Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

Guest

kitakaze - you still didn't answer the question. Or address my sentence. Or something - you almost confused me, but not quite!. But I will assume that you are saying "no" to my statement of fact? I can't tell from your giant finger and this partial sentence: "no, my goal is not to seek proving the PGF could have been hoaxed, but rather to answer the that question definitively with proof"

As you can see - I was not asking that. I was not asking what your goal is. Or whatever you are saying there. I was asking you to acknowledge my sentence is true. Because it is. If you say that it is not, I can't take seriously anything else you say or ever present, because you are denying simple fact, therefore any "fact" you present is questionable.

(here we go again)

Proving that a suit COULD be made does not prove that a suit WAS made, and filmed, showing what we call the PGF.

I am saying - if you acknowledge that sentence is a fact, I will stop posting it.

I will not stop just because of your slippery wordplay.

Your answer can only be - "yes" I acknowledge that sentence is true.

Or "no" I say that that sentence is not true.

If you say the former - fine. I'm done.

If you say the latter (the "no" one)....then you would be saying that proving the suit could be made proves the film is a hoax.

Therefore (if you pick the "no" one) you must also concede that if I can prove the moon landing could have been faked, it means the film that we all know of the moon landing is, in fact, a hoax.

Please answer my question. Or ignore it, which will be as good as the answer for me. (that my sentence is true, by default)

Cheers

Edited by Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I was an active member of the previous forum. I never heard anything as detailed as what is being presented here about Patty being a suit, not a real animal. I'm shocked, humbled, but even if Patty is proven to be a fake of some sort, I still believe that there are unknown creatures wandering around in the woods.

Thanks, Susiq2. If there is anything to the PGF debate, certainly an intimidating amount of details is an obstacle. You're quite right about the PGF being disproven not disproving Bigfoot. That is an unscientific proposal and something simply not reasonably attainable. It does not address the various reports and stories that people tell. I know you claim a UFO sighting and have an interest there, so it would be like saying disproving Roswell disproves alien visitation. There are a lot of phenomenona alongside Bigfoot - ghosts, alien abduction, etc, that people finding to be intriguing and point to various forms of evidence they find persuasive. I think both are social constructs as is Bigfoot, but that is my opinion.

Bigfoot is an interesting subject and within that the PGF has been an intriguing pursuit for researchers and investigators like myself, Bill Munns, and others. You'll often find that people interested in the PGF are generally interested in various mysteries in popular culture - JFK assassination, Noah's Ark, UFO's, Martian civilization, etc. I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion and feel free to hit me with any questions you think I can help with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze - you still didn't answer the question. Or address my sentence. Or something - you almost confused me, but not quite!. But I will assume that you are saying "no" to my statement of fact? I can't tell from your giant finger and this partial sentence: "no, my goal is not to seek proving the PGF could have been hoaxed, but rather to answer the that question definitively with proof"

As you can see - I was not asking that. I was not asking what your goal is. Or whatever you are saying there. I was asking you to acknowledge my sentence is true. Because it is. If you say that it is not, I can't take seriously anything else you say or ever present, because you are denying simple fact, therefore any "fact" you present is questionable.

Harry, my apologies. I felt I was pretty clear about that. The reason proving the PGF could have been faked is not my ultimate goal to me is because I've already done it, and it has already been done before me. I want absolutes, not maybes. I agree with you that proving the film could be hoaxed does not prove it was. That's what the talk about definitive proof was for. Also, please understand, I am interested in more than proving the hoax than to myself, because I have already done that.

Your statement about proving the PGF could be faked does not equate proof is neither in contention for me nor do I have any interest in doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"Why is that, exactly? As I mentioned to Shadow, I also endeavour to encompass this as well, but what if, for example, someone says, "I'm sorry, people, the film is a hoax." Then the person plays you a video recording of Gimlin, P atterson, and DeAtley admitting and acknowledging the hoax?

In that case why would the person need spend a single minute thinking about who did what how? "

Do you have any confessions pending? As much as I know, none are forthcoming.

