Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Guest OntarioSquatch

IMO, the burden of proof is anyone who takes a firm stance on its authenticity. It doesn't matter what side they are on :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the burden of proof is anyone who takes a firm stance on its authenticity. It doesn't matter what side they are on :)

I can go with that.  I have often said:  EVERY claim in a scientific discussion must be backed by evidence to be taken seriously.

 

Which is why Pattyfake can't.  The proponents, while not proving it (yet), have provided copious evidence, and are way ahead on points.

 

My stress is on the skeptics here because unlike the proponents, they don't seem to get this.

 

Nope...you claim it you prove it...

Well, that's what I said.

 

You claim it's fake...you prove it's fake.

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

That's what I was just thinkin', DWA.  The proof is in the puddin'.  The PGf has puddin', the PGf detractors no has puddin'.  :B

 

post-131-0-23989200-1369880106.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
slabdog

Notice:

Certain posts have been deleted based on rules violations.

We still have some cleaning up to do based on responses to the original post.

In the mean time, NO personal attacks, trolling or antisocial behavior will be tolerated from either side of the debate.

Don't respond in kind.

Use the report button.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

I said this before and I'll say it again: My evidence was when I looked Bob Gimlin in the eye and briefly discussed what happened that day in 1967. I can sense when someone is being dishonest, as long as I can look them in the eye and observe the host of other nonverbal cues they present while rendering a story. In my professional opinion, Bob Gimlin is being honest. Yes, there's a possibility he was duped as well, but I would think an on-sight witness would know if he was looking at a person in a suit.  Just my 2 cents.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

It just seems to me that which is made by man (bob and roger) should be able to be reproduced by man. [ Reasons to consider it real] is our topic.  I submit when someone film an event and claims it really happened (before man even landed on the moon mind you) and they film it we must consider the known varibles and fact in 1967.  Thus, please show me using 1967 film, camera, and ape suit tech a very close repo of the PG film.  When you cannot,  When those attempts have failed (See BBC X creatures disaster) then one could conclude it is real until proven otherwise.  That is, we have the story and we have the film.  That much we have.  Where is even a 2013 close Repo of the PG film.  The BBC x creatures used suit stuff that did not even exist in 1967.  They still could not pull it off.  And the walk - not even close.   AT this time I am not even asking for those doing the Repo to also include a section of footprints in the same with a mid tarsal break and many with a 41-42" heel distance foot to foot on the stride.  i am asking for little.  Thus, other than saying - IT HAS TO BE FAKE-  prove it in the way I am suggesting.  That is the reason alone to consider leaning toward the idea of [Reasons to consider it real].

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

We've been asking the same thing here for many years, Backdoc.  I don't know of any fake BF which could not be replicated to at least some degree of accuracy.  Instead, we get responses like 'No one ever really tried' and, we get these for comparison (for which there is none):

 

post-131-0-60634100-1369885818_thumb.jpg

(part credit to SweatyYeti)

 

Good $.02, Aaron.

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

We've been asking the same thing here for many years, Backdoc.  I don't know of any fake BF which could not be replicated to at least some degree of accuracy.  Instead, we get responses like 'No one ever really tried' and, we get these:

 

attachicon.gif9Remnants.jpg

(part credit to SweatyYeti)

 

Good $.02, Aaron.

 Your point is brilliant.  I think you PIC illustrates our point pretty well.  Once again the response by the Skeptics will be #1)  We don't to prove anything it is Roger and Bob that have the proving to do  #2) If hollywood's best really tried they could do it but it so obviously a fake why would they need to?    Both responses are not addressing the demonstrative fact that 2 cowboys could do what no one has done since 1967.   You example is Brilliant.  I think our collective point is a pretty good one.  You will see in that it will be dismissed and strongly attacked.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I find it ridiculous for some to say that Roger and Bob had the burden to prove what they did by encountering a Sasquatch, when they did in fact proved it when they filmed it, which is all they could do unless they shot and killed the darn thing.

 

They then filmed the trackway and cast two of the best prints. Patterson called for a tracking dog to be brought down so to try and track the animal. The film is their proof that what they say occurred did in fact happen. They didn't attempt to conceal the film site from anyone. The site remained intact for any and all to go there and see the evidence for themselves, which was the case for those who bothered to go find it. If someone is to claim they faked their experience, then it is without a doubt in my view that the accuser of fakery bares the burden of proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No question.

 

It has been said that if you want to fake something, and pull it off, pay close attention to what Patterson and Gimlin did.

 

Because YOU DO NOT WANT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, TO DO ANY OF IT.



In all other situations, the person who calls "liar!  Faker!  Hoaxer! On drugs!  Mistaken!"  has to prove that.

 

Here too, buddy. 

 

In all other situations, if there is no particularly good reason to doubt the witness, we don't.

 

In that light, response to the Patterson film amounts to a psychotic episode on the part of mainstream science.  And they've never found the meds for that.

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the believer camp (former member) has wrapped the whole PGF sequence of events up into a nice convenient package, and are hoping an ongoing study of the film is going to put a nice little bow on the top. All other evidence regarding the film is to be ignored. Kit pretty much proved that the entire backstory is full of holes. And he did a good job of laying out his arguments. Of course, most just piled on, and chose to ignore his findings. But just the work he did on Patterson's beard growth was enough to taint the whole 'story'. Not to mention the bent stirrup. And where is the other reel? Bet that has some interesting footage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

summitwalker wrote:

 

Of course, most just piled on, and chose to ignore his findings.

 

 

 

I can ignore his words.....talk is cheap.

 

Show us the 'Patty suit', or a 'Patty-like' suit.  That's not so cheap, and easy a thing to accomplish. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really. 

 

The proponents?  Gotta have the body, and because they didn't have one by 1800 they're full of it.

 

The 'skeptics'?  All they have to do is talk and the fake is proven.  45 years, nothing but talk...and who needs proof when one can redline the BS meter for 45 freakin years...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Kit pretty much proved that the entire backstory is full of holes. And he did a good job of laying out his arguments. Of course, most just piled on, and chose to ignore his findings. But just the work he did on Patterson's beard growth was enough to taint the whole 'story'. Not to mention the bent stirrup. And where is the other reel? Bet that has some interesting footage. 

 

No one ignored Kit's findings ... did you not read the threads? I recall Kit once saying that even if Bob H wasn't on the P/G film that he (Kit) would just figure that Bob H got another time he wore the suit while Roger filmed him mixed up with the Bluff Creek footage. Maybe people started ignoring him after that ridiculous statement was made ... if so ... could anyone blame them! Did you read Long's book? Bob H said he only wore the suit twice ... once for a fitting at Roger's and again for the B/G film, thus there were no other times for Bob H to have confused the P/G film with another wearing of the suit that Roger filmed him with.

 

The beard foolishness he came up with was because he didn't apply the effects of Kodachrome II film when it came to direct sunlight and its effects when it came to the angle at which Roger's face was seen.

 

And what about the bent stirrup that Kit was supposed to show? That Gimlin didn't recall it after four decades while ignoring Al Hodgson mentioning seeing it every time he spoke about the evening that Roger and Bob showed up at Al's Hardware store.

 

And what about that second roll of film .... it wasn't hidden from anyone as it was shown on Sunday in front of several witnesses. Kit offered no statements of Roger every denying anyone the right to see it ... just rumor and innuendo is all we got from the guy and later others who also don't have any information to substantiate the allegations Kit was famous for. Feel free to add anything that you can substantiate as I'm open to hearing it.

 

Thanks!

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...