Jump to content
kitakaze

Two Strong Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax.

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

Kit you'll get no argument from me that Ray Wallace was leaving tracks. I doubt Roger would have chatted up Ray with the intent to get some hoax pointers. I'd say the two men communicated because each was involved in Bigfoot (real or imagined). If I were to plan a hoax I wouldn't chat up a soul and talk shop about my plans unless there was a Bigfoot conspiracy and all of the major players of the day were in on it.

Once again when the characters are finally shaken out and the last word about them has been uttered the film itself and the images on it will still be the same as it always was. Eventually there will be no characters only the film. Of that film once again if the subject of the film could easily be a man in a suit we would have a different looking subject (IMO).

As for the appearance of the subject itself as argued that it shares a likeness with some other Bigfoot descriptions and accounts presenting this a evidence of hoax is IMO a weak avenue to travel. Everything that exists regardless of what it is has to look like something and has to behave as something. The Roe account describes a creature's appearance and the actions of the creature. If the Roe account is valid then any other Bigfoot that may be seen filmed or captured must resemble the Roe account.

When I was in collage there was a news report of a UFO over Georgia that was to be shown on the news. I had a class to get to but I really wanted to see this. A friend who was still between classes said he'd watch the news on the TV in the student union and fill me in when I got out of class. After class I went back to the student union and my friend drew me a picture of what he saw in the news report and described how the objects moved etc. Later that night I caught the news at home and they ran the UFO video again. It turns out that my friend had described it perfectly and his representation drawing was pretty much dead on to what was on the video. So Patty's appearance could be simply confirming the sketches made before just like seeing that UFO video confirmed the accuracy of my friends drawing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

With regards to some of your points Kitakazi, I think gauging the character of someone over 40 years ago is dangerous grounds for evidence. You are certainly well organized, and you have collected a wealth of facts. There are however nuances to those facts that are unknowable by us in the "now." Even if you strongly discredit someone's character, you prove nothing. Hoax or real, the film and forensic evidence is much safer ground for discussion. You have some powerful arguments without spending time making guesses, no matter how educated they are, on what people were thinking or intending. The only evidence I would be interested in outside of the film and forensic evidence is the result from a lie detector test with Gimlin.

All that said, great work! You have certainly stimulated a great deal of conversation. We may never put this puppy to rest. Hopefully someone will drag undeniable evidence out of the woods soon. Maybe I'll start a thread to encourage a Scott Herriott/Tom Biscardi expedition...

Thank you, James. Your encouragement is most appreciated. How awesome would it be if Bigfoot turned out to be real? We would all win. Again and again I have to explain to people that I would never feel scared or threatened by the prospect of Bigfoot being real. I would be to overwhelmed with awe and joy to care about being wrong. I would bathe in being wrong. I would be glad to be wrong because if Bigfoot is real, we all win. We will have discovered the most amazing species and right here in our own midst.

Please understand, that I am not delving into Roger-the-jerk territory here. I am delving only into Roger-and-Bob-the-hoaxers territory here. I am not interested in saying anything about how bad Roger's character was here because it only alienates people and as Crow quickly pointed out after I had the same discussion yesterday here, a jerk can still get lucky. That is why I am inviting people to discuss Whopper 1 & 2 with me, because they strongly indicate a hoax to me.

What do yo9u think of them, James? I would very much like to hear your thoughts on them.

Also, welcome to the all new BFF. :)

PS: I've spoken personally with both Scott and Tom on the phone. Scott is a dude and Tom is a riot. I like Scott and would like to collaborate with him in the future. Tom - when he speaks with a strong skeptic like me, he drops all pretense of belief and is quite straightforward about the financial aspect of what he does. I think it's rather hilarious. He's basically like "Daddy's paying the bills" in that All-American gold chains, rings, tracksuit and Ray-Bans kind of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Please understand, that I am not delving into Roger-the-jerk territory here. I am delving only into Roger-and-Bob-the-hoaxers territory here. I am not interested in saying anything about how bad Roger's character was here because it only alienates people and as Crow quickly pointed out after I had the same discussion yesterday here, a jerk can still get lucky.