Anyways, to the crux of the issue, have you ever heard of false confessions? Bottom line is testimony alone just doesn't cut it on either side of the debate (even confessions), because there's so much contridicting material (people contridicting themselves and people contridicting other people) that some more factual material needs to be pro-offered by anyone trying to present a conclusion, to substantiate people's testimony. I personally don't take anybody's testimony by itself as reliable, in this curious film.

If you don't mind my saying, I think your ultimate downfall will be having taken people's testimony as more reliable than it actually is. (just my opinion).

But, going back to your source question, if somebody did confess, yes, I'd certainly consider it, but I wouldn't take it alone at face value. I'd still want to see if there were some form of substantiating facts apart from the testimony that corroborated it.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

One of things that Morris mentioned was that the man who would fill the alleged suit would have to be really large because of the muscle bulk seen under the fur. Bob H. was a spindly legged well toned individual in those days, but nowhere near the girth Morris of the subject that Morris alluded to.

Bill

Bigfoot Field Research

i don't see how you could say he was spindly legged.???

I would definitely agree. Bob certainly does not look spindly legged to me...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigpattycomp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

a failing by many "green" enthusiastic investigators is not staying outside the bubble! and getting caught by the testimony of those who offer the "truth" by what they themselves believe to be the the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Which Bob are you talking about?

The Bob who is still alive( I think), and was along for the ride with Patterson the day they *discovered* whatever they discovered, or not. :ph34r:

Now do you know who I'm talking about? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
(snip)

But, going back to your source question, if somebody did confess, yes, I'd certainly consider it, but I wouldn't take it alone at face value. I'd still want to see if there were some form of substantiating facts apart from the testimony that corroborated it.

:)

Bill

Thanks, Bill. You know, of course, that I would tell nothing one way or the other nor drop any spoilers, no more than you would for your own sensitive material. This is exactly as I have anticipated. For some, even straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, will not be enough. I mentioned that some people would allege Gimlin was tricked, bribed, etc. For myself personally, Gimlin acknowledging and admitting the hoax is proof the film was hoaxed. I don't see the things that you do in the film, so I don't have the same issues. Nevertheless, I know full well that I could come with a recorded confession and Bigfootery would have someone like you to rally around who would dismiss it and ask for the exact details on how it was done. That is why I go for the whole enchilada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

The Bob who is still alive( I think), and was along for the ride with Patterson the day they *discovered* whatever they discovered, or not. :ph34r:

Now do you know who I'm talking about? :D

That's Bob Gimlin and he absolutely supports the film. He says there were only two people at Bluff Creek that day, Roger Patterson and himself. He could see muscle movement under the hair. This is him:

Bob Heironimus is his neighbor and he's the one who claimed to be the "man in the suit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"Nevertheless, I know full well that I could come with a recorded confession and Bigfootery would have someone like you to rally around who would dismiss it and ask for the exact details on how it was done. That is why I go for the whole enchilada."

You don't seem to get the point that I don't take anybody's testimony as fact without corroboration, regardless of which side of the issue said person is on. I didn't take John Green's remarks about his camera filming McClarin at face value, because factual analysis seemed to yield different results. It was not a matter of impuning John's integrity, but rather that I don't hold testimony, especially recollections of 40 years ago, as being reliably accurate. So I look to see if factaul analysis can corroborate or contridict testimony. In the case of John's camera, the facts simply overruled the recollection.

If anybody wants to confess to the PGF being a hoax, they'd sure better be able to explain how it was done, and that explanation should be corroborated by the factual data in the film. So far, Patterson's and Gimlin's recollections are corroborated, as much as the film analysis shows, and there's more I haven't published on this (work in progress) that further substantiates their recollections. Bob Heironimous's recollection (and Phil Morris' too) just isn't corroborated by the PGF, as far as I'm concerned, so I find their testimony lacking in credibility.

But I'm also looking at something curious which reconsiles the whole issue of their recollections vs the PGF and it's fascinating, if I can prove it more conclusively.

