hiflier Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hello Bigfoothunter, Thanks again, that was the smoking gun and an amazing counterpunch. See? NEVER mess with a professor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 ^ : / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This is why Biscardi, Dyer, Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne are doubted, because they all have been caught in shenanigans. Now Peter Byrne is caught in shenanigans. Roger Patterson had some shenanigans in his background. Peter Byrne's shenanigans unfortunately were posted on a website detailing public records of his plea. Truthfully I have seen what I would deem shenanigans within postings that some skeptics have made, but I would not classify any of them at the level that Byrne has been shown guilty of. The same about Patterson ... he failed to return a movie camera and wasn't good at repaying loans ... hardly an offense involving criminal deception, nor would have anything to do with what he captured on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Based on your interpretation of Byrne, Patterson was a deadbeat for not returning the camera and he was a thief for not repaying loans. Therefore, the PGF is not admissible because of these character flaws, especially if the footage was taken with the camera that wasn't returned. Wait, was Patterson ever convicted? Maybe that's the difference. Whew! I'm glad that the PGF is still deemed as being worthy evidence. This is fun! I never knew that intermingling someone's personal downfalls with their professional lives could be so useful in proving my opinion. Now if John Green would just get caught shoplifting we could question his integrity and the validity of the PGF. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 To me, this kind of "scientific inquiry" is all one needs to know the sasquatch evidence has major legs and that film is probably the real deal. What happened with Patterson and Gimlin and pretty much any proponent of prominence is what happens when 46 years of looking for a fake, assiduously, 24-7 - the only such search ever launched into sasquatch evidence - turns up nothing. You get this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The matter is a simple one really as it had become known to some that Roger Patterson had been playing with the idea of doing a mini-documentary on himself as a Sasquatch hunter. Its since been established that Patterson only went to California when he did because of two independent invites to come and film the 560+ tracks seen on Blue Creek Mountain. That once Roger finally arrived at BCM and found the tracks were all but virtual mud, he and Gimlin spent the next several weeks riding horseback during the day looking for other tracks, as well as riding the dirt roads at night with Roger sitting atop of Bob's truck shining a light on the road trying to spot foot tracks that way. Has any skeptic not noticed that after three weeks of failing to find any new evidence and that once Roger stumbled upon the creature and got some footage of it, that the documentary fell to the wayside. The point being that had Roger of had this one of a kind suit and was going to get a film of it in action, then what was the point of his wasting all the time looking for evidence that he never had any intention of using once shooting an actual film of the alleged creature? The fact is that skeptics have not been able to offer a rational theory as to how Patterson was able to accomplish something that the best names in the costume business were not able to do. Wild theories of hand digging trackways and then troweling sandbars is just too far off the scale of common sense. It seems pretty obvious that the man was summoned to come to a place that had been having a lot of activity at that time and it was he and Bob's persistence of being on the hunt for tracks over the next several weeks that allowed them to get the film that they did. Once the film was obtained - the documentary idea was no longer of interest of Roger. One could say that the documentary he started died the very minute he and Bob came upon the creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hello All, ^^^This. The logic is unassailable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) Yep. The "skeptical case" is nothing but a tissue of assumptions, wild guesses, imaginings of the impossible backed by not a shred of evidence...and flagrant efforts to drag big red herrings across the evidence trail. Of which we now have the latest. Nowhere else in science has such a travesty been allowed to continue so long without proper address. The mainstream is letting utter absurdities pass for facts. It will be seen as possibly the biggest blot ever on the escutcheon of the natural sciences, and deservedly so. Which is why so many scientists are belligerent about it: they simply can't afford for the proof to happen. Edited February 9, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) ^Same story I hear almost every day. I have never met a criminal who didnt believe he did anything wrong. Now Byne is a convicted criminal in the USA and has defrauded those of us who are US citizens of our hard earned money we pay in taxes. Does anybody here think that is acceptable behaviour?Welcome to the new standard in this country...somehow one thing has nothing to do with the other.Which is absurd....if a person will lie and cheat in any matter such as this ...spouse, taxes, resume ect that person will lie about anything IMO. This isn't some little white lie to protect someone this is stealing plain and simple. It all sounds familar... Edited February 9, 2014 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Havin' had the pleasure of chit chattin' with Peter since back in the late 90's via letters an emails, I consider him a friend. I think it to bad all his travels to Nepal tryin' ta do good over there got him in hot water back home. I know his passion for Nepal, he would mention all they were tryin' to accomplish over there often. I think much here regardin' the matter is...well...laughable. Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Welcome to the new standard in this country...somehow one thing has nothing to do with the other. Which is absurd....if a person will lie and cheat in any matter such as this ...spouse, taxes, resume ect that person will lie about anything IMO. This isn't some little white lie to protect someone this is stealing plain and simple. It all sounds familar... steal stēl/ verb gerund or present participle: stealing 1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. "thieves stole her bicycle" synonyms: purloin, thieve, take, take for oneself, help oneself to, loot, pilfer, run off with, abscond with, carry off, shoplift; Seems a bit narrow sighted in my view to compare Patterson not taking his rented camera back on time to someone stealing from another party. Surely someone cannot seriously say that what Patterson did was to 'steal' by definition. After all, the next thing would be to say that anyone who says that posting on the PGF subject is creating a waste of forum bandwidth and yet that same person keeps posting on PGF matters and wasting more bandwidth, thus shouldn't be trusted for they will obviously say one thing and then do another. Edited February 10, 2014 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 "...so bigfoot isn't real." Oh. OK. "Not what I meant. I am focusing on the deed...which means that bigfoot isn't real." Oh. OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 steal stēl/ verb gerund or present participle: stealing 1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. "thieves stole her bicycle" synonyms: purloin, thieve, take, take for oneself, help oneself to, loot, pilfer, run off with, abscond with, carry off, shoplift; Seems a bit narrow sighted in my view to compare Patterson not taking his rented camera back on time to someone stealing from another party. Surely someone cannot seriously say that what Patterson did was to 'steal' by definition. After all, the next thing would be to say that anyone who says that posting on the PGF subject is creating a waste of forum bandwidth and yet that same person keeps posting on PGF matters and wasting more bandwidth, thus shouldn't be trusted for they will obviously say one thing and then do another. ^^^^Great example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 BigfootHunter awesome research on Peter Byrne, thanks for posting that. GeorgeGM you should ask Peter how he responded to that last Grover Krantz letter. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Havin' had the pleasure of chit chattin' with Peter since back in the late 90's via letters an emails, I consider him a friend. I think it to bad all his travels to Nepal tryin' ta do good over there got him in hot water back home. I know his passion for Nepal, he would mention all they were tryin' to accomplish over there often. I think much here regardin' the matter is...well...laughable. Pat... So what did Mr Bryne acually get accomplished? You know he raised a lot of money and did a lot of good over the years, but mostly for Peter Bryne. What did all his fund raising and trips to Nepal accomplish? What are the results of his efforts in Nepal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts