Jump to content
kitakaze

Two Strong Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax.

Recommended Posts

parnassus

Eureka Times-Standard.

Thanks, Beal's Humboldt Times had merged with the Eureka Standard, and he remained editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

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

I was just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

The problem, of course, is your "two strong reasons" do nothing to contradict the forensic evidence collected at the scene and its subsequent analysis. From what I can tell, this is more of the "wasn't Roger Patterson a bad guy" kind of stuff. Even if it were so and he was, who cares? A reasonable person can look at the evidence collected on film and on the ground and conclude the figure is most likely real. Your method of attack does nothing counter that except to point out that all people are flawed and memories can be tricky things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

The problem, of course, is your "two strong reasons" do nothing to contradict the forensic evidence collected at the scene and its subsequent analysis. From what I can tell, this is more of the "wasn't Roger Patterson a bad guy" kind of stuff. Even if it were so and he was, who cares? A reasonable person can look at the evidence collected on film and on the ground and conclude the figure is most likely real. Your method of attack does nothing counter that except to point out that all people are flawed and memories can be tricky things.

Actually, the 'forensic evidence collected at the scene and it's subsequent analysis' does nothing to contradict hundreds of years of there being no classification (and therefore no evidence) of an Upright-hairy-Beast roaming the semi-rural driveways of North America. In other words, he is not trying to contradict anything, he is giving two good reasons to think it is a hoax. The forensic evidence isn't strong enough to classify a creature, and he is not trying to crush that so-called forensic evidence. He is simply saying 'look at these two reasons, now what do you think?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The forensic evidence isn't strong enough to classify a creature, and he is not trying to crush that so-called forensic evidence. He is simply saying 'look at these two reasons, now what do you think?'

The evidence collected at the scene *is* the central reason the PGF remains the most compelling encounter in the history of the field. Why it was enough or not enough to classify the creature (let alone what came before or since) isn't the topic of conversation here. Roger Patterson's personal history and personality mean nothing if he happened to film a real bigfoot that day. Continuing to point out inconsistencies in things said over a 40 year period does nothing to explain how those tracks were made or why nobody else has ever produced a film of that quality ever again.

IMO, any conversation about the PGF should be about the facts present in the evidence, not the man who collected (some of) it. If they're flawed, fine. If he is, so what? This conundrum neatly summarizes all recent debate on the film, of course, but why should that stop anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

IMO, any conversation about the PGF should be about the facts present in the evidence, not the man who collected (some of) it. If they're flawed, fine. If he is, so what? This conundrum neatly summarizes all recent debate on the film, of course, but why should that stop anyone?

I think you should start a thread called "PGF FACTS" And start listing them. Let's address those, we should probably start from the beginning with the new forum and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

The evidence collected at the scene *is* the central reason the PGF remains the most compelling encounter in the history of the field.

I would state it somewhat differently:

Since the resolution of the film is low, and since some evidence has gone missing, and there is no past or present verifiable standard of evidence of what a bigfoot or his tracks might actually look like, some of the evidence collected at the scene gives some people the opportunity to ignore other evidence (from the scene and elsewhere) and believe that the subject was not a man in a suit.

Having said that, the topic of this thread was stated. I don't know that we can discuss multiple topics in one thread. Other threads can be started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Yeti1974

Unclear how the "He said he hadn't been there since 1964!" issue is such an issue.

If someone makes a trip to an area in one year, even two trips, and says that they hadn't previously been around there for a few years, how is that such an earth-shattering contradiction?

If I make a trip to Monterey, California now, and another in November, and at some point I say that it had been 10 years since I had been to Monterey prior to this year, am I doing something sinister?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbhunter

The evidence collected at the scene *is* the central reason the PGF remains the most compelling encounter in the history of the field. Why it was enough or not enough to classify the creature (let alone what came before or since) isn't the topic of conversation here. Roger Patterson's personal history and personality mean nothing if he happened to film a real bigfoot that day. Continuing to point out inconsistencies in things said over a 40 year period does nothing to explain how those tracks were made or why nobody else has ever produced a film of that quality ever again.

IMO, any conversation about the PGF should be about the facts present in the evidence, not the man who collected (some of) it. If they're flawed, fine. If he is, so what? This conundrum neatly summarizes all recent debate on the film, of course, but why should that stop anyone?

FINALLY, a voice of reason!! I have never commented on Kit's hundred's of posts regarding the PGF film. Really, who cares?? It seems that this has been beat to death already. There will never be a way to prove or disprove, no matter how much "researching" is done by anyone. To those who have had encounters that are real, it seems so trivial. To those who may not have believed and have found evidence that proves to THEMSELVES it is something real, it doesn't matter.

