Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Well, one can enlighten oneself anytime one gets the opp.

 

You were a believer once?  Well, once a believer always a believer.  You just did a 180 on what you believe in.

 

Evidence is more fun, says me.



Kit, love ya man, but yer elevatin' BS to unheard-of levels and smells.  And I mean I say that with all respect.  I mean artiste.  The Dali of this board.

 

But in terms of the evidence, about as relevant as Dali.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

That's touching, please describe how the evidence in building. Seems to me there isn't a single molecule of evidence, if there is, why does mainstream science not seem to care?

 

Maybe they have weak guts that prevent them from looking at all the evidence?      :gaming:     Should I shake up the ol' possibility box and get another one out of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton

 

 

That's touching, please describe how the evidence in building. Seems to me there isn't a single molecule of evidence, if there is, why does mainstream science not seem to care?

 

Maybe they have weak guts that prevent them from looking at all the evidence?      :gaming:     Should I shake up the ol' possibility box and get another one out of it?

 

BFH - It's funny - I was chatting to an emeritus professor of paleo-ecology the other day ( a very distinguished person with a publications list as long as your arm) and, when he was recounting stories of his PhD days in the late 60s, he started our discussion with the phrase 'back when I thought that research was all about the noble pursuit of advancing science'. I really do think that many folks have this somewhat rosy-tinted view of science as a host of perfect beings all striving for the ultimate truth. I'm afraid that science don't work like that: scientists chase publications (=££ or $$) and will thus follow any line of topical research likely to benefit them at any given time. To me this makes bods such as Krantz and Meldrum all the more admirable because at least they were/are willing to stick their necks out and pursue lines of enquiry that others are wont to steer well clear of for professional reasons.

 

SW - You might wish to ask yourself again why 'mainstream' science wishes not to investigate this issue. 

 

As for the evidence building...are you really paying that little attention?

Edited by Stan Norton
to eliminate language violations
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

Sweati:

 

All I can say is that Kit described the event. I think he was truthful, because of some details I won't disclose (like who was on the other end of the phone), but for the record, all I have is his word.

 

Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

 

Bill

 

 

 

Thanks for your answer,  Bill... :) ....and, for including some additional information on how you have determined "with certainty" that there is some type of 'monkey suit' in Al's home.

 

To me, it doesn't sound like an 'absolute certainty', that there is even a suit there. Because, as an analogy....if someone were to see a Sasquatch at very close range, they probably wouldn't say..."I think Bigfoot exists".....instead, they'd be much more likely to say "I know Bigfoot exists....I've seen one". 

 

 

I plan on posting more about kitakaze's 'statements/words', regarding this claim of his, in the Premium Section of the Forum....where I can speak more freely. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweati:

 

All I can say is that when you spend 4 1/2 hours talking with a person, you do get a sense of whether or not the person is playing you or being sincere. You get a sense of whether they're being honest or deceitful, letting it all hang out or holding back.

 

My opinion is Kit was honest with me in that conversation. I realize you can only judge him by his postings in the forum, and so you see him differently, and you form your opinion on that basis.

 

I am sufficiently confident there's something in Al's place to see, evaluate and document, that if I can get the funds to go there, and if I can get official permission to see the thing, I will make the effort. But I won't try to see it or get in through any type of deception or manipulation.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But Bill, since you believe the PGF to be the real deal, whatever "suit" is wherever, you don't believe it to be anything but something else, yes?  Sorry, my conveying skills are suffering at the moment.

 

Aaron:

 

I'm sufficiently confident that Patty is biologically real and is not a costume of any kind that I would expect any suit or costume, if properly examined, would prove it's origin or use was something other than the PGF we know. I still hope to one day see what Al's got, and if a betting man, my money would be on either a replica for display purposes, or a promotional costume for the theatrical tour Al and Roger did.

 

The challenge is it's being examined by someone with sufficient knowledge to analyze the details of it, because the truth of what it is will be in those details. It's no big deal to make an excellent replica, given a source image. Bill Malone made perfect replicas of Robby the Robot  (From "Forbidden Planet") and I'd defy anybody to look at his and not think they were looking at the movie original. So if this thing actually does look like Patty, that just isn't enough to prove it "IS" Patty.

 

Sweati:

 

All I can say is that Kit described the event. I think he was truthful, because of some details I won't disclose (like who was on the other end of the phone), but for the record, all I have is his word. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

I'm curious. Do you know of any display replica or promotional costume associated with the showing of Patterson's documentary? Have you heard of such, or have seen photos of such? If I remember, you once thought it possible that Bob Heironimus was misremembering his time as Bigfoot; you thought he may have donned a suit, but it was a staged event for Patterson's documentary before Patterson was lucky enough to film a real Bigfoot. But, in your post you do not mention the possibility that it is this suit that is in DeAtley's home. Have you changed your mind?

