Jump to content
kitakaze

Two Strong Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax.

Recommended Posts

Crowlogic

First its great to see the BFF up and running again!

I would be the first one to go to the top of the hill and scream through a megaphone that the PGF is a hoax except for one thing. The subject seen on the film always comes off being real to my eye.

The back story is an epic in and of itself but the front story of the film itself stands however the back story ultimately winds and twists into history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Hi, Crow.

Does anybody want to discuss the specifics mentioned in the OP for which this thread is about, rather than a general overarcing discussion of the PGF in general? I would be all over that. I would like to discuss one very specific Patterson discrepancy that is huge and one very specific Gimlin discrepancy that is huge. I call them Whopper 1 and Whopper 2. It's not about any personal attacks on these men. It's, "Whoa! That is a red flag for a hoax right there!" From the few proponents joining this thread, it seems more like giving reasons not to discuss the topic of the thread. C'mon! Let's rock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbhunter

Yep. JUST LIKE THE OLD BFF!! Nothing appears to have changed it Kit's posting and it seems IMHO, that several here that are all on the hoax bandwagon have no real proof otherwise. NOPE, I have no proof for either because it really doesn't matter to those of us that have seen real proof. The PGF ONLY matters to those who have not seen the real proof but believes the film is real OR those who have not seen real proof but believes it is a hoax. A highway with no end it seems.

Oh, I do seem to recall a HUGE BLOCKBUSTER announcement by the OP that would break all open, it ended up a big fat dud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The back story is an epic in and of itself but the front story of the film itself stands however the back story ultimately winds and twists into history.

There's real truth in that statement. To me so far, it seems to be both un-debunkable and un-provable. That is very strange and interesting considering the amount of information that we have.

Kit- if you really do have shocking hoax evidence and, if you obtained that evidence legally and politely (as I'm sure you would, of course) then many people will commend your efforts and, you would deserve spoils and accolades!

I definitely see two strong and opposing forces at work in these investigations. I'm envisioining a feature film that recreates the psyche that surrounds Bigfootdom and that still leaves many wondering if it's real. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yep. JUST LIKE THE OLD BFF!! Nothing appears to have changed it Kit's posting and it seems IMHO, that several here that are all on the hoax bandwagon have no real proof otherwise. NOPE, I have no proof for either because it really doesn't matter to those of us that have seen real proof. The PGF ONLY matters to those who have not seen the real proof but believes the film is real OR those who have not seen real proof but believes it is a hoax. A highway with no end it seems.

Oh, I do seem to recall a HUGE BLOCKBUSTER announcement by the OP that would break all open, it ended up a big fat dud.

Kb, would you like to discuss the things outlined in the OP? I'd like to hear your input if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Kit

I'm going to use an experience that happened with me as a means to put the "colorful back story" into some sort of perspective where the end is not altogether representative of the means.

In 2005 I agreed to undertake a project concerning some antique restoration. For one crucial part of this project I decided to enlist the services of a metal specialist to repair and fabricate several pieces of a suit of Spanish armor. I had at the time the means to do this myself however I felt that the person I hired would be able to do a better job. So we agreed on a price for his services and the critical time frame in which the work needed to be finished. In short the metal specialist was given a budget to work with and 6 weeks to complete the job. The metal specialist was given half their fee up front with the agreement that the balance would be paid when the work was completed at the end of the six weeks. The project however dragged on for over four months while waiting for the metal specialist to finish their job. Eventually I needed to personally oversee the person while they finished the work. I never paid the metal specialist the balance of the money we agreed on and we eventually ended up in small claims court. The case ended in my favor. Now to this day if you were to ask that metal specialist whether or not I'm a good person to do business with he'll tell you no I'm not. However my client base will tell you just the opposite. But sure if a person was to write an expose on me they could in fact dig and find this metal specialist who would tell you I cheated them out of a great deal of money.