What you seem to be left with is a bunch of folks who sit around and debate for lterally hundreds of hours and for what? I guess, maybe Kit and anyone else has allot of time on their hands. OK, so be it,carry on!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UPs

Until someone can duplicate the PGF using the same tools/materials available when it was filmed, I will consider this film the real deal. Why its taken so long for this to be done is beyond me and instead, some skeptics use their resources to attack the films back story. If the skeptics want people like myself (consider the PGF very convincing) to alter their view, please start with the basics. Recreate the film for us to see with our eyes. If it cannot be done, that should end the controversy. Seems like such a simple solution (that will take some work and a bit of money, but no more than RP would have had access to). A bf suit, couple of horses, a day or 2, original type of camera/film and 2 people. As far as I know, its not even possible that it is a hoax until someone actually does this.

If the PGF can be duplicated as described above, then I would give much more consideration to the other arguments of it being a hoax. UPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh brother, here we go again! Well said KB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

FINALLY, a voice of reason!! I have never commented on Kit's hundred's of posts regarding the PGF film. Really, who cares?? It seems that this has been beat to death already. There will never be a way to prove or disprove, no matter how much "researching" is done by anyone. To those who have had encounters that are real, it seems so trivial. To those who may not have believed and have found evidence that proves to THEMSELVES it is something real, it doesn't matter.

What you seem to be left with is a bunch of folks who sit around and debate for lterally hundreds of hours and for what? I guess, maybe Kit and anyone else has allot of time on their hands. OK, so be it,carry on!!

Ok we will!

How do you know what will come of discussing it? more sources seem to appear every month, more information is compiled, some of it directly by the efforts of kitakaze, by people who come here and run into one of his posts. How do you know what will come in tomorrow? how do you know that his efforts and those of others won't result in, say, Bob Gimlin giving it up? I would submit that you can't know.

Eyewitnesses make mistakes. Sometimes they are fooled by hoaxers, sometimes it happens without human intervention. It happens to people like you and I. There is no escaping that, regardless of whether we are drunks or law enforcement officers or whatever.

There are some who feel they have had an encounter with something. Some of them think it resembled descriptions of "bigfoot," but are unsure. Most people haven't had that experience. Any of those people may come here for information or discussion. I think they should get various viewpoints. Maybe it will help them deal most effectively with what they encountered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

Sorry to say this candidly, but if the starting post is your strong evidence, I'd hate to see your weak evidence.

If there were some kind of actually impartial "jury" as finders of fact, and you were presenting the case for one side to them, I think you'd be destroyed by any competent opposing advocate. You think you are connecting the dots, with your mini factoids, but you don't really see how the "dots" can be connected into other conclusions than the one you claim they add up to.

You have discrepancies in two men's remarks, which simply leads to a conclusion we should not rely on either man's remarks to prove anything. You aren't proving a hoax. You are proving their statements just aren't reliable for any proof of anything.

Maybe you should heed the words of another forum member, who has repeatedly commented on the weaknesses of testimony, such as this quote I saved:

"paranassus on eyewitness testimony

The Innocence Project has given a great deal of insight into problems with eyewitness testimony. According to their findings, eyewitness identification evidence was the number one cause of wrongful conviction in this country; over 75% of the two hundred who were exonerated by DNA evidence were wrongfully convicted by erroneous eyewitness IDs.

Even leaving out the liars and the hallucinators, there is a great deal of research on this question of error. Some of it is "filed" under perception, and some of it under eyewitness, and some is more related to memory and recall. I would refer folks to books by Elizabeth Loftus."

Just a thought, my opinion. I'm sure you will throw out a bunch of "and what about this. . . ," or did you consider that. . ." and use even weaker evidence to try and prop up your supposedly strong evidence.

Anyways, just a suggestion as you progres in your proposed documentary. You'll need to do a whole lot better then what you posted above.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You have discrepancies in two men's remarks, which simply leads to a conclusion we should not rely on either man's remarks to prove anything. You aren't proving a hoax. You are proving their statements just aren't reliable for any proof of anything.

Word. A better way to say what I tried to above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cisco

I've always had a bit of doubt about the Patterson footage for no specific reason other than it does not appear remarkable. Having said that, I have been very swayed by the analysis done on the old BFF and other documentaries. The "costume" analysis referencing the dimensions of a man trying to meet the dimensions of Patty, is very compelling. I don't pretend to understand all of the science that was used for the purpose of this analysis but if a normal man could not fit into a suit that meets Patty's dimensions; then that's it, for me.

Stories change as time goes by and different versions are told and retold by others. Also, there are other reasons to lie aside from a hoax. Perhaps Bob Gimlin didn't want somebody to know what horse he was riding? Maybe he was not supposed to be riding that horse across three states, as was mentioned earlier? Just like when I was in high school and my parents went out of town and didn't want me using their cars. Anyhow, there are a number of reasons, aside from a hoax, on why the horse story has changed.

Maybe somebody should ask Bob Gimlin and see what he says. That way, we don't have to wonder and we can get the story straight from the "horse's mouth"......

Of course, that may not be us entertaining as the discussion this is sure to generate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...