 

And why do you say that it could be a close match for the creature in the film, yet cannot be the subject in the film? I'm assuming you are saying a human could not fit into it and/or it would not look natural in live action.

 

(Also, have you considered the employment of water bags sewn into the costume, as you try to recreate the creature yourself?)   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

A.  Nope, never heard about a replica display or promotional costume for the PGF, but saw more than my share of replica and promotional costumes in my years working with theme parks. Just hypothetical options to consider, in this case.

 

B. I still am exploring the idea Bob H. may have actually put on a costume and was filmed by Roger. Nothing new to report on that hypothetical though. Still looking for any potential evidence that might go one way or the other.

 

C. If Roger did have a suit, and Bob H wore it, yes, I would consider it possible Al's got it now. That could be another explaination for whatever Al's got. (Isn't the PGF because Patty isn't a costume or a fake, but it wouldn't surprize me if Roger did get a suit and film sonething with Bob H before he encountered Patty at Bluff Creek.

 

D. You are misunderstanding the replica thing. I'm saying people can and have made replicas which are mistaken for the original, simply because they are excellent replicas. Many people have mistaken my replica Creature From the Black Lagoon for the original. But I was 6 years old when the original came out, so I wasn't involved with the original, but people sometimes think I was because of the quality of my replica.

 

I may get a shot at actually trying to see how close one can get to Patty, if my documentary project gets the corporate sponsorship I'm exploring now. Will be interesting if I can.

 

E. I have tested some water bag/breasts so far and they were a total fail. I will continue to test other options of design.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I am sufficiently confident there's something in Al's place to see, evaluate and document, ...

Bill

I remember telling kit this years and years ago, but it's still availed us nothing to date. It will continue to elude us, probably long after Al is gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweati:

 

All I can say is that when you spend 4 1/2 hours talking with a person, you do get a sense of whether or not the person is playing you or being sincere. You get a sense of whether they're being honest or deceitful, letting it all hang out or holding back.

 

 

 

 

I do respect your impression of kitakaze's claims, Bill...after such a lengthy conversation. But....there is still that small possibility...(which I can't elaborate on, in this section of the Forum). :) 

 

 

Along that same line...one question that I've been meaning to ask you, is....have you ever had a lengthy, private conversation with Bob Gimlin....and, if so...what kind of impression did his verbal testimoniy make on you?? 

 

 

 

My opinion is Kit was honest with me in that conversation. I realize you can only judge him by his postings in the forum, and so you see him differently, and you form your opinion on that basis.

 

I am sufficiently confident there's something in Al's place to see, evaluate and document, that if I can get the funds to go there, and if I can get official permission to see the thing, I will make the effort. But I won't try to see it or get in through any type of deception or manipulation.

 

Bill

 

 

 

I've also based my thinking on this alleged suit on the original report of it, by Brent D. I see some self-contradictory statements in his written testimony.  And, since kitakaze's claim is closely-tied to Brent's claim....I have to question both of their accountings. 

 

I plan on posting more about this in the Premium Section.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I think it will change if Al passes away, because if (I'm not certain, but have some info suggesting) that his mansion becomes a state historical property, the public can request to see it all, including his office where the suit thing supposedly is.

 

But we won't know if that's for sure until his status in this mortal world changes.

 

Bill

 

Sweati:

 

Guess you were posting as I was writing.

 

All I really can say about Kit is that each person will make their own judgment as to his claim. I am not in a position now to prove anything, so I respect others who have a different opinion as to his claim.

 

I've only had one good private talk with Bob Gimlin, 4 years ago, over dinner, just the two of us, but we mostly talked about horses. I wasn't then prepared (in 2009) to really talk about the Bluff Creek event as I know it now, or even talk about what he and Roger did, before, during or after (which I know a lot more about now). And I don't try getting into a serious quality time in depth conversation with him over the phone, because I want it to be just us, face to face, totally private, and relaxed, and because some people have deceptively recorded Bob in phone conversations trying to trap him, I would expect him to be wary of even friends when talking on a phone. Next time I get up there, I'll do quality time with him,

 

But my impression of Bob Gimlin is that he's sincere in his description of his encounter with Patty.

 

Bill

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is another version of the 'hand shake' comparison....with Patty's image rotated, so that her back is vertical...

 

 

ManShakingHandswithPatty5_zps0b86ec16.jp

 

 

Note the difference in the vertical length from the forearm to the eyes. It's greater on Patty, because of the exceptional length of her upper-arm. 

