Jump to content
kitakaze

Two Strong Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax.

Recommended Posts

indiefoot

Newspaper accounts and quotes are notoriously innacurate, yet when it suits our purpose we refer to them as gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

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.

Bill, that isn't what would be presented in a court hearing.

The only thing that would be needed in a court hearing, is to show how unlikely it is that Bigfoot exists. once that has been accomplished, you could call your Dr. Meldrums and Bill Munns, and let me have a go at them. The stuff Kit is referring to is all window dressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

"Bill, that isn't what would be presented in a court hearing."

Any court hearing is framed around a question or a claim, so it would depend on what that initiating question or claim is.

"The only thing that would be needed in a court hearing, is to show how unlikely it is that Bigfoot exists."

If that were the initiating claim or question, "Show Bigfoot exists", yes. If the initiating claim or question were different, that may be a sideline, or even irrelevent.

"once that has been accomplished, you could call your Dr. Meldrums and Bill Munns, and let me have a go at them."

If the initiating claim were something like "What is it we see walking through the PGF film?", then I've love to have a go at it.

"the stuff Kit is referring to is all window dressing"

At last, we agree on something.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit,

I don't think that you can use anything that Roger P., Bob G., John G., Bob H., et al have said in the past concerning the whole PGF filming, in order to prove it was a hoax.

Roger Patterson really did film a real live sasquatch.

The reason these men are constantly contradicting their own stories and each other is because they are trying to cover up the fact that Roger Patterson really did film a real live sasquatch.

Just before they shot and killed it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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:

Hi, Bill. Here we are. Please note the the subtitle of this thread notes that I am discussing some things I think to be important indicators of a hoax, but not proof. When I come with proof of the PGF hoax, it will be undeniable. That proof and my efforts about it I don't discuss on the internet. I note that you say the things I am presenting are weak, and yet you do nothing to show how or why. I would very much like for you to address the specifics with me. A hoax is an event. In this case it is an historical event. It has an anatomy and can be dissected. Here are some important points in regards to this...

1) You say these things are weak. I respectfully disagree. You once made a prediction that your report would end the PGF debate. The end was showing Patty to be between 7'4" and 7'6". How did that pan out? As we both know, here we are in 2010 and Patty has not been proven to be 7'4". The same methods you use have been used to show Patty is just where we've been saying through other methods - the 6ft neighbourhood. You go for the film. Rene Dahinden said "just look at the **** film." As I said, a hoax is an event and it has traces of its occurrence like a fossil for a paleontologist to examine. I have shown that it seems that Rene Dahinden lost his conviction about the film. I think that in the later years he knew very well the film was a hoax. By that time, it had become his meal ticket through deft manipulation on his part.

2) Bigfooters often dismiss Bob Heironimus' claims based on what they think are discrepancies in his testimony. You may or may not be interested in this line of inquiry, but others commonly are. You were interested in this type of inquiry in regards to Harvey Anderson of Yakima's Anderson Sport and Camera Shop saying that Patterson admitted hoaxing to him in 1961 and said he was doing it because he was dying and wanted to leave something for his wife. As you were shown, people can live with Hodgkin's Disease for a very long time. In that case, we didn't have any reason to think that Harvey and Duane Anderson nefariously colluded with each other to have such stories and wait to be randomly called by an investigator such as Greg Long did.

3) The way Bob Gimlin justifies having Bob heironimus' horse at Bluff Creek is in no way a faulty memory issue. Saying yourself, not a quote in a newspaper, but saying yourself in front of hundreds of Bigfoot enthusiasts on camera the reason that his horse didn't throw him or panic and rear was because it was an experienced old roping horse, but telling another person when cornered with the fact that he had Chico was because he was breaking him and had him for three weeks can not be consigned to "Oops. I forgot." That is a clear indication that the person is getting tripped up in tales of their own invention. If it is otherwise, please explain in detail how it can be so.

4) Roger taking money for a camera that he never paid for on May 26, 1967 with the promise that he would film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek is a big, fat deal. It's not a memory thing nor a personal attack on Roger's character. It's a very strong indicator of a hoax. We know Patterson made that assurance to Vilma. It was the only reason she gave him the $700. She gave him exactly enough to pay for the camera he said he'd film Bigfoot with. This was several months before the tracks were found that he told the world was the reason why he came down there. The story told to the world is that they didn't intend to film a Bigfoot, just get shots of tracks for his his movie. But we know for a fact that he was down in the area in the late spring or summer before the PGF was said to be shot. We know he was there and we know he had at least two film cameras. We also know without doubt that there was another man hoaxing Bigfoot tracks in that area and we know that man had a connection to Patterson. We also know that that man claimed to have met Al DeAtley with Roger patterson at his home before the PGF, possibly in NorCal. And yet Al tells us he had no involvement in any Bigfoot venture other than helping pay for Roger's book to be printed in '66. All of this is very important and not about attacking Roger personally. This is showing Roger the hoaxer, not Roger the jerk. Can you deal with this problem, please?

thum_82644c789b8672906.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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)...