But the whole confession thing is a moot point at the moment. You bring it, and you'll be surprized how I react to it.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

A film with an impossible timeline where the guy's brother-in-law, who disdains him and has zero belief in Bigfoot, gives him $75,000 before they even hit the road to barnstorm. He later tells Dahinden he's not supposed to tell where it was developed.

Yes, it's a big deal.

Once DeAtley saw the film he knew the money would be green once the film went public. Notice he didn't give Roger $75,000 before the film was made. Al does not need to like Roger. All that was needed was for Roger to have something that DeAtley could invest in. Al didn't invest in Bigfoot or Roger. He invested in a film showing a Bigfoot. If Roger had come back empty handed Al would have kept his wallet closed.

As they would have said in NY "Timeline Shimineline who cares there's no way to prove or disprove the timeline. Show us a sworn affidavit by the person who developed it and maybe that will have some legs. Also show us proof as in hard evidence that Al tole Rene to keep quiet about the developing. There are reasons way beyond hoaxing a bigfoot film why the developer would need to be kept out of the picture. Figure it out some of its been alluded to already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
You don't seem to get the point that I don't take anybody's testimony as fact without corroboration, regardless of which side of the issue said person is on. I didn't take John Green's remarks about his camera filming McClarin at face value, because factual analysis seemed to yield different results. It was not a matter of impuning John's integrity, but rather that I don't hold testimony, especially recollections of 40 years ago, as being reliably accurate. So I look to see if factaul analysis can corroborate or contridict testimony. In the case of John's camera, the facts simply overruled the recollection.

Of course, Green recalling particulars of a camera used are not the same as any of the pricipals admitting hoaxing, but let's roll with that.

If anybody wants to confess to the PGF being a hoax, they'd sure better be able to explain how it was done, and that explanation should be corroborated by the factual data in the film.

Just out of curiosity and speaking hypothetically, if Patty Patterson were to admit a hoax, should she have to know exactly how it was done? If so, why?

So far, Patterson's and Gimlin's recollections are corroborated, as much as the film analysis shows, and there's more I haven't published on this (work in progress) that further substantiates their recollections.

Excellent. You've established more than one look back then? And you've established Patterson bailed and filmed from his elbows and stomach? You've established that Patterson was running like hell, jumping logs, and going up into real thick brush? You've established that Patty started running while still in sight?

Bob Heironimous's recollection (and Phil Morris' too) just isn't corroborated by the PGF, as far as I'm concerned, so I find their testimony lacking in credibility.

Are the plaster pour scenes no consistent with the beginning of October? Is the foliage in the Patty scene not inconsistent with late October? The PGF shows a subject with a subducting thigh line, a diaper butt, a head shaped like an oldtime, what looks just like football shoulder pads, and in a cibachrome I clearly made out what looks exactly like a glass eye, so I definitely disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Once DeAtley saw the film he knew the money would be green once the film went public. Notice he didn't give Roger $75,000 before the film was made. Al does not need to like Roger. All that was needed was for Roger to have something that DeAtley could invest in. Al didn't invest in Bigfoot or Roger. He invested in a film showing a Bigfoot.

Oops. Al had no aspersions whatsover that Roger did not have a film of a Bigfoot. It was a fake, as he told Byrne. He paid for a book, which is not a film of Bigfoot. He acknowledges knowing Heironimus through Roger, but he also says he never spoke with Roger between the book and the film. He also tells Dahinden that he is not supposed to tell where the film was developed.

If Roger had come back empty handed Al would have kept his wallet closed.

Excellent. Then Al has no reason whatsoever to open his wallet for Roger in NorCal for three entire weeks, no reason for him open his wallet to charter a plane in a storm night flight, no reason for him to open his wallet to open a 16mm film developement lab for operation on a Saturday when there is no conceivable need for such a rush and expense. 0_o

As they would have said in NY "Timeline Shimineline who cares there's no way to prove or disprove the timeline. Show us a sworn affidavit by the person who developed it and maybe that will have some legs. Also show us proof as in hard evidence that Al tole Rene to keep quiet about the developing. There are reasons way beyond hoaxing a bigfoot film why the developer would need to be kept out of the picture. Figure it out some of its been alluded to already.