So you see this is why the back story is not the deal breaker for the PGF any more than the incident I've just recounted is a full incrimination of my business practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So he did a half-assed job and you paid the guy half. That is a nice story, Crow, but it's rather non sequitur. One person may see you as a bad business partner and another, the opposite. But you're taking things over into Bipto's Roger-the-jerk territory. I'm not going there now. I'm hanging out in Roger-the-hoaxer territory and I'm waiting for someone to come over here and look at it with me. I keep getting people driving by it on the outside telling me in various ways that they won't come in. Why is this? There is some crazy stuff in Roger-the-hoaxer territory. WTF? Roger got $700 buy convincing a Yakima woman that he would film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek several months before the tracks are found that he says brought him there? WTF? He was there in the area in either the late spring or early summer and around the same time a guy he's undeniably connected with is hoaxing tracks right there in the area? Crazy! Let's talk about it. Free pass to Roger-the-hoaxer territory - wanna visit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

I dont get the timeline point with Vilma, Kit? So what he told her he would film a bigfoot. He was doing a sales pitch and he was overselling, nothing groundbreaking there. I have a friend who is pitching movies to movie companies and he oversells his ability all the time. He is trying to make a sale, get an investor to invest. Roger was a smooth talker and good at selling his ideas, that doesnt make him a hoaxer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Oo, I like you, Big. Now we're talking. Hmmm... overselling... You have an angle there. Maybe Roger was just really trying to get some dough for his film he was making in Yakima, and promising Vilma he would film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek would somehow get her to cough up the money for the camera he never had any intention of paying for. But wait, you don't have an angle. Why is he talking about filming a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek? He hadn't seen any tracks there recently. And he claimed on multiple occasions to encounter Bigfoot in Yakima. He even illustrated one encounter in his book where a Bigfoot is accosting his Volkswagen on a logging road near Yakima. Yakima is already producing Bigfoots for him. And he doesn't ask her to finance himgetting to Bluff Creek, just for the camera. But we already know he had another camera. That's what he shot this with when he went down there after May 26 and before October 20...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=3596

And we know he had the Cine 100 with him as well. He used it on that same trip...

thum_82644c789b8672906.gif

Now, why would he talk about Bluff Creek? Well, that is because that is where his fellow hoaxer Ray Wallace is and he's making it the hotspot for Bigfoot. Roger was there a few years before the PGF and Ray was definitely hoaxing right at Bluff Creek around the same time. This is undeniable. Check it out. It looks like these guys were way more connected than we ever really knew...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Does anybody want to discuss the specifics mentioned in the OP for which this thread is about, rather than a general overarcing discussion of the PGF in general? I would be all over that. I would like to discuss one very specific Patterson discrepancy that is huge and one very specific Gimlin discrepancy that is huge. I call them Whopper 1 and Whopper 2. It's not about any personal attacks on these men. It's, "Whoa! That is a red flag for a hoax right there!" From the few proponents joining this thread, it seems more like giving reasons not to discuss the topic of the thread. C'mon! Let's rock!

Kit,

I think you might get a better response to your OP if you would start off by discussing Whopper 3.

Whopper 3 is proving that Patty is a man in a suit. Until you can prove that Patty is not a real sasquatch, but one of Roger's friends in a very elaborate suit (one that hasn't been replicated yet, by the way), then I would be interested in hearing all of the other details you might have of why you think it is a hoax.

Now, I understand that you and quite a few others think that all of the old inconsistencies in words and actions by the major players in this event are some how relevant to proving that this is a hoax. However, you still can't get around the film subject and proving that it is a man in a suit. ;)

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

You might find that the inconsistencies in stories about, and from the major players, in this event may be more sinister than just creating a hoax. As far as debating a dead sasquatch theory with you.....I will just leave that to someone that really thinks somebody killed a sasquatch at Bluff Creek in 1967. Perhaps someone would like to start a thread for that. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul V

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,

What is the problem here? He might well have had the horse for a couple of weeks at home BEFORE he took it to Bluff Creek?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

I think you might get a better response to your OP if you would start off by discussing Whopper 3.

Whopper 3 is proving that Patty is a man in a suit. Until you can prove that Patty is not a real sasquatch, but one of Roger's friends in a very elaborate suit (one that hasn't been replicated yet, by the way), then I would be interested in hearing all of the other details you might have of why you think it is a hoax.