 

It can't be due to 'over-scaling' of Patty's image...as her knees do not reach as low as the man's knees. 

 

 

I defy anybody to re-scale that image of Patty, such that her eyes, forearm, elbow, and knee all match-up with your 'average human'. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I think it will change if Al passes away, because if (I'm not certain, but have some info suggesting) that his mansion becomes a state historical property, the public can request to see it all, including his office where the suit thing supposedly is.

 

But we won't know if that's for sure until his status in this mortal world changes.

 

Bill

 

Sweati:

 

Guess you were posting as I was writing.

 

All I really can say about Kit is that each person will make their own judgment as to his claim. I am not in a position now to prove anything, so I respect others who have a different opinion as to his claim.

 

I've only had one good private talk with Bob Gimlin, 4 years ago, over dinner, just the two of us, but we mostly talked about horses. I wasn't then prepared (in 2009) to really talk about the Bluff Creek event as I know it now, or even talk about what he and Roger did, before, during or after (which I know a lot more about now). And I don't try getting into a serious quality time in depth conversation with him over the phone, because I want it to be just us, face to face, totally private, and relaxed, and because some people have deceptively recorded Bob in phone conversations trying to trap him, I would expect him to be wary of even friends when talking on a phone. Next time I get up there, I'll do quality time with him,

 

But my impression of Bob Gimlin is that he's sincere in his description of his encounter with Patty.

 

Bill

 

 

Thanks for your answer, on your conversations with Bob Gimlin, Bill. 

 

That's a good decision, not to get into a lengthy discussion on the encounter with him over the phone. A talk 'in person' would be a much better way to go. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Sweati:

All I can say is that when you spend 4 1/2 hours talking with a person, you do get a sense of whether or not the person is playing you or being sincere. You get a sense of whether they're being honest or deceitful, letting it all hang out or holding back.

My opinion is Kit was honest with me in that conversation. I realize you can only judge him by his postings in the forum, and so you see him differently, and you form your opinion on that basis.

I am sufficiently confident there's something in Al's place to see, evaluate and document, that if I can get the funds to go there, and if I can get official permission to see the thing, I will make the effort. But I won't try to see it or get in through any type of deception or manipulation.

Bill

I've still got you covered on transportation, hotel ect ...as previously discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

 

But my impression of Bob Gimlin is that he's sincere in his description of his encounter with Patty.

 

Bill

 

That was my take on him as well, Bill. And this was a little over a month ago. For me, the if/maybe/but....thing was cleared up; at least to the point I know Bob believes what he saw that day. And, Sweaty, from a one on one private conversation with Bob, he and I are on the same page as far as WHAT sasquatches really are--also to be discussed in the premium section :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

Thanks for your answer, on your conversations with Bob Gimlin, Bill. 

 

That's a good decision, not to get into a lengthy discussion on the encounter with him over the phone. A talk 'in person' would be a much better way to go. :)

 

 

I do not know if it still stands, but Gimlin has gone into details with me that he said he hadn't done in any interview before. We have talked at great length on several occasions. When talking to Bob .... instead of just posing a question ... ask him to walk through a chronological accounting of that trip from first planning the Mount St. Helens trip through their leaving Bluff Creek as a lot more information will come out that way. If he jumps ahead on a point .... go back and then ask to continue step by step and you'll be glad you did it that way. Then go back and ask specific questions that you may still have.

 

Unbeknown to Gimlin, I heard things he said that fit perfectly with the timing I got from people like Hodgson, Green, and etc. For instance ... by having spoken to all these people in detail and finding out what each one had personal knowledge of ... putting what they said together created a much clearer picture as to how events of Bluff Creek came together. One set of instances that comes to mind is Green calling Roger's house and telling Mrs. Patterson about the BCM tracks and to let Roger know about them. So why did Al Hodgson say that it was' he' that called Roger to come to Bluff Creek .... it was because Al didn't know Green had called Roger's and had left his message with Mrs. Patterson and upon Green driving off for home that Al made his call and actually caught Roger home and spoke to him personally. So each man (Green and Hodgson) called Roger's without ever finding out the other did as well. No mystery here .... just putting together what happen by laying out a timeline based on all the facts.

 

Did these men tell me the truth? I know it was for there is no way these aging individuals could have told such a story from their own perspective and gotten the details to come together they way they did apart from one another unless they were telling what 'they' really recalled happening over their own personal experience in the matter.

 

It was an amazing story in how it all came together as it was about an amazing creature being filmed on October 20th, 1967.

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