credibility a great deal had he been Lyle Loverty or a Forrest Ranger instead of a man with an overdue rental camera.  

 

There are people who reluctantly come forward with a story in spite of being afraid they might be thought of as crazy.  When someone has something to lose but come forward anyway, it does show they are willing to pay a price in the face of public ridicule.

 

Evidence > Witnesses.

 

All Witnesses are not created equal.

 

 

[norseman]

51 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

Some might because every year people make claims with zero proof and are believed.  Further if there was no PGF but at least a trackway video and the plaster prints that would at least help his credibility.  If it was just a story, I have to believe Roger's reported reputation (fair or unfair) would have a bearing.  

 

 

 

I would be more likely to believe a generic Forrest Ranger limited to just a claim than Roger with just a claim.  But even then, I would be cautious in going all in on their claim.  Essentally the Forrest Ranger might be reluctant to come forward. 

 

It would have helped Roger's credibility a great deal had he been Lyle Loverty or a Forrest Ranger instead of a man with an overdue rental camera.  

 

There are people who reluctantly come forward with a story in spite of being afraid they might be thought of as crazy.  When someone has something to lose but come forward anyway, it does show they are willing to pay a price in the face of public ridicule.

 

Evidence > Witnesses.

 

All Witnesses are not created equal.

 

 

Not equal…. Correct.

 

But debating how many people would believe witness A vs witness B is like debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin.🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Science just doesn't care about belief. But real science should also keep an open mind.

 

If any of my kids told me they saw a Sasquatch? I would take it seriously. I would certainly go look. Speaking as a father? I would rather take it seriously and be pranked than to dismiss it and be wrong. Especially if the warning goes unheeded and something bad happens. And if they said they saw a Grizzly bear? I would do the same.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

........It would have helped Roger's credibility a great deal had he been Lyle Loverty or a Forrest Ranger instead of a man with an overdue rental camera........

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

 

 

[Huntster]

Just for an example of the real value of testimony, I will expand on my attempted point:

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

........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 quote from the report:

 

Quote

.........Our cabin was on a lake in a wooded area and the salmon had just come into the lake from the river before they went into the tributaries to spawn.........

That is just one little tidbit from that *testimony* that offers HUGE value. The report includes the name of the lake and the date of the event (October 3rd, 2019). An astute hunter might consider a hunt up those mentioned tributaries every October. Even just hanging out quietly in a canoe with bright spotlights along the shore of that lake at the tributary mouths at night might offer a glimpse. 

[Backdoc]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

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

 

 

 

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.   

 

Edited July 12 by Backdoc

[Huntster]

11 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

This is essentially Evidence over Witnesses………..

I prefer to call it Witness plus Evidence.

 

Quote

………. 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……..

 

That is true and must occur if sasquatches are real just as there must be witnesses who lack evidence.

 

Quote

………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?………

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[MIB]

44 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

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.

 

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.

[idlehour30]

Quote

.......It would have helped Roger's credibility a great deal had he been Lyle Loverty or a Forrest Ranger instead of a man with an overdue rental camera........

 

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.

[Catmandoo]

On 7/12/2024 at 11:05 AM, idlehour30 said:

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. 

 

I am not following the above paragraph. Are you sarcastic?  The comments after "He's carried out ........" are false. No physiology, no foot anatomy, no primatology and bio-mechanics, no costume, no make up in 1967.  In 1967, the library did not have any of the aforementioned advanced texts. Yakima probably had Avon.

Please explain.

[norseman]

19 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

 

I am not following the above paragraph. Are you sarcastic?  The comments after "He's carried out ........" are false. No physiology, no foot anatomy, no primatology and bio-mechanics, no costume, no make up in 1967.  In 1967, the library did not have any of the aforementioned advanced texts. Yakima probably had Avon.

Please explain.

I read it as sarcasm.

 

I think you both are of the same mind.

[Catmandoo]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I think you both are of the same mind.

 

No one is the same mind as me.

[norseman]

11 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

No one is the same mind as me.

I can neither confirm or deny….

[Doug]

Obviously sarcasm. 

[idlehour30]

18 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

I am not following the above paragraph. Are you sarcastic?  The comments after "He's carried out ........" are false. No physiology, no foot anatomy, no primatology and bio-mechanics, no costume, no make up in 1967.  In 1967, the library did not have any of the aforementioned advanced texts. Yakima probably had Avon.

Please explain.

 

 

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.