What a delightful departure from your dead man character assassinations from previous forums. Kudos to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TooRisky

KIT... Ya know you are boring us... you win, the film is in you mind a fake... OK it is a fake.... it is a fake... Who cares... Really who cares... there is nothing anyone can do... So great you win the debate... the PGF is a fake... fake ... fake ... fake... Kit is the winner.... yeah Kit thanks for bringing all of us out of the darkness... and into your light... yes there was a huge ambush at bluff creek, many BF fell as the bullets ripped into their flesh, and the PGF is the only copy of the last BF documented, limping off into the wilds to die... Only one problem... Where are the friggin bodies... oops didnt think that one through

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FuriousGeorge

Kit, I'm missing something. Hopefully you can 'splain it. I follow your logic and it's pretty good work but why do you keep saying "he already had a camera"?. This is where you lose me. Maybe he like cameras. He could have broke his camera, lost it, had it stolen, wanted a two camera shoot, or wanted to upgrade. What's the big deal with getting a second camera? I understand all of the other business but the second camera thing... eh... not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit you'll get no argument from me that Ray Wallace was leaving tracks. I doubt Roger would have chatted up Ray with the intent to get some hoax pointers. I'd say the two men communicated because each was involved in Bigfoot (real or imagined). If I were to plan a hoax I wouldn't chat up a soul and talk shop about my plans unless there was a Bigfoot conspiracy and all of the major players of the day were in on it.

Crow, they were connected and one is a proven hoaxer while the other we have strong evidence for. I can easily imagine these guys combining forces for hoaxing. You have to remember that Roger was in this for money. He said it himself and it came through in all his actions. Everyone that knew him personally that I have spoken to has confirmed this to me. Harvey Anderson said that Roger admitted hoaxing to him in 1961 and that he was doing it altruistically for his wife's sake after he died. Roger has excellent reasons to join forces with Wallace in certain ways. Wallace is what got him into it. It was the True Magazine articles in '59 and '60 that got him started. I think he was a smart man that knew his time was limited and saw an opportunity in Bigfoot. Maybe he believed it and saw the hoaxing as a way to bring attention and funding, or maybe he was just after cash. He certainly wasn't ever serious about catching Patty. He easily could have caught that giant, stinking, huge-track-leaving beast if he wanted to.

All of them had motives. Roger needed money and security for his family. DeAtley had just taken over Superior Asphalt and the busness was floundering and in need of a capital shot in the arm, which the film provided. Al was a cunning businessman and so an opportunity in his brother-in-law's obsession. Hoaxes have anatomies and piece by piece I am putting this one together. I don't think the film is a hoax, I know it's a hoax. In however many months it takes me to get backing for this documentary to be made and be made the way I write it, everyone else will too. When that time comes I am going to be too busy trying to figure out what's next to stop and spit at all the Bigfooters who have been knocking me around through all of this. I'll tell you now, some of the people working with me behind the scenes were or still are Bigfooter, and I we can only benefit from knowing the truth.

Once again when the characters are finally shaken out and the last word about them has been uttered the film itself and the images on it will still be the same as it always was. Eventually there will be no characters only the film. Of that film once again if the subject of the film could easily be a man in a suit we would have a different looking subject (IMO).

I strongly disagree with the notion that Patty could not easily be a man in a suit.

Bang...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=3620

Boom...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=3505

I admire your tenacity in holding on to this sinking ship, but I do not like going down with it. I am the one that is doing the sinking.

As for the appearance of the subject itself as argued that it shares a likeness with some other Bigfoot descriptions and accounts presenting this a evidence of hoax is IMO a weak avenue to travel. Everything that exists regardless of what it is has to look like something and has to behave as something. The Roe account describes a creature's appearance and the actions of the creature. If the Roe account is valid then any other Bigfoot that may be seen filmed or captured must resemble the Roe account.

When I was in collage there was a news report of a UFO over Georgia that was to be shown on the news. I had a class to get to but I really wanted to see this. A friend who was still between classes said he'd watch the news on the TV in the student union and fill me in when I got out of class. After class I went back to the student union and my friend drew me a picture of what he saw in the news report and described how the objects moved etc. Later that night I caught the news at home and they ran the UFO video again. It turns out that my friend had described it perfectly and his representation drawing was pretty much dead on to what was on the video. So Patty's appearance could be simply confirming the sketches made before just like seeing that UFO video confirmed the accuracy of my friends drawing.

The problem, Crow, is that it is not just the animal description and it's behaviour. It was the setting as well. The Roe account was the template for Roger's scene as a filmmaker and hoaxer, IMO. The down fallen debris was what Roger wanted to use in conjunction with distance and shaking. Bluff Creek was the right location in the area where all this shenanigans and hoaxing was going on...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=2963

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=3618

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Kit I don't think the PGF ship is sinking. The thing that will sink the PGF for me will not be the backstory. It will be a proper dismantling of the film and a method that reproduces it as convincingly as you maintain that you are convincingly sinking the PGF. Both juries are still out. I think you need to follow through on your efforts and when that's done start on MK Davis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit, I'm missing something. Hopefully you can 'splain it. I follow your logic and it's pretty good work but why do you keep saying "he already had a camera"?. This is where you lose me. Maybe he like cameras. He could have broke his camera, lost it, had it stolen, wanted a two camera shoot, or wanted to upgrade. What's the big deal with getting a second camera? I understand all of the other business but the second camera thing... eh... not so much.

