Jump to content
kitakaze

Two Strong Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

I recently wrote the following at the JREF to John Cartwright for his consideration as two reasons to strongly consider the PGF is a hoax (slightly edited for language)...

1) Bob Gimlin has admitted Chico was the horse he was riding at Bluff Creek. Chico is Bob Heironimus' horse. When Gimlin was cornered with it, he said he had the horse because he was breaking it in for Bob. He said he had it for three weeks. Two problems. First, Patterson and Gimlin told the Times-Standard reporter, who Wakeup says was editor Lawrence Beal, whose wife says he was in on Bigfoot hoaxing, that they had arrived at Bluff Creek one week before on a Saturday, not three weeks. That discrepancy is one thing, but here comes The Whopper: Gimlin is saying in print and to Bigfooters that the horse he had was his and that it did not rear and throw him because it was a trailwise, experienced old roping horse. Bang. Boom. Done. Impossible. You can not be breaking in a horse for someone because it is a trailwise, experienced old roping horse. The purpose of breaking in a horse is to make it ridable. That horse by his description is very uneasily scared and very ridable. Also, if he is training a horse for someone, what the heck is he doing taking that person's horse three states away on a potentially dangerous Bigfoot hunt? Whaaaa?

2) Roger Patterson told the public and media that he went to Bluff Creek because while he was in WA on another hunt, he was alerted to tracks in the area. He said he hadn't been there since 1964. But now we have his own film footage that was never released to the public that shows he was there in 1967 and that it was well before October 20. Here comes The Whopper: On May 26, 1967, he gets $700 from Vilma Radford. She gives him this money because he says he needs a camera which he assures her he is going to use to film Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. This is several months before he is supposed to be alerted about tracks in the area, which were found not until September. The official story was that he went there just to film the tracks, which were old by the time they got there, for his "documentary." Boom. Bang. Done. Impossible. He already had a camera. He didn't need the $700 for a camera. We have now film from two different cameras of his trip in NorCal where he had Jerry with him. They were there. They were right in the area where Bluff Creek is. He's already got contacts with Bigfooters in the area. He's totally there. He said he hadn't been to Bluff Creek since '64. This is huge.

Images showing Patterson was undeniably in NorCal in the late spring or summer of '67 and had two separate 16mm cameras can be seen here...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169764&page=16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I would add that according to BobH, Chico was a calm, broken in horse. Not prone to spooking.

Also, I think the Jerry Merritt interview where he insinuates Roger Patterson is hoaxing him at his house is classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Also, I think the Jerry Merritt interview where he insinuates Roger Patterson is hoaxing him at his house is classic.

Oh man, oh man, that is a doozy. That is one of the most glaring indicators of Patterson's Bigfoot hoaxing. I should have put that in the OP. Seriously now? Bigfoot shows up to one of Roger's best buddies places in the community of Yakima right to his house? Like, excuse me, is Roger here? I'm Bigfoot and I heard he was looking for me. LOL Ouch.

Hmm... there seem to be some left foot only tracks by my garden. Darn one-legged Bigfoots coming into the neighbourhood again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Oh man, oh man, that is a doozy. That is one of the most glaring indicators of Patterson's Bigfoot hoaxing. I should have put that in the OP. Seriously now? Bigfoot shows up to one of Roger's best buddies places in the community of Yakima right to his house? Like, excuse me, is Roger here? I'm Bigfoot and I heard he was looking for me. LOL Ouch.

Hmm... there seem to be some left foot only tracks by my garden. Darn one-legged Bigfoots coming into the neighbourhood again.

And the dog, grabbing the bigfoot by his privates! Good stuff. I mean, this should be one of the greatest Bigfoot sightings in History, a guy goes outside with his dog, Bigfoot is standing there, the dog charges Bigfoot (not afraid of him, so could it be a real Bigfoot?), dog grabs Bigfoot by BF's private parts, Man calls dog off, Bigfoot runs down the road.

