Jump to content
Orygun

Pgf Royalities

Recommended Posts

dmaker

I know you can't seem to get by the "gut feeling", but maybe a better way to describe is that Patty just didn't look very good coming out of the gate IMO, so I stopped taking it seriously.



That is pretty funny you know. On the one hand we have Sweaty offering a dodgy thread at some other pretty ghetto looking forum and you with your subjective analysis that one had more to lose than the other so that somehow takes away from the fact that Bob H passed his lie detector test. .  Geez, grasp at straws much?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urkelbot

I would assume that if the film is a hoax someone else was behind Patterson planning the whole thing. A power behind the throne. Also Whatever Pattersons wife told munns would probably be a lie unless she was never let in on the hoax.

Is there any to find how much the pgf has made is making other than guessing or potentially misleading/biased sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I know you can't seem to get by the "gut feeling", but maybe a better way to describe is that Patty just didn't look very good coming out of the gate IMO, so I stopped taking it seriously.

That is pretty funny you know. On the one hand we have Sweaty offering a dodgy thread at some other pretty ghetto looking forum and you with your subjective analysis that one had more to lose than the other so that somehow takes away from the fact that Bob H passed his lie detector test. .  Geez, grasp at straws much?   

 

So what's a gut feeling opinion worth from either side these days? The key to debate is refuting the arguments, otherwise, you're just kissing your sister. Bias plays a huge role in what our minds perceive and your gut cannot be trusted. You must use evidence to form your refutations, not psychic vibes.

 

And don't get me started again on lie detector tests. Doesn't the fact that Bob H and Roger both passed LDTs make them worthless as evidence? End of story.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I know you can't seem to get by the "gut feeling", but maybe a better way to describe is that Patty just didn't look very good coming out of the gate IMO, so I stopped taking it seriously.  

 

I know of no way to measure your ability to interpret how fur should look on a 60's model hand wound movie camera plagued with both motion and panning blur. The quality of your responses are all that can be examined and measured. And because you have responded in the past that you have not bothered to dissect the evidence pertaining to the creature, you appear to have nothing to offer other than a general gut feeling.

 

That is pretty funny you know. On the one hand we have Sweaty offering a dodgy thread at some other pretty ghetto looking forum and you with your subjective analysis that one had more to lose than the other so that somehow takes away from the fact that Bob H passed his lie detector test. .  Geez, grasp at straws much?

 

The post that I read did not seem 'ghetto' to me and I discovered long ago that one cannot judge a book just by its cover. You certainly had nothing of substance to counter the information presented on that so-called 'ghetto looking forum'.

 

As far as the subjective analysis ... it wasn't my own but that of a real examiner that I spoke with. That's also how I learned about heart meds effecting a reading. When it was found that JFK assassination witness Ed Hoffman was currently taking heart and blood pressure meds, they refused to give the examination as its results could not be confirmed accurate. You see .... they don't rely on a gut feeling when it comes to what they do.   :)

 

It was a 25 year law officer (a detective at that time) named Al Carrier who gave me the name of the leading Polygraph Institute in the U.S.. Al knew I had been looking into the possibility of having a deaf-mute being tested. I would have to check again with Carrier, but I think the name of the institute was "THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF POLYGRAPH TECHNOLOGY AND FORENSIC PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY".  I will email Al and see if I am correct. So in my view .... their opinions seem less subjective than let's say - your own.

 

Bigfoothunter

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I would assume that if the film is a hoax someone else was behind Patterson planning the whole thing. A power behind the throne. Also Whatever Pattersons wife told munns would probably be a lie unless she was never let in on the hoax.

 Not sure why anything Mrs. Patterson told Munns would have to be a lie .... could she not be also telling the truth?

 

As far as the power behind the throne ... the power must not have had any money for Roger wasn't even funded with gas money to get to California .... let alone make it back. It was Gimlin who had to flip the bill for the trip. The alleged power behind the throne seemed impotent at that time or else the power could have at least gotten Roger to Bluff Creek without waiting three additional weeks for Gimlin to get time off.

 

Now Roger did seem to manage to get to Mount Saint Helens for three or four days before storms rolled in and ran he and Bob out. Could this 'power behind the throne' not have allowed a hoax to occur before the Bluff Creek trip? In fact, it was John Green who first called and left Roger a message about tracks being on Blue Creek Mountain, but he didn't know of Roger being off at Mount Saint Helens, thus Green had no power either.

 

For me, the alleged power behind the scene idea doesn't seem even plausible .... let alone likely.

 

Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

"And don't get me started again on lie detector tests. Doesn't the fact that Bob H and Roger both passed LDTs make them worthless as evidence? End of story."

 

That I can agree with. I only mentioned Bob H's passing his test because BH brought up Roger's as if it was significant while ignoring the fact that Bob H passed a similar test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urkelbot

 Not sure why anything Mrs. Patterson told Munns would have to be a lie .... could she not be also telling the truth?

 

As far as the power behind the throne ... the power must not have had any money for Roger wasn't even funded with gas money to get to California .... let alone make it back. It was Gimlin who had to flip the bill for the trip. The alleged power behind the throne seemed impotent at that time or else the power could have at least gotten Roger to Bluff Creek without waiting three additional weeks for Gimlin to get time off.

