Jump to content

Dfoot's Theories On The Pgf As A Hoax


Guest Theagenes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest OntarioSquatch

Something that mystifies me, is the number of PGF skeptics who happen to be hoaxers :blink:. Blevins and Biscardi are prime examples. I don't know if Dfoot fits into that category, but some of his stuff sounds a little fishy.

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dfoot got banned from BFF 1.0 for hoaxing some photos and doctoring some images. Whatever it took to advance his "Patty suit" theory. He called his hoax a "psychological experiment", kinda like what I think the Elbe trackway was intended to be. But the trick is not to get caught before revealing the hoax, otherwise, you are just a stinking hoaxer trying to cover your arse. That's probably why the Elbe hoaxer ain't (officially) fessing up. Best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that mystifies me, is the number of PGF skeptics who happen to be hoaxers :blink:. Blevins and Biscardi are prime examples. I don't know if Dfoot fits into that category, but some of his stuff sounds a little fishy.

It's also quite curious how many proponents appear to be hoaxers as well. Probably more proponents than skeptics laying out fake evidence if you really think about it. Are you limiting your scope to PGF skeptics, or referring to those who don't believe in bigfoot in general as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theagenes

Dfoot got banned from BFF 1.0 for hoaxing some photos and doctoring some images. Whatever it took to advance his "Patty suit" theory. He called his hoax a "psychological experiment", kinda like what I think the Elbe trackway was intended to be. But the trick is not to get caught before revealing the hoax, otherwise, you are just a stinking hoaxer trying to cover your arse. That's probably why the Elbe hoaxer ain't (officially) fessing up. Best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point.

Interesting. What did he do exactly that was "hoaxing"? I've seen this mentioned a couple of times, but no one ever discusses the details. I've tried searching in the archives in the premium section but I didn't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

Are you limiting your scope to PGF skeptics, or referring to those who don't believe in bigfoot in general as well?

Just those who have dedicated themselves to the PGF. If we're talking PGF proponents who hoax, I can't think of many, but M.K Davis does come to mind, lol.

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did he do exactly that was "hoaxing"?

Maybe someone else can give a better idea, but one thing that I heard was that there was the standard argument that nothing could ever be as good as Patty, not even a new photo of a real sasquatch. Meaning that Patty had risen to a level above simply authentic, but had achieved some higher, almost worship level. So as I understand it, he created a new photo, one with a new background somewhere other than Bluff Creek, and imposed the image of Patty extracted from a frame of the PGF. Again, the way I heard the story, it was decried as a fake because the subject didn't look anything like Patty, didn't look like a real sasquatch, and looked like a hoax. The conclusion was that even Patty didn't look like Patty, which supposedly proved the above mentioned point. Proponents felt tricked and betrayed, and Dfoot got banned.

This may not be an accurate summary of the situation, but that's pretty much the way I heard it. Anyone else who has a more accurate version please chime in and set the record straighter.

M.K Davis does come to mind, lol.

LOL, is that regarding exaggerations on the PGF, or the seemingly unending new videos that keep coming down the pipeline as authentic bigfoots running through the woods, hopping fences, wearing pants and boots...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Interesting that you "heard" it that way. You can access the archives, can't you? Dfoot certainly thought the same way as you ..hmm.. anywho, Dfoot was convinced that no one would accept his suit as matching Patty's standards so he concocted his hoax to "teach the Pattycakes a lesson".

Dfoot pieced together a Franken-Patty from a few frames of the PGF, which he distorted and inserted into an urban background. Then he claimed it was the suit he was working on. The trap was set. The 1st problem was, however, that his Franken-Patty looked nothing like Patty. So when enough members noted the differences, he was supposedly going to confess and "I told you so" that the Pattycakes didn't even think Patty looked like Patty. Problem 2 was an astute poster did recognize some pieces of Patty and the jig was up before he could come clean. Then he got banned for hoaxing. But he was building up to getting banned anyway from shear frustration that he was unable to debunk the PGF. At the end he thought he saw all kinds of suit flaws too.

Dfoot's hoaxed image on the left.

PattyDfootComp.gif

Dfoot thought that if the Pattycakes couldn't recognize Patty's legs on his hoaxed image, then he had proved his point. legs.gif

My comment back then was that his suit legs looked a bit thin. Dfoot claimed this was PROOF that no one would accept his suit as being comparable to Patty..even when it actually was Patty..sort of! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theagenes

So he wasn't really a hoaxer then. He basically just played a trick on the people here to try and prove a point. Maybe that was kind of a crappy thing to do and sort of entrapment, but it wasn't hoaxing. Yet everyone here continues to refer to him as a hoaxer as a way of implying that he isn't credible and his theories about the PGF should be disregarded and ignored. Wow.