Since my name was dropped:

Two reasons that would make me consider the PGF a hoax.

1. Produce the suit.

2. The confession of Bob Gimlin or Patricia Patterson.

Just the facts please. The rest is just lip service either pro or con and the PGF argument does not interest me in the slightest. It also has no influence on my belief the animal is real. Prove the PGF a hoax, I hit the woods and look for evidence. Prove it real, I still hit the woods and look for evidence. Anyone want to join me?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

" I note that you say the things I am presenting are weak, and yet you do nothing to show how or why. "

On the contrary, you actually quoted my explanation of why your remarks were weak as evidence goes. So I did explain it.

Also, you didn't expand on why the remarks in the opening post are good indicators. You added more circumstantial material to try and shore up the basic conclusion, but nothing you just posted tells me why we should rely on any remarks of Bob Gimlin about a horse as being relaible or proving anything.

No offense, Kit, because i actually am intrigued by your investigation, but you do need to review what is good evidence and what is not.

I'm merely offering an opinion that your material would be buried by a good aggresive cross-examination, in any legal forum and a capable examiner, if there were an impartial "finder of fact" to rule on the conclusion.

Maybe you should have labeled this thread "Two lame reasons why the PGF might be a hoax, because I'm sitting on the real good stuf for my documentary." (I'm hoping with your propensity for witicisms, that you may take this as a humorous comment, as it's intended).

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

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

Nice try, but you seem to have both misread and misinterpreted my quote, and I really do suggest you read what I wrote and what Loftus wrote if you are going to cite me and her. These were witnesses to scary, sudden episodes, who were making an identification. That is applicable to the questionable identification by frightened individuals who think they might have seen a bigfoot; however it is not very applicable to the testimony of someone who saw Roger Patterson making fake bigfoot tracks, or saw stompers in the possession of Roger Patterson and his crew, or to whom Roger Patterson confessed making bigfoot tracks, or who was swindled out of $700 dollars by Roger Patterson who said he was going to film bigfoot at Bluff Creek. And that's just for starters. Eyewitness testimony has its problems, but don't try to make it more than it is, please. And compared to what you presented, it is strong evidence indeed... I could repost what I just wrote a few minutes ago in response to your list of evidence here, but that might be considered overkill.

Nothing personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

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

But that isn't the real world works, is it? nor it is logical, imho. When faced with conflicting accounts we try to figure out which account squares with other evidence and who is more likely to be telling the truth. May be hard at times, but that is the way it works in life and in trials. Makes a lot more sense than trying to prove the existence of an uncatalogued great ape/man in North America by "ahH, your honor, we'd like to admit the pattern of starts and stops, because we don't like what the witnesses are saying."

Nothing personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
I'm merely offering an opinion that your material would be buried by a good aggresive cross-examination, in any legal forum and a capable examiner, if there were an impartial "finder of fact" to rule on the conclusion.

Maybe you should have labeled this thread "Two lame reasons why the PGF might be a hoax, because I'm sitting on the real good stuf for my documentary." (I'm hoping with your propensity for witicisms, that you may take this as a humorous comment, as it's intended).

I do take it humourously and it was funny. I'm not going to be somber about the PGF. We're talking about Bigfoot! But yes, I will admit that I am sitting on the really good stuff. The thing that makes me smile to myself is when I see people saying they think I've spilled everything. Oh my goodness, if they only knew. What I know and don't say about the PGF would curl your hair. I'm hoping that you may take this as a humorous comment, as it's intended. ;)

Bill,

1) Why does Gimlin say he was riding a trailwise, experienced old roping horse and that is why it didn't throw him or rear as Roger's horse did (he now says rear/do a little dance) but when asked about why he had Chico at Bluff Creek, he says he was breaking in the horse and had it for three weeks?

2) Patterson was in NorCal after May 26 but well before Oct 20 1967. He had two film cameras. He had $700 he was given by assuring Vilma Radford he would film a Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. Ray Wallace was undeniably in the area hoaxing. He said it was just tracks found the month before October that brought him there, but in May he is already promising Vilma he will film the beast. How can this be?

I'm not a lawyer and you're not a lawyer. I'm a DJ and you're retired and we are not in court. The PGF is not in court now and neither is Bigfoot. What I gave you is circumstantial evidence. Yes, I said circumstantial evidence. It's not two dirty words that make you say eewww like Dutch Oven. Hoaxes have circumstances that indicate hoaxes. If the circumstances I'm bringing to you don't indicate a hoax, I would like to know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

No offense, Kit, because i actually am intrigued by your investigation, but you do need to review what is good evidence and what is not.

