Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Pgf Described In New Book " Abominable Science "

Recommended Posts

Bill

Just got my copy of "Abominable Science" by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero, and read their section on the PGF in the Bigfoot chapter.

 

Their first chapter explains what real good science is as compared to pseudoscience, and the PGF section then proceeds to do just about everything the first chapter describes as pseudoscience junk.

 

Really an embarrassment for the authors, and Columbia University Press, that published it.

 

I'm working on some letters to the publisher and authors alike, and they will not be kind.

 

Anyone else got the book and have thoughts to contribute?

 

Bill

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bill,

 

Don't have the book, but thanks to your heads up...won't be wastin' the money ! ha ! ha ! That bad was it ?

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Looking forward to reading it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If your take is in Chapter 1 they show they should have known better, I wonder why they then do as you say in chapter on PGF?  I have not read the book but I thank you for the heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Bill,  I hate to tell you but I picked this little snip it up off a review of the book on Amazon:

 

"Known hoaxes are exposed and some unexplained cases are dissected. You know that famous Bigfoot footage from the 70's? One of the men responsible was known to be an untrustworthy, used car salesman type of person and a friend of his came forward and alleged he was the one in the costume."

 

Time to pass the antacid.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

That Roger wasn't quite an upstanding pillar of morality is hardly news. But the guy might have been crazy enough to do what few of us would be willing to do--which is spending the time, facing the wilderness and all it's hardships, to get a chance to be in the right place at the right time. Since we know he wrote bad checks, were any of them for materials that could be used to make a suit? I mean, surely he'd have spent a fair bit on such a development; seeing as how we're having trouble recreating it even today. Just saying.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

Cervelo wrote:

 

I get what your saying... I really do...but as I've stated before the footage is so poor it's no more than looking at a puffy cloud and wishful thinking.

 

 

 

Can/will you answer the question I asked you, about Patty's fingers bending, Cervelo? :)

 

After all.....'personal integrity' is everything, isn't it?! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WV FOOTER

Give em Both Barrels Bill...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

That Roger wasn't quite an upstanding pillar of morality is hardly news. But the guy might have been crazy enough to do what few of us would be willing to do--which is spending the time, facing the wilderness and all it's hardships, to get a chance to be in the right place at the right time. Since we know he wrote bad checks, were any of them for materials that could be used to make a suit? I mean, surely he'd have spent a fair bit on such a development; seeing as how we're having trouble recreating it even today. Just saying.....

Sure and Rick Dyer will come through one day with the goods ;)

 

Edited by Cervelo
Remove Objectionable Content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I love the attacks on Patterson on some issue on his late return of the camera. I thought the charges where dropped. In any event, If he was charged with fraud at the level of a TV preacher or had a past where he lied about some land deal and took the money and ran, I might say his past should be more strongly taken into consideration.

 

This issue has nothing to do with what we see on the film.

 

Now, if Bob H. is caught in multiple lies that DIRECTLY effect his credibility by dealing with directly what he claims to have happened you just might want to consider it.

 

The parents and kid who accused and shook down Michael Jackson seem somewhat credible since Michael is a little weird.  But, then when you hear they also tried to do the same thing to Jay Leno it matters since it DIRECTLY is involved with the issues at hand.  If a witness cheated on their wife, or had a parking ticket means very little in most other cases.

 

'This Guy' seems like the old thing in law.  When you have no evidence on your own you must attack the witness.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

That Roger wasn't quite an upstanding pillar of morality is hardly news. But the guy might have been crazy enough to do what few of us would be willing to do--which is spending the time, facing the wilderness and all it's hardships, to get a chance to be in the right place at the right time. Since we know he wrote bad checks, were any of them for materials that could be used to make a suit? I mean, surely he'd have spent a fair bit on such a development; seeing as how we're having trouble recreating it even today. Just saying.....

 

Roger's financial wows are evidence that he had not the resources to create a hoax as some people like to think he did. Those same people seem to have not given this any thought for it can't be both ways for if Roger had the resources needed to do what no one else could, then why not paid the camera rental? Why not have financed the Bluff Creek trip rather than depending on Gimlin to do it? In the end and for me - it is just conspiracy minded people trying to pound pieces of a puzzle together that do not fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

True that. I was just wondering if there was any record of the "bad checks" as to what he had purchased with the ill-funds. Trying to rule out the proverbial elephant in the room is all. Like I said before 6 or so times, my own face to face with Bob Gimlin told me there was/is no guilt in his camp at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
'This Guy' seems like the old thing in law.  When you have no evidence on your own you must attack the witness.

 

Backdoc

 

That does seem to be the case - doesn't it. And when the attack is so weak that even a skeptic can't offer any details in support of it - some resort to posting pics of cotton balls and talking about fluffy white clouds. Now who seems less credible ... the people who are late getting their rentals back on time or the peoples responses who bring to the table meaningless image gibberish rather than detailed facts?

 

John Green: "There are two types of people - those who believe that the Sasquatch exist and those who have not bothered to study the evidence"

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Cervelo wrote:

Can/will you answer the question I asked you, about Patty's fingers bending, Cervelo? :)

After all.....'personal integrity' is everything, isn't it?!

Absolutley it does as the examples of Patterson's behavior would indicate, I'm assuming that's what's your referencing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...