That is some major cognitive dissonance happening there, Splash. After I have proven Bob Heironimus to have been Patty, you would be willing to discuss why I think the film is a hoax. I understand, Splash. You do want to discuss Whoppers 1 & 2. You do not want to discuss glaring red flags of hoaxing. You will only accept proof of a hoax. I hope you don't try to talk to anybody anybody about being interested why Bigfoot is real until after you've given them proof. Well, that is too bad. I can't help but smile at the idea you're so unwilling to look at what is screaming hoax. I would say your close-mindedness is evident. The Bigfoot skeptic here examines the evidence for Bigfoot in great detail, which the believers say we don't do, but the Bigfoot believer conversely is not interested in looking at evidence that the PGF is a hoax without proof. Wow. The irony. It rolls over me like a wave.

I'll recover. I'm still interested in this. Let's look at your reasons. What major attempts have there been to replicate Patty? Phil Morris gave it a whack with only a week's notice. We discussed this at length in a the interview we shot for Walking With Bigfoot. I think he did pretty well under the circumstances and the rush, especially at his busiest time of year. Dfoot? He did pretty good and yet he didn't have big money behind him. Pareidolia guy Leroy Blevins has made some pretty impressive progress. You can talk to me about replication when the world has taken the PGF seriously enough for real strong efforts to reproduce Patty. Unfortunately, this really shouldn't shock you, but for most people it looks like a guy in a suit.

Since you won't be interested in discussing the topic of this thread, I will just give you a couple of things to look at...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6203290&postcount=1821

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6221622&postcount=3837

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

What is the problem here? He might well have had the horse for a couple of weeks at home BEFORE he took it to Bluff Creek?

Hi, Paul. The first big problem would be that Gimlin said that he was at Bluff creek for three weeks, not at home for two with Chico, and then one at Bluff Creek.

The second problem would be that he said he was breaking the horse in, which means to make it take command from a rider, and yet he tells believers that his horse didn't wig out because it was an old roping horse that was experienced and trailwise. All the Heironimus brothers were into roping and Bob was very good at it. When you are roping large animals like steer, you don't ride a bonkers horse that doesn't take command. That is a great way to die with a broken neck. Bob told me that Gimlin had the horse for eight days and scoffed at the idea that he would need Gimlin to break in a horse for him, when he had been riding and roping for so long. Remember, he was 26 at the time.

The third major problem is just what the heck does Gimlin think he's passing off by telling us that he would take a horse he's only had for a very short period, that is inexperienced and needs breaking in, on a trip to Bigfoot country to investigate tracks and possibly encounter the beast? We don't have to imagine Bigfoot attacking the horse. the horse could absolutely destroy itself flipping out and panicking in a creekbed. This makes no sense whatsoever. If Gimlin has half the experience with horses we know he has, he is going to take a sturdy and experienced horse. That was Chico. That was the horse that belonged to the man that no Bigfooter in 2010 can deny was Gimlin's friend at the time and cotinued to be until the after Heironimus came out. BH threatened BG's gravytrain. He put him in a situation where only when surrounded by his believers who idolize him and treat him like an American icon does he feel safe. Never will he face BH and his allegations. Just imagine a Patty supporter screwing themselves up with the gumption to question Gimlin in a doubtful manner about horses in front of a conference room full of other Bigfooters. I really don't think that is going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

First off let me say that I am in no way emotionally invested in the P/G footage being real. 'Squatchin is a hobby, nothing more.

I have to wonder. Does anything hold up under microscopic scrutiny? My wife and I were married in 2001. I know we ate at the reception, but I don't recall what we ate. Doesn't mean we were never married.

If I say we ate chicken, but someone does some research and finds out we actually had fish, does that mean I'm lying?

As a kind of goof, I collect Kennedy assasination related books. Seems like I find them at yard sales quite often, so I started buying them. I have about half a dozen or more. They each have their own theory.

Again, does anything hold up under microscopic scrutiny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh, I do seem to recall a HUGE BLOCKBUSTER announcement by the OP that would break all open, it ended up a big fat dud.

Ummm... was that the revelation that Morris claimed it was also one of his suits depicted in the Memorial Day Footage?

If so, you have to tip your hat to kit for revealing that IMO. He didn't have to do so. It certainly didn't help his overall case, but did serve to prove an effort at veracity on his part IMO. Personally, I gained loads of respect for kit for revealing that.

I get and agree with your point about the importance of the PGF meaning more with those who have never had an experience they could associate with BF. And, having read your diary on the subject, I'm envious of your experiences and completely understand your stance and the reason you take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...