 

Now Roger did seem to manage to get to Mount Saint Helens for three or four days before storms rolled in and ran he and Bob out. Could this 'power behind the throne' not have allowed a hoax to occur before the Bluff Creek trip? In fact, it was John Green who first called and left Roger a message about tracks being on Blue Creek Mountain, but he didn't know of Roger being off at Mount Saint Helens, thus Green had no power either.

 

For me, the alleged power behind the scene idea doesn't seem even plausible .... let alone likely.

 

Bigfoothunter

I meant if the film is a hoax and she knows it is than she is probablly lying.

 

If its all one big grift then they would intentionally make it look like they had no money/backing.  Hence the late rental on the camera.  Making the two guys look like bozos, who could never have pulled off a hoax of this magnitude, strengthens the case of it being legitimate. 

 

Just about any hoax scenario is more likely then a giant ape running around NA without being captured/killed and no good media since the film was shot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"And don't get me started again on lie detector tests. Doesn't the fact that Bob H and Roger both passed LDTs make them worthless as evidence? End of story."

 

That I can agree with. I only mentioned Bob H's passing his test because BH brought up Roger's as if it was significant while ignoring the fact that Bob H passed a similar test. 

 

Ok. IMO, it was more ballsy for Roger to take a LDT, at the time, than Bob H, who probably had some "reassurances", at the time, and nothing to lose plus years of practice lying about it. And "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

That I can agree with. I only mentioned Bob H's passing his test because BH brought up Roger's as if it was significant while ignoring the fact that Bob H passed a similar test. 

 

 

We don't know that Bob H did, in fact, pass his polygraph exam.....do we? :)

 

Have you heard about Ed Gelb's false credentials?? 

 

 

In addition...in the 'Lie Detector' episode, the test was not shown in such a way that we can be certain it was on the 'up and up'. 

 

 

Ultimately, it's nothing more than an unreliable type of examination...administered under questionable circumstances. Essentially...meaningless

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Yes, but it is meaningless in all instances, not just the ones that suit your case.  So don't talk up Rogers, while talking down Bobs is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

"And don't get me started again on lie detector tests. Doesn't the fact that Bob H and Roger both passed LDTs make them worthless as evidence? End of story."

 

That I can agree with. I only mentioned Bob H's passing his test because BH brought up Roger's as if it was significant while ignoring the fact that Bob H passed a similar test. 

 

I didn't hear you tell me Bob H had as much to lose as Roger, which was a consideration that a real examiner raised when I inquired about things that could effect a polygraph result. However, the thing is that I said that if both cancel each other out, then one is left to the dissecting of the other evidence, which you claim not to be interested in doing.

 

Bigfoothunter

Just about any hoax scenario is more likely then a giant ape running around NA without being captured/killed and no good media since the film was shot.  

 

Then we have to explain in a sensible and responsible fashion how Roger created the deep tracks across the sandbar.

 

Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

dmaker wrote:

 

Yes, but it is meaningless in all instances, not just the ones that suit your case.  So don't talk up Rogers, while talking down Bobs is all I'm saying.

 

 

 

That's fine by me... :) I never have 'talked up' Roger's alleged passed polygraph exam. 

 

My approach to the PGF is, that after 46 years without a 'rock solid, definitive, widely-accepted' proof of what the Film shows...the backstory evidence simply isn't worthwhile getting into...because, short of a confession by either Bob Gimlin or Patricia Patterson, it will never provide the type of proof needed, to put the Film to rest.

 

 

 

.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Ok. IMO, it was more ballsy for Roger to take a LDT, at the time, than Bob H, who probably had some "reassurances", at the time, and nothing to lose plus years of practice lying about it. And "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it."

 

And Heironimus may have been taking blood pressure and heart medication at the time that he took his polygraph. After all, it doesn't take a super sleuth to find data pertaining to this, so one can speculate that Bob H may very well feel self assured. The interesting thing is how many times he has contradicted himself since that time.

 

Bigfoothunter

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I would just like to interject into this rambling discussion that I don't rely on any person's testimony for my determination that the PGF is authentic. The film itself is a turthful testiment to that fact in itself, and I would endorse it as authentic even if nobody was saying anything about it. So while I do listen to what Mrs. Patterson and Bob Gimlin say about it, I base my analysis and determination of authenticity entirely on the film image data evidence.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urkelbot

I didn't hear you tell me Bob H had as much to lose as Roger, which was a consideration that a real examiner raised when I inquired about things that could effect a polygraph result. However, the thing is that I said that if both cancel each other out, then one is left to the dissecting of the other evidence, which you claim not to be interested in doing.

 

Bigfoothunter

 

Then we have to explain in a sensible and responsible fashion how Roger created the deep tracks across the sandbar.

 

Bigfoothunter

If Bigfoot does not exist then they were faked in a similar manner to all other tracks which are deemed authentic.  I am sure there are a great many ways a clever person could create a line of tracks that fit any dimension and mimic a live dynamic creature.  

 

If you can't tell how a magicians sleight of hand trick was done it doesn't mean it's actually magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...