Jump to content
TD-40

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.

Recommended Posts

Guest DWA

I would appreciate if you would make predictions substantiated by evidence.  But not seeing that soon, are we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I would appreciate if you would make predictions substantiated by evidence.  But not seeing that soon, are we." - DWA

 

 

Sure, here is one for you: I predict that over the next calendar year there will be more Bigfoot hoaxes than there will be actual Bigfoots discovered. This is substantiated by this simple fact: Number of Bigfoot hoaxes to date, more than 1; Number of Bigfoots discovered to date, ZERO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Yeah, but that has about the same value in terms of this discussion as my prediction that cotton candy sales will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Why were they successful that day?     I think it was Billy the Kid or one of those people who when ask 'why do you rob banks?' replied, "WELL THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY IS."     I have always understood Roger and Bob went to an area where there had been footprints for some time over that area.   It is harder to see an animal in the deep woods vs the backdrop of grey river bed soil.  Animals have to drink water at some point.   And when they approached there were two things in their favor:  1)   Running water makes noise  2) There was an area of masses of fallen trees and roots and branches that shielded them until they were right on the creature.

 

They went where the money was and got the money shot.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I would appreciate if you would make predictions substantiated by evidence.  But not seeing that soon, are we." - DWA

 

 

Sure, here is one for you: I predict that over the next calendar year there will be more Bigfoot hoaxes than there will be actual Bigfoots discovered. This is substantiated by this simple fact: Number of Bigfoot hoaxes to date, more than 1; Number of Bigfoots discovered to date, ZERO.

 

And I predict that skeptics will continue to lurk on Bigfoot forums and claim that the P/G film is a hoax while still not divulging a shred of evidence as to how it was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I think perhaps our disconnect, Bigfoothunter, is that I am not commenting on the PGF specifically. I have stated my opinion on it elsewhere in more than one thread. I don't have any real opinion on it. I look at it and it looks fake and does not engage me. I don't need to go much deeper than thought to have , what I have freely described as a "gut reaction".  This does not dismiss the work done by folks like Bill Munns. It just simply is what it is--my personal feeling when I look at the PGF. That is where I leave any discussion on Patty and the film. My comments, to date, in this thread were about Bigfoot the creature, not the PGF or any details around that event. 

 

 

That is fine ... its on record that you just have a gut feeling that it is fake ... that you do not know how the deep tracks in the ground were made by a mere man wearing a fake monkey suit ... that you just simply rely on your personal feelings when you look at the PGF. I already knew why you were not addressing these tough questions ... I just wanted you to say it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Why were they successful that day?     I think it was Billy the Kid or one of those people who when ask 'why do you rob banks?' replied, "WELL THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY IS."     I have always understood Roger and Bob went to an area where there had been footprints for some time over that area.   It is harder to see an animal in the deep woods vs the backdrop of grey river bed soil.  Animals have to drink water at some point.   And when they approached there were two things in their favor:  1)   Running water makes noise  2) There was an area of masses of fallen trees and roots and branches that shielded them until they were right on the creature.

 

They went where the money was and got the money shot.

 

Backdoc

 

 

Or...

 

They went where the Monkey was and got the 'Monkey shot'... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

^^ @DWA, just because you are uncomfortable with minds bending spoons does not give you the right to dismiss the evidence as not compelling. Are you afraid of minds that can bend cutlery? ;)    

See?  You don't get what I do; I get what you do.

 

I didn't say I dismissed it.  I don't dismiss ghosts; mummies walking at night; dragons; or unicorns.

 

I am always open to being shown the evidence.  If you can't, I will wait for someone who can.

 

Bend a spoon with your mind for me and I'm down.  After I decide that the evidence points to your having done it that way.  Show me video of a mummy walking at night and I'm down.  After I decide that that isn't some guy you know or hired wearing way too much tape; all other possibilities are pretty much ruled out; and that mummy walks right onto an operating table where a team of Egyptologists goes:  yep, walking mummy here.

 

It's a close-minded stance to do anything - and I mean ANYTHING - else.  No one on a bigfoot board should be saying "this is nonsense" to anything.  Except that the Patterson-Gimlin film was faked.  We'll allow that.  ;-)

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

^^ @DWA, just because you are uncomfortable with minds bending spoons does not give you the right to dismiss the evidence as not compelling. Are you afraid of minds that can bend cutlery? ;)    

See?  You don't get what I do; I get what you do.