Hey, Furious! here we are again. I almost messed up and attributed your quote to masterbarber when I was putting it in my sig. I did not forget the Furious! :lol:

OK, so the thing with the two cameras is this...

We know he has two. I posted shots from both and they were on that same trip with Jerry. I'm almost certain that was with Jerry, but I am wondering to myself if he also came down with Al at some point to scout the location for the hoax. Remember, they can't do the hoax in Yakima, because that is where Roger lives and then he would be expected to find it and either film it again or capture it. They need a one-off film that they can take and run with, which is exactly what they did. If they fart around with doing more, they're going to get busted. L.W. Beal, the editor of the Eureka Times-Standard, who was admitted by his wife June to be involved in the hoaxing in the area, possibly for the attention on his paper, was said to be given the suit after the film was shot and instructed by Roger to give it to Wallace. Beal was with Roger on the day of the film allegedly being shot and wrote this article on it that very same day...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/firstpgf.htm

Beal was said not to give the suit to Wallace, who wanted to use it with Roger a few weeks later, but rather hold on to it after being forbidden to use it by Al DeAtley who was at the center of the money. Al is a shrewd business man and he knows how best to work his product. You don't mess everything up by making more. That is a sure way to get caught. So they need a hotspot and Ray Wallace is king of the hotspot. I think maybe Ray helps them set it up by hoaxing the tracks, possibly with Roger, that Green and everybody find and then Hodgson calls him down for.

Now, I know what you're thinking... Where do two cameras fit into all of this??

Here's where:

Roger walks out of Sheppard's Camera on the 13th of May. He's given him a bad cheque and he won't be dealing with that again till he gets charged for grand larceny in December. See, Roger's logic is that he'll sail back into town and everything will be cool. He'll throw some of that $75,000 that Al gave him immediately after the film came out. I don't think he expected to get arrested. He walked the line like that all the time. So he walks into Vilma's on the 25th of May and does the pitch. He tells her he is going to film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek and that he needs the dough for a camera. But he's got that camera and he's already not looking back about it. Now, he tells Vilma that he's going to go with a friend, whom sh later assumes to be Gimlin. But no, it wasn't Gimlin. He went down with Jerry. Jerry decades later specifically remembered that Roger had scored the $700. Now, what is Roger heading down there for? What's down there? Nothing but Ray and his stompers. He started Bigfoot there in 1958. There is nothing before that there. So Roger and Jerry have to go down to Hollywood and on the way, I think they have to set up the first part of the hoax - the tracks that would be their later impetus for going down. I think they hooked up with Ray on the way down and worked out doing the tracks, possibly together using Ray's stompers and some of Roger's casts to make it look like a group of individuals, like a family. Remember, I've already shown you those tracks and they have different sizes and shapes. I think at least two sets are Wallace's. The other one I think may have been an addition by Roger. Maybe not. The only thing I am sure of is that there were two big sets of Wallace stompers used, with anohter smaller one that didn't look quite like his usual stuff.

So where's the other camera? This I think they got from Fred Smith at Yakima's KIMA-TV. The reason it has any siginificance is that if we see shots from Roger's late spring/summer trip to California and there are two different cameras, we know that Roger never needed to ask Vilma for money for a camera because he already had one. A 16mm is a 16mm to Roger. He may have learned from Harvey Anderson in Yakima in 1961 how best to shoot what he needed when he did his practice run that Harvey talked about Roger admitting to. He just needs one camera if his story to Vilma is true and he just needs to get the beast on film. What the second camera indicates was that Roger was fleecing Vilma on a promise that made no sense about filming Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. He was telling Vilma that he himself had seen Bigfoot in his pitch. He was telling her that Bluff Creek was where it would all go down, yet the tracks had not happened yet. Not the ones in his story of events. What this tells us is that they were just building up money to try and do these trips. Roger had to go to Hollywood. The money he got from Vilma could have covered any number of things, but we know it was never for any camera. The only 16mm cameras we ever know about Roger using was first from KIMA and then from Sheppard's. I think Roger had both of those when he filmed the sequences that have been hidden until now.

So, dang. That's a lot to keep up with, no? Phew!