Yes. Porno. Fine entertainment. The story, I mean, not the porno. I would love for you to run through the scenario over how any of it makes sense. Let's start with why anyone should fear to lose their job. A porno house developed some non-porno? Gads!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

"Of course, Green recalling particulars of a camera used are not the same as any of the pricipals admitting hoaxing, but let's roll with that."

You are missing the point. I don't take testimony alone at face value, from anyone connected to the PGf or the peripheral issues.

Quote (mine)

If anybody wants to confess to the PGF being a hoax, they'd sure better be able to explain how it was done, and that explanation should be corroborated by the factual data in the film.

Just out of curiosity and speaking hypothetically, if Patty Patterson were to admit a hoax, should she have to know exactly how it was done? If so, why?

Well; I had some nice conversations with Patricia in the last few weeks, and I really doubt that any hoax admission is coming from her LOL!. So imagining she would, and what she'd say, is so far out into Hypothetical land, that I won't go there. I will only generalize and say if anyone claims they know the film is a hoax, I will want to know how they know that. I will judge their claim based on their description of how they knew or determined the film was a hoax. If someone claims the film's a hoax, but don't know how the hoax was done, how do they know it really is such a hoax? Something would have to convince them. I'd want to evaluate what that "something" was.

Quote (mine)

So far, Patterson's and Gimlin's recollections are corroborated, as much as the film analysis shows, and there's more I haven't published on this (work in progress) that further substantiates their recollections.

"Excellent. You've established more than one look back then? And you've established Patterson bailed and filmed from his elbows and stomach? You've established that Patterson was running like hell, jumping logs, and going up into real thick brush? You've established that Patty started running while still in sight?"

Kit, I never said I established everything they said. I published the comparison of film analysis and an interview with Roger and Bob G in my report. That's the comparison I'm referring to. That's the "As much as the film analysis shows" part of my remark. The film doesn't show the things you mentioned above, so no, it doesn't corroborate those specific claims by Roger.

Quote (mine)

Bob Heironimous's recollection (and Phil Morris' too) just isn't corroborated by the PGF, as far as I'm concerned, so I find their testimony lacking in credibility.

"Are the plaster pour scenes no consistent with the beginning of October? Is the foliage in the Patty scene not inconsistent with late October? The PGF shows a subject with a subducting thigh line, a diaper butt, a head shaped like an oldtime, what looks just like football shoulder pads, and in a cibachrome I clearly made out what looks exactly like a glass eye, so I definitely disagree."

The plaster pour scene is more likely a demo plaster casting film, not a Bluff Creek filming. Could have been any time, as no indicators of season are apparent. There could be plaster pouring footage from Bluff Creek too, but I don't think we've seen it. The thigh doesn't subduct. I disagree with you there. The butt is a bit lumpy, but so are real butts of people with cellulite, and Patty's not a spring chicken. The football shoulder pad thing is a joke claim, as far as i'm concerned, and i sure hope you get to put such pads into a suit and see for yourself. The glass eye thing you see in the cibachrome is a speck of something on the print or transparancy. It's not in the 4x5 transparancy from the true camera original of that frame, and that's one generation better than the cibachrome print you reference.

Kit, bottom line, regardless of what everybody has said over the last 43 years, and what anybody is telling you now, Patty's no hoax. She's a real mystery.

:)

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

I thought it was established that the gleam in Patty's right eye was an artifact. Bill has offered PROOF that this is so, yet Kit tosses it out there as if it has not been proven.

Kit, you use the words "proof" and "prove" casually and often when describing what you say you have acquired in your quest to debunk the PGF. Yet when something that IS proven as fact is offered, you dismiss it as completely unimportant, which leads me to question your understanding of the word "proof".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...