Jump to content
kitakaze

Two Strong Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax.

Recommended Posts

Guest

Spazmo said:

And every other person involved is then also allowed to have "selective memory", not just the people or accounts that fit your theory.

I was gonna say that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

wow, footers, really destroyed Long's book on Amazon..lol He got owned big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Before addressing Spaz' arguments where he essentially puts forth the logic that my refutation of the Knights reasons he cites are based on opinion, and thus I fail to refute them, and therefore Knights opinions stand, I want to explore tossing BH out of the equation hypothetically. I really would love for someone to answer this and I keep asking, but it gets passed over...

2) If you would toss out BH on contradictions and what you perceive as actions based in greed, is BG exempt from your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

2) If you would toss out BH on contradictions and what you perceive as actions based in greed, is BG exempt from your reasoning?

No. Contradictions are contradictions, regardless of who makes them. But in your argument concerning selective memory, the same holds true. So would you throw out all testimony from both men because of inconsistencies, or would you recognize all testimony from both men and qualify it with the possibility of "misremembering"? You can't have it both ways, so pick and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No. Contradictions are contradictions, regardless of who makes them.

OK, now remember, for now I am hypothetically tossing Heironimus.

Have you disqualified Heironimus based on contradictions you think he has made? Yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Third, it’s also a story change from the location Long claimed Heironimus said they met up: a store 4.6 miles north of Weitchpec.

Is it possible that BH is referring to the old Bluff Creek Resort here? I don't think it ever had a gas station though but it is on the left coming in from Yreka.

There's no way that anyone would confuse Weitchpec with Willow Creek from a physical standpoint. Weitchpec is nothing but a store. Same guy owns and runs it today as in 1967. I called him up and talked to him a couple of weeks ago.

Whether it real or a hoax, the whole story is like the space shuttle. Every single little piece has to be perfect or it doesn't work. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Crow, has anyone explained the apparent lack of the hole Bob H claims to have jumped into? Or did he innocently have his locations mixed up again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

Taking polygraphs and spending hours in radio interviews talking directly with challengers like MK Davis and others is not failing to speak to what people say are his mistakes. From imagined connections from a failed understanding of the timeline of BH's coming forward, to Knights' "26 Reasons", to ridiculous arguments from Knights like having an issue with someone saying "up the road" and "down the road", to BH saying he turned right when that is exactly the way you'd turn coming from Happy Camp, to failures to understand 2 vs 3 horses and staging an event, to having an absurd issue with a suit being placed in the trunk of a brand new 1967 Buick, to not understanding why hoaxers would mail a film to fellow hoaxers, I have addressed all points and will continue to do so gladly.

2) If you would toss out BH on contradictions and what you perceive as actions based in greed, is BG exempt from your reasoning?

Is this hard to answer?

Kitz, you do know that Polygraph's absolutely mean nothing, you can easily fake one. I bet if Gimlin passed one, you would dismiss it, but when Bob H would pass, you would hail it as proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Have you disqualified Heironimus based on contradictions you think he has made? Yes or no.

I'm disqualifying all inconsistent testimony, and hoping you've got something more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Crow, has anyone explained the apparent lack of the hole Bob H claims to have jumped into? Or did he innocently have his locations mixed up again?

The closest thing anybody came to addressing the hole was Kit and he put forth that perhaps the hole was well out of the film site area proper. My counter argument was that Bob H who was claustrophobic, hot and scared of hunters would have been utterly out of his character and statement that he just jumped in a hole that was essentially on location and as he describes it was mere steps past the point where Roger stopped filming. BTW there is no hole visible in the air shot of the film site taken later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

The closest thing anybody came to addressing the hole was Kit and he put forth that perhaps the hole was well out of the film site area proper. My counter argument was that Bob H who was claustrophobic, hot and scared of hunters would have been utterly out of his character and statement that he just jumped in a hole that was essentially on location and as he describes it was mere steps past the point where Roger stopped filming. BTW there is no hole visible in the air shot of the film site taken later.

No there isn't. You mean the shot taken by Dahinden and seen in Murphy's Meet The Sasquatch book? That overhead shot covers a wide area and looks to cover a considerably wider area than the subject walked in the camera shot that day. I can see no big hole large enough for a man to get into anywhere in that terrain.

More to the point, why didn't Bob H just hop off and hide in the trees and bushes on the left when he walked away? Safter than a hole surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

wow, footers, really destroyed Long's book on Amazon..lol He got owned big time.

yes, I find it pretty creepy. Sort of like a twentieth century book burning. "Funny" that some take pride in it. I guess you are one who does. A dark day for footers (your term), I would say. I would be quite surprised if even half of the evaluations were done by people who read the book. Knights, who did read it, was actually fairly complimentary about the book, and his 26 points were just his opinions about Bob H.'s story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

yes, I find it pretty creepy. Sort of like a twentieth century book burning. "Funny" that some take pride in it. I guess you are one who does. A dark day for footers (your term), I would say. I would be quite surprised if even half of the evaluations were done by people who read the book. Knights, who did read it, was actually fairly complimentary about the book, and his 26 points were just his opinions about Bob H.'s story.

I find it "funny" that you think disagreeing with crappy investigative journalism based on hearsay and opinion is creepy. It is also "funny" that your best defense of the reviews is " I would be surprised if even half of the evaluations were done by people who read the book". Most of the people listed are Bigfoot investigators or enthusiasts, why would you be surprised if they read the book? I would be more surprised if skeptics read the book seeing as they view the topic as fiction. Why would they need to read a story that proves the PGF is not real? Don't they already know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

My interpretation of the mailing of the film: Why didn't Roger want Bob H. to just delivery the film to DeAtley?

Roger was a pretty good judge of character; he didn't want the big dope in the blue Buick showing up at DeAtley's house with the film, and maybe doing exactly what he actually did at the bar with his pals: showing off the suit and telling DeAtley how they were going to fool everyone. Both Roger and DeAtley wanted DeAtley to be "ignorant" of the "details" of Rogers bigfoot project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Roger Knights explains:

First, Weitchpec is impossible, because there was no gas station on the left-hand side of the road (where Heironimus had repeatedly placed it, according to Long) in Weitchpec in 1967 (or now), as Long conceded (on p. 438).

Second, Weitchpec is quite a story-change from “They told me … to go to … Willow Creek†(p. 347). It’s 23 road-miles north of Willow Creek.

Third, it’s also a story change from the location Long claimed Heironimus said they met up: a store 4.6 miles north of Weitchpec. (After Heironimus abandoned Willow Creek, because it sunk his story, being too far from the film site):

It's amazing that people who pick up on even the slightest wording quiery when it's Bob Gimlin have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Bob Heiromimus' absolute whoppers.

I'm still trying to figure out if he did the ape walk Patterson showed him or his normal walk that he claims everyone who knew him recognized. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...