No mention of this sighting in any Bigfoot library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's just kerplooey. So Jerry's dog went McGruff The Crime Dog on Bigfoot's junk, and Bigfoot starts screaming like a man and then runs down the driveway and then down the street? :drinkspit: Maybe a real Bigfoot was casing Jerry's house. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

It's just kerplooey. So Jerry's dog went McGruff The Crime Dog on Bigfoot's junk, and Bigfoot starts screaming like a man and then runs down the driveway and then down the street? :drinkspit: Maybe a real Bigfoot was casing Jerry's house. LOL

No, because we know that the dog would have been ascared of a real bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Micahn

It really does not matter who said what to who. All that matters in this case is the film and the fact that in 1967 most Hollywood experts say they could not even make the film near as good as it was made. Most will admit that even today they could not make the film as well as it was made. How many TV shows have we all seen in the last few years that have tried to discredit the film ? Not a one has even came close.

People can say what ever they want about the PG film but until someone can reproduce one even close with 1967 tech then all else is just blowing into the wind.

If it was faked then someone spent big $$$ to fake it. Even to date not enough $$$ has been made to repay what it would have cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It really does not matter who said what to who.

It really does matter what who said what to whom. When you shoot yourself in the foot and make a contradiction that can't be reconciled with reality, you're pretty much up hoax creek without a paddle. Micahn, can you specifically address number one and two in the OP?

All that matters in this case is the film and the fact that in 1967 most Hollywood experts say they could not even make the film near as good as it was made. Most will admit that even today they could not make the film as well as it was made.

Most? Names, please. Let's see most.

How many TV shows have we all seen in the last few years that have tried to discredit the film ? Not a one has even came close.

Yes, how many? Numbers please. I liked the one where they gave Gimlin money for rights to a film he didn't own and he refused to participate with an examination of his old friend and most serious accuser.

People can say what ever they want about the PG film but until someone can reproduce one even close with 1967 tech then all else is just blowing into the wind.

How many people have tried to reproduce Patty? Specifically, Patty.

If it was faked then someone spent big $$$ to fake it. Even to date not enough $$$ has been made to repay what it would have cost.

Big money? Al DeAtley had big money. Glen Koelling had big money. Floyd Paxton had big money. George and Vilma Radford had big money. All these people were giving money to Patterson.

Micahn, I would suggest that you may be out of your league in such a debate as this, but I welcome you to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

Kitakaze, can i just ask why do you want to prove the patty footage is fake so much? I'm just interested in what made you take up the project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Kitakaze, can i just ask why do you want to prove the patty footage is fake so much? I'm just interested in what made you take up the project?

The best way to say it is probably from one of the greatest movies EVER.

Why does the sun come up? Or are the stars just pin holes in the curtain of night, who knows? What I do know is that because you were born different, men will fear you... try to drive you away like the people of your village

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Big money? Al DeAtley had big money. Glen Koelling had big money. Floyd Paxton had big money. George and Vilma Radford had big money. All these people were giving money to Patterson.

Micahn, I would suggest that you may be out of your league in such a debate as this, but I welcome you to continue.

According to John Green, Ray Wallace also had big money, and Patterson and Wallace (according to both of them)conversed about bigfoot. Lawrence "Scoop" Beal, editor of the [ed] Eureka Times Standard (who was, according to his widow, involved in bigfoot hoaxing since the 50's, and whose paper got the exclusive story on the PGF) also had access to funds.

The suit train left the station a long time ago. The Hollywood votes are in, and the result was overwhelmingly "man in a suit." That is the consensus. As far as I know there is only one pre-80's Hollywood guy who thinks the subject of the PGF was not a man in a suit. Even the one vote against a suit, imho, is based on the lack of resolution of the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kitakaze, can i just ask why do you want to prove the patty footage is fake so much? I'm just interested in what made you take up the project?

Self-dellusional beans. The beans to think I could solve a 40+ year old mystery. Doesn't that sound fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

According to John Green, Ray Wallace also had big money, and Patterson and Wallace (according to both of them)conversed about bigfoot. Scoop Beal of the Humboldt Times (who was, according to his widow, involved in bigfoot hoaxing since the 50's, and whose paper got the exclusive story on the PGF) also had access to funds.

Eureka Times-Standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Kitakaze, can i just ask why do you want to prove the patty footage is fake so much? I'm just interested in what made you take up the project?

I think there is another thread for this, and kitakaze addressed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

hey kitakaze, have you seen the national geographic documentary that came out some months ago? paranormal america: bigfoot was its name. they pretty much proved that i couldn't have been a man in a suit.

"just look at the **** film!" that's what rene dahinden used to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...