Maybe he was right about the PGF, maybe he wasn't, but he's professional in the film industry with access to some of the top creature guys in the business and his opinions are absolutely worth serious consideration. But instead it seems like a lot of effort is spent in trying to to pretend he never existed. He's just some stunt guy who tried to make a suit but but got caught hoaxing, right?. Pay no attention to him.

He must have hit a little too close to the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theageness, Depends on your definition I reckon ? His work speaks for itself, interestin' stuff sure, but in my opinion, just my opinion mind you, from what I've seen, from how much work he did, with his know how an knowledge, I think he may have simply realized he couldn't do it. If someone is determined to prove the filmed subject is a hoax by recreatin' a suit comparable...gettin' shunned by the BFF wouldn't likely stop them...would it ? Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dfoot never got the opportunity to confess what his intentions were so his prank was classified as a hoax. You can call it whatever you like. It certainly wasn't a good idea. It was his doctoring of images, however, that I considered the most misleading & deceitful, as gigantor would say.

And who is dismissing him because he pulled a prank? He has some classic threads in the BFF archives. He eventually got frustrated because he couldn't nail down the PGF connection to Hollywood and he couldn't deliver his suit. He shot himself in the foot instead.

IMO, the only reason he pulled his "prank" is because he was insecure whether his suit would pass muster. I think he ran into major problems when it came time to add the outer-suit. Dfoot reminded me of Kit, actually. Except as Dfoot got more and more obsessed about debunking the PGF, he pushed it too far. I think they both experienced debunker burn out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theagenes

Pat, you and roguefooter and a couple of others are clearly open-minded and willing to consider opinions different than your own, but that is unfortunately not the norm. With some people here it's like talking to a brick wall. So yes I can see him get frustrated and saying "what's the point in putting in all this work" if no matter what he does most proponents will refuse to acknowledge it. I can see that leading to him doing what he did. It was a jerk move, but it sounds like he had given up and was trying to show the most hardline proponents how their bias might be clouding their judgement.

And it worked to some degree right? You had a number of people proclaiming the real Patty to be a fake when he took her image and put her in another setting. I think it was unfair to some degree because he manipulated the image so much, but still it was Patty. We all have biases---so we have to be aware of them and do our best to not let them cloud our judgement. Did anyone react to this with introspection and conclude something, "Well Dfoot is a jerk for doing that, but maybe he has a point"? Did anyone recognize that their unconscious bias led them to draw conclusions without fairly assessing what they were seeing? It doesn't sound like it. Instead he was banned and his character called into question and a form of informal damnatio memorium was put in place.

Maybe there's still a lesson to be learned there though, for both skeptics and proponents.

And who is dismissing him because he pulled a prank?

Who indeed:

Dfoot got banned from BFF 1.0 for hoaxing some photos and doctoring some images. Whatever it took to advance his "Patty suit" theory. He called his hoax a "psychological experiment", kinda like what I think the Elbe trackway was intended to be. But the trick is not to get caught before revealing the hoax, otherwise, you are just a stinking hoaxer trying to cover your arse. That's probably why the Elbe hoaxer ain't (officially) fessing up. Best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point.

But don't worry you're not alone. I've seen quite a few people say similar things in a number of threads here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's why he was banned. I seem to remember he continued to post after that. He was making some over-the-top remarks that could have prompted action for libel and I think Paul had had enougb of it. Dfoot joined JREF where he could preach to the choir.

Is anyone in touch with Paul? We could ask.

There was another poster who was banned for a hoax - Robo something? Hoaxing on BFF1 got a permanent lifetime ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dfoot got banned from BFF 1.0 for hoaxing some photos and doctoring some images. Whatever it took to advance his "Patty suit" theory. He called his hoax a "psychological experiment", kinda like what I think the Elbe trackway was intended to be. But the trick is not to get caught before revealing the hoax, otherwise, you are just a stinking hoaxer trying to cover your arse. That's probably why the Elbe hoaxer ain't (officially) fessing up. Best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point.

Since you mentioned it there's an update article on the Elbe hoaxer in the new Bigfoot Times, explaining how matching email headers exposed the hoaxer. Not much room for denial there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, you and roguefooter and a couple of others are clearly open-minded and willing to consider opinions different than your own, but that is unfortunately not the norm. With some people here it's like talking to a brick wall. So yes I can see him get frustrated and saying "what's the point in putting in all this work" if no matter what he does most proponents will refuse to acknowledge it. I can see that leading to him doing what he did. It was a jerk move, but it sounds like he had given up and was trying to show the most hardline proponents how their bias might be clouding their judgement.

I guess we'll never know, unless YOU are Dfoot or his disciple. You certainly have empathy for him for someone that apparently hasn't read his manifesto.

And it worked to some degree right? You had a number of people proclaiming the real Patty to be a fake when he took her image and put her in another setting. I think it was unfair to some degree because he manipulated the image so much, but still it was Patty. We all have biases---so we have to be aware of them and do our best to not let them cloud our judgement. Did anyone react to this with introspection and conclude something, "Well Dfoot is a jerk for doing that, but maybe he has a point"? Did anyone recognize that their unconscious bias led them to draw conclusions without fairly assessing what they were seeing? It doesn't sound like it. Instead he was banned and his character called into question and a form of informal damnatio memorium was put in place.

No, Dfoot's prank failed on every level. The only critisims Dfoot got were directed towards his manipulations, not the Patty parts. Naturally his critics complained about the parts which were "unlike" Patty, the manipulations. We'll never know how unreasonable the proponents would have been with his real suit.

Maybe there's still a lesson to be learned there though, for both skeptics and proponents.

What, that a sucker is born every minute?

Who indeed:

But don't worry you're not alone. I've seen quite a few people say similar things in a number of threads here.

Exqueeze me? I never mentioned in your bolding whether I dismissed Dfoot's work. I just told you why I thought he got banned and when a prank becomes a hoax. Both involve deception intended to make a monkey out of the proponents. Lesson my arse.

Come to think of it, I think LAL is correct that he got banned for his tirades, some of which bordered on libellous, IMO. His failed "prank" was probably strike 2 tho.

His work that I did dismiss, however, was when he falsified data. Dfoot was a HUGE Bob H advocate. He was convinced that Bob H was the guy in the suit. When no one could make Bob's images fit into the Patty suit he stretched them to make him fit. What drove him nuts, however, was that he created a foam undersuit that Bob H would have recalled putting on & wearing. Bob H described a different suit than he was creating.

I also suspect that Dfoot stretched his own images in his undersuit to give himself more girth. IMO, this is why we got small B/W single frames of his undersuit derived from video. That way he could edit each frame so we had to recompile them into the choppy clips you've seen. Lots of frames missing too. Why split a video into frames? To edit them of course..to match the PGF..ya that's it.

I don't think doctoring images is the worst thing in the world, but bad enough for me to reject your work. But even though I didn't trust Dfoot's images (and there were many) that doesn't mean I rejected everything Dfoot posted. I suspect you are reading my posts with the bias of a Dfoot apologist. Do yourself a favour and read the BFF archives and his old posts. Then judge for yourself instead of reading between the lines.

Since you mentioned it there's an update article on the Elbe hoaxer in the new Bigfoot Times, explaining how matching email headers exposed the hoaxer. Not much room for denial there.

I don't recall there ever really being much denial.

I wonder if Kit intended to use the "Elbe Experiment" in his documentary, then it blowed up good, and drove him out of the biz? Otherwise, why give up years of effort with the brass ring in sight? It wasn't for a dream job. What happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you mentioned it there's an update article on the Elbe hoaxer in the new Bigfoot Times, explaining how matching email headers exposed the hoaxer. Not much room for denial there.

Can you post the article? Did he also make additional unsubstantiated claims like he did in the first article, like license plates being called in to the police? No end to the comedy I suppose.

I guess we'll never know, unless YOU are Dfoot or his disciple. You certainly have empathy for him for someone that apparently hasn't read his manifesto.

What, that a sucker is born every minute?

I never mentioned in your bolding whether I dismissed Dfoot's work. I just told you why I thought he got banned and when a prank becomes a hoax. Both involve deception intended to make a monkey out of the proponents.

His work that I did dismiss, however, was when he falsified data.

When no one could make Bob's images fit into the Patty suit he stretched them to make him fit. What drove him nuts, however, was that he created a foam undersuit that Bob H would have recalled putting on & wearing. Bob H described a different suit than he was creating.

I also suspect that Dfoot stretched his own images in his undersuit to give himself more girth. IMO, this is why we got small B/W single frames of his undersuit derived from video. That way he could edit each frame so we had to recompile them into the choppy clips you've seen. Lots of frames missing too. Why split a video into frames? To edit them of course..to match the PGF..ya that's it.

Sounds like a lot of paranoia and bitterness. When you consider the fact that Patterson was likely the most cunning and successful hoaxer of all, who didn't just do it for fun, or a lesson, or any of that, but rather for money, yet he is revered as a hero, and Dfoot is disdained for trying to shed light on the hoax any way he could crack the nuts, it's wacky. As we all know, Bill is working hard to go get access to the Patty suit in Yakima, and when he does, the jig will be up. Bill's reputation will be ruined, of course, and he'll be the new bad guy to burn because he popped the Patty balloon. I guess that'd make anyone shy of getting that job done, eh? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...