:)

Bill

Well, Bill, no offense, but I can offer you the same advice, and I think it applies much more to you and your subjective opinions than to kitakaze's witnesses and objective evidence and evidence of your bias. Kitakaze's biases don't matter to his case.

nothing personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

I don't think that you can use anything that Roger P., Bob G., John G., Bob H., et al have said in the past concerning the whole PGF filming, in order to prove it was a hoax.

I strongly disagree.

This is not the proof I will bring for the PGF hoax, but consider this hypothetical scenario for a moment. Gimlin admits he had his old friend Bob Heironimus' horse Chico at Bluff Creek. He says that he was breaking it in, completely contradicting his story as to why it's did't rear or throw him, but let's put that aside. Let's say we are looking at PGF extra footage that shows Gimlin with the packhorse and him on the horse he says they had there at Bluff Creek. But wait. Oh crap. That horse is not Chico. That is some other horse. WTF? Bob said they were there for three weeks and he had Chico. Patterson reported to the Eureka Times-Standardthe day the film was said to be shot that he and Gimlin arrived only one week before on a Saturday. If Gimlin had Chico the whole time and they were there for three weeks, that footage can not be from the same trip. It has to be another time and possibly place. That shows that the film they presented and story were fabricated. I say that would prove a hoax, but you say...

Roger Patterson really did film a real live sasquatch.

The reason these men are constantly contradicting their own stories and each other is because they are trying to cover up the fact that Roger Patterson really did film a real live sasquatch.

Just before they shot and killed it. ;)

:drinkspit:

I would love to debate this with you. What is the best evidence for your theory?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In reference to post #18 by Bipto: What forensic evidence taken from the scene? Anything beyond the pictures of footprints and plaster casts that could've easily been faked? Was something else taken like hair samples or droppings? As for the film itself as evidence, if it was clearly a living creature (beyond a human in a suit) then the mystery wouldn't still exist as it just looks too much like a man in a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus:

'Makes a lot more sense than trying to prove the existence of an uncatalogued great ape/man in North America by "ahH, your honor, we'd like to admit the pattern of starts and stops, because we don't like what the witnesses are saying."

You see how you confuse the evidence. Camera starts ands stops simply prove activity of the cameraman, nothing more. They have no direct relevence to any proof of an uncatalogued great ape, and i've never said they did. I said they sinply give an indication of a filming that is more resembling a spontanious event that an event filmed with calm deliberation. Period. That's the conclusion about camera starts.

You are reading things into it beyond that.

I studied the camera starts because I didn't recall anybody publishing on that before, and i thought it would be nice to have factually settled. And it's as dry and factual as it gets, far more factual than testimony of people from 40 years ago. You measure it by film exposures, one frame to the next, and shadow detail. really matter-of-fact stuff.

If you think proof of camera starts is a rebuttal to witness testimony, I will definitely not ask your advice when I seek to argue a proof of something.

A lot of my work is just tying up loose ends about the physical film, because i happen to have ammased the best archive collection of film scan material around now. So I can study those things, as no one before me could. That's all. I make progress where I can, while I try to figure out how to do the other experiments I want to do, on other issues.

In so far as my quoting you and my own remarks about the value of evidence, if your remark was not relevent, then I apologize. However, i stand by my own appraisla of the value of various kinds of evidence and the relative weakness of testimony in the evidence scheme of things.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

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.

nothing personal, but actually, very little helpful evidence was obtained, Not a single measurement of anything by anyone except the perps, until days later, and even that was of questionable value. What kind of a crime scene is it where the perps collect the "forensic evidence?" And no one else was there because Patterson told Dahinden and McClarin not to go there. Dahinden later cursed himself for not going. And of course it seems likely that the film was made at least a week before the footprints. No forensics then, right? There is no proof whatever that the suddenly vanishing so-called second roll was shot at the same time as the PattyBob walk. And a lot of what would have been very helpful has been conveniently lost. Notably the original film, the original "second roll" and any trace whatsoever of the film of the stomp test.

As I have posted elsewhere, calling it "forensic" evidence doesn't make it any better. There is no forensic science of bigfoot tracks. There are thirty different kinds, all of which have been claimed to be bigfoot-made. Paul Freeman made a couple dozen all by himself. Ray Wallace made at least 8 different varieties and sizes. Ivan Marx added some variety. Roger Patterson even admitted to making some, and was seen making others. As a consequence, the "subsequent analysis" has absolutely no foundation in scientific fact. None zero, there isn't any. It's all speculation. Every bit of it. Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, Bindernagel, every man jack of em. Show me an "analysis" that is anything more a picture of (usually) one variety of bigfoot tracks or casts, a dimension or three and four pages of rank speculation about montane environments and ankle dimensions and similar filler, none of which has any known relationship to some giant creature that might run around North America. Forgive my somewhat colorful language, nothing personal. Just trying to make a point.

Nothing personal, but leaving the perps alone at the scene of the crime with a chance to manufacture their own set of clues isn't likely to lead to very helpful information. IMHO, of course. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...