PS: The one very loose end for me right now is L.W. Beal. How exactly does he fit in the mix? At the JREF I am being told by an anonymous source that Biscardi was half correct when he told me the film is a fake and he knows it because he saw the claim ticket from Canadian Customs after they confiscated the suit from Roger's nephew. This anonymous source (whose identity only I know) has clarified that Biscardi was embellishing the story and screwing it up. They say that in actuality the suit was taken to the border not by Roger's nephew, but by L.W. Beal's nephew, who is in contact with my anonymous source and said he was taking it to use for a prank while camping. I was able to determine that the border crossing his source is referring to was the Chief Mountain border crossing between Montana's Glacier National Park and Alberta's Waterton Park. Was that the actual suit? I don't know. Did it even exist or is Wakeup's source full of bean's? I don't know, but there seems to be something to it. It needs more digging. What Wakeup thinks is that the suit was destroyed by Canadian Customs. I think the suit was never there or it was retreived by someone other than Beal's nephew. One reason I doubt this story is because how stupid would Beal be to let his nephew take the suit? It sounds like it was years after the PGF and maybe after Patterson died, but still it seems weird. Wakeup said that according to his source, the suit had no head. What kind of prank do you pull with a Bigfoot suit with no head?

As you can see, the whole thing there needs a lot of work. This is of course only my public investigation. The one that is happening behind the scenes is by far the most important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If the guy's legacy isn't unquestionable footage of an as-yet-unclassificed North American primate, at least he seems to have given posterity the word 'ADOMINABLE' (sic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Please look carefully at the following image. Click on it to make it bigger. Pay careful attention especially to the first two from the left. This is massive. Does anyone realize the implications of what I am showing here? I have maxed my limit to the number of images I can show, so I am going to link to my discussion of this major find at the JREF...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6287213#post6287213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest windigo

The original purpose for this thread was to answer Question 1 and Question 2 from the first post. So I'll attempt to do that.

1. Horses, even experienced horses, tend to freak when they encounter something that doesn't fit their profile of creatures they know. This happens all the time when horses encounter backpackers on the trail...just the different outline of a human carrying a large pack seems to make them think that what they're seeing isn't a creature they can fit into their internal "database" of known creatures. So I can see where encountering a sasquatch, or even a human dressed like one, would make a horse bolt. At best, this is ambiguous evidence for a hoax.

2. Have Patterson's words on this matter ever been recorded EXACTLY? Not just the gist, but an exact recording of his words? Because I can see someone asking the question of when the last time RP was in the area, and the reply being something like: "Well, before this year, it was 1964." Then the reply gets somehow twisted to become "He said he hadn't been there since 1964, but he was there just a few months ago!" So again, seems like ambiguous evidence at best.

I have no iron in this fire, just an interested observer. It doesn't even appear to me that the PGF is all that important...it's what, maybe 30 seconds of recorded bigfoot history out of about 1000 years (recording being not only video, but also oral history, written accounts, cave drawings, etc.)? After over 40 years of fading memories and the death of the biggest player in the PGF, I doubt the mystery of the PGF will ever be solved conclusively, but even if it is, it seems trivial in the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbhunter

I have no iron in this fire, just an interested observer. It doesn't even appear to me that the PGF is all that important...it's what, maybe 30 seconds of recorded bigfoot history out of about 1000 years (recording being not only video, but also oral history, written accounts, cave drawings, etc.)? After over 40 years of fading memories and the death of the biggest player in the PGF, I doubt the mystery of the PGF will ever be solved conclusively, but even if it is, it seems trivial in the big picture.

VERY GOOD answer windigo. The above statement is where I think most people are with this entire thread.

Kit, not trying to be condescending in any way, but many really don't care that much. I admire your tenacity on the subject, man what a fighter you are. Would it be easier though just to post a link to JREF so people who care to debate or read this could just jump over there? It could save you valuable time and efforts that can be used by you for more "research" for your documentary.

One more thing, your posts and replies to many people do come off as brash and arrogant. I am only saying that because of all of the many sidebars on other forums and PM's that discuss that very thing. Just trying to offer constructive critisizm.

KB

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit is doing a documentary on 'footers, not the PGF. By going onto a forum where there are a lot of 'footers and then stirring things up regarding the holy grail (the PGF), he is simply providing for himself all sorts of material for what should be a very entertaining piece. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The original purpose for this thread was to answer Question 1 and Question 2 from the first post. So I'll attempt to do that.

1. Horses, even experienced horses, tend to freak when they encounter something that doesn't fit their profile of creatures they know. This happens all the time when horses encounter backpackers on the trail...just the different outline of a human carrying a large pack seems to make them think that what they're seeing isn't a creature they can fit into their internal "database" of known creatures. So I can see where encountering a sasquatch, or even a human dressed like one, would make a horse bolt. At best, this is ambiguous evidence for a hoax.

Hi, windigo. What you are saying is non sequitur to what Gimlin has said. He is saying his horse did not freak out. He is saying his horse did not panic because it was trailwise, experienced, and an old roping horse. That means it was an animal that was used to the intensity and stress of chasing after other large animals that are often not other horses. Please watch this video on ranch roping to see what Bob Gimlin was referring to...

In Bob's explanation, the horse, by nature of the fact that it is used to unpredictable situations, takes command well, and is used to other animals under stress and panic, was not itself panicked by the Bigfoot they encountered. It was too experienced to get panicked. But then, absolutely contradicting everything he did say and continues to say afterwards, when someone corners him with the fact that he had the horse of the only man ever to publicly claim to be in the suit and who was a friend of his involved with Roger at the time, he says he was breaking in the horse for Heironimus. That means the horse is unexperienced and being trained to take commands from a rider. That also means it is inexperience and can't have been a roping horse. You can easily be killed by using an inexperienced horse for roping. Also, it makes no sense to take an inexperienced horse that does not belong to you on a trip where you seriously think you might encounter Bigfoot. The animal could get seriously injured or worse just from panicking.

Please watch this video on roping accidents to know the seriousness of the contradiction Gimlin is making...

Roping is dangerous. An old roping horse that you say is trailwise does not under any circumstances need breaking in.

It's a major red flag.

2. Have Patterson's words on this matter ever been recorded EXACTLY? Not just the gist, but an exact recording of his words? Because I can see someone asking the question of when the last time RP was in the area, and the reply being something like: "Well, before this year, it was 1964." Then the reply gets somehow twisted to become "He said he hadn't been there since 1964, but he was there just a few months ago!" So again, seems like ambiguous evidence at best.

Yes, Roger's words exactly have been recorded on a number of sources, including radio and television. The CBC has an archive of speaking with Roger very soon after the alleged filming date. The fact remains that Roger said he came there because of tracks found a month before the film was made, but in May he is already promising that he will film a Bigfoot there. Why is he making such a promise? To pitch for money so he can get a camera to film Bigfoot? He already had at least one camera, probably two. He never paid for the camera he used to film Patty. So how can he be so confident about filming Bigfoot there? The contract says he has to pay the $700 back two weeks later on June 10 as $850. By his promise to Vilma, this will have been from filming Bigfoot. But Jerry said they went to LA and drove there in Roger's VW bus with $700 and the purpose of the trip was to copyright the commercial name of Bigfoot and secure more funding. We know they went in late spring or summer, so with the contract it is safe to assume it was around the end of May, or early June. This is all well ahead of the track finding event.

The crazy thing is that Roger was said to have found Bigfoot prints and cast them at Laird Meadow Road near Bluff Creek in either 1963 or 1964, but now it is almost certain the same fake foot was used for a hoax in WA 5 or 6 years later while Roger was still alive, and one his best friends Jerry Merrit thinks he is hoaxing tracks at Jerry's home in WA.

I have no iron in this fire, just an interested observer. It doesn't even appear to me that the PGF is all that important...it's what, maybe 30 seconds of recorded bigfoot history out of about 1000 years (recording being not only video, but also oral history, written accounts, cave drawings, etc.)? After over 40 years of fading memories and the death of the biggest player in the PGF, I doubt the mystery of the PGF will ever be solved conclusively, but even if it is, it seems trivial in the big picture.

Regardless of what you might believe to the contrary, many Bigfooters regard the PGF as the central pillar for their belief. You can not invent Bigfoot in any oral histories without manipulating and twisting the histories, there are no cave drawings that are unambiguously Bigfoot like we have for bison and other real animals,and all the other video either comes fromknown hoaxers and/or is even more ambiguous than the PGF.

The PGF controversy can easily be resolved. All the remaining guy has to do is take on the same challenge the only man to ever claim to also be there has. he said he would do it, so why hasn't he? All Gimlin has to do is not refuse to seriously address Heironimus' claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The two Patterson casts are one in the same. However since these casts and whatever left them are unique to Patterson and not a Wallace job then there's as much mystery attached to them as the PGF itself. The Kettle Falls track is likely the same print. However by 1969 was not Patterson out of field searching and more or less enjoying his fame and fortune from the PGF? It is entirely possible that if the Patterson tracks represent a biological entity that the same biological entity was not inclined to stay in one small area. IMO those tracks work in favor of a real animal having made them. If there was only left foot casts of this print then a reasonable argument could be made that they'r fake. But Patterson cast both left and right tracks at Bluff Creek which indicates that those tracks are a complete set of left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...