 

I didn't say I dismissed it.  I don't dismiss ghosts; mummies walking at night; dragons; or unicorns.

 

I am always open to being shown the evidence.  If you can't, I will wait for someone who can.

 

 

Until recently I have never heard of anyone constantly posting that the P/G film was a hoax while at the same time saying, "I don't have any real opinion on it. I look at it and it looks fake and does not engage me. I don't need to go much deeper than thought to have , what I have freely described as a "gut reaction"."

 

Maybe such approaches go hand in hand with repeatedly having to correct a skeptic who misstates what someone has said as it is true - you didn't say that you dismissed anything. I know when I first heard of the allegations leveled against Green and Dahinden that they conspired to hide a murder of a family of Sasquatch that my gut told me that something didn't make sense, but rather than to just say it is nonsense, I investigated the evidence because if I was going to offer an opinion, then I had an obligation to know the facts to see if any of the allegations against these men had any merit. It was my investigation that lead me to write 'The Massacre in Bluff Creek'. I plan on using dmaker's response in all my future public talks on the topic of the Sasquatch.

 

I learned long ago an important rule when it comes to opinions and I think it should be shared again ....

 

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.†Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Can we all agree on one thing:   The Patterson Gimlin Film is either a Hoax (a film of someone trying to fool us into thinking the subject matter is a bigfoot) or it is a video of some-as yet unknown animal of some sort that is NOT a man in a suit)  It MUST be one or the other.  Can we at least agree on that?  I find those trying to explain the film jump through more hoops of reason to make the case the video is fake vs those who think it could be real.    To believe it is fake they start making excuses for arm length "Maybe they used extenders" to foot mvts, "Well maybe they used a soft flexible foot" and so on.  

 

They stumbled upon a Rare Bigfoot the way it would likely be found if it was real:

1-   near water on an open area otherwise they would not see it

2- the went to an area where signs had been for a few years

3- they caught bigfoot by a noisy creek 

4- they came upon him while shielded by wooden debris

5- They had to scamble to get the shot with reactions being far from a calm reaction that seems normal

 

Those who dismiss the PG film go to great lengths of disbelief to disbelieve it.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

For the record, the comment I made about DWA being afraid of mind bending spoons was tongue in cheek. It was meant to be a humorous parody of his accusing me of dismissing BF simply because I am afraid of the truth.  It really didn't require any analysis of any sort.  I thought that would be obvious, but I guess tone is difficult to convey in writing sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

It was meant to be a humorous parody of his accusing me of dismissing BF simply because I am afraid of the truth.

 

:)    Funny ... being concerned whether someone gets your 'humorous parody' on a BF forum engages you, but helping answer questions how the P/G film and the evidence left on the sandbar could have been faked on a BF forum doesn't engage you. I really think we got it.

 

dmaker: "I don't have any real opinion on it. I look at it and it looks fake and does not engage me. I don't need to go much deeper than thought to have , what I have freely described as a "gut reaction"."

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Is your new hobby picking apart everything I say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Bigfoothunter, I'm not sure what you think you get, or why you seem so shocked that I do not wish to discuss the minutiae of the PGF. I have said it several times in several threads that I don't give a whit about Patty. So how can you be surprised that I do not wish to help you solve the mysteries of the sandbar? That baffles me. 

 

And I fully understand that my position on Patty is based solely on my perception, and is therefore a gut reaction opinion. I don't talk about Patty much. I don't debate the details with anyone here, never have, never will. I don't challenge the work of folks like Mr.Munns. I have not looked at it that closely, because in my opinion, it does not warrant a closer look. But like I said, I understand that is just my opinion and should not sway anyone else. Nor is it intended to.  

 

I don't think the PGF is some sort of rite of passage that everyone has to engage on. Whether you like it, I am allowed to say that my opinion of it is that it is fake, and leave it at that. Just like plenty of people look at it and say, yep that's a Bigfoot, and leave it at that. They are also allowed to do just that. i don't pass myself off as an expert on the PGF. I just say it looks fake and I leave it that and rarely, if ever, talk about it. I'm sorry if that irritates you, but people are allowed to have an opinion on something even if they have not dissected every little aspect of that something.  Especially when I am not pretending that it is anything more than an opinion based on my gut reaction.

 

Not sure why that seems to shock or baffle you so much.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Is your new hobby picking apart everything I say?

 

Just the things you say that are contradictory to other things you have posted or mischaracterizations of things others have said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...