Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel Perez

Information Wanted: Roger Patterson

Recommended Posts

norseman

Cowboy-1970380.jpg

 

           Make my day! Denialist!

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Crow, my friend, Where has the suit been hidden for these past decades?

 

How could anyone create swaying breasts on a costume? Natural looking swaying breasts were not doable back then. 

 

 Back then there was a movie called Planet of The Apes(?) and those costumes were made by the Hollywood elite costume makers. They were horrible, my dad said he laughed at them.

 

My dad believed it to be real, and I trusted my dad, and his instincts. 

 

I now know something exists since I did see something, so I add my positive vote for Patty being real.

Crow, As Patterson was lying in his *death* bed, he claimed the PGF to have been real. He knew he was dying, and his last wish was to *verify the reality *of his film. I believe him. 

Backdoc, It will take a body for the world to see and have tested, and even then some people will deny them. That, sadly, is the way of the world. I think a BF could pick up Kitkansee(sp?) and cart him off and Kit would be yelling "you do not even exist, and put me down you hoaxer"! LOL

 

Just kidding, and I hope that never happens to anyone, YIKES!

Thank God for that small blessing. Here we are talking about scary monsters in the woodlands, and forget that we have some genuine monsters yet looking like a human walking the streets with us:(

Sweet Suziq  I have always leaned towards the PGF being real.  It is way too late to worry about Roger's post filming.  Yet we must respect all possibilities nonetheless.  As for a potential suit it is unreasonable to expect it to still exist.  There is no reason for it to exist and much damage if discovered.  Roger's swearing on his deathbed that the film is real is exactly what was to be expected.  It was his legacy to his wife and children.  What else would any husband/father have said in that circumstance?  I would have done the same thing, so would you.

Crowlogic wrote:

 

 

That's not necessarily true, Crow. The test Bob took on 'Lie Detector' was given by someone with fraudulent credentials....and the test wasn't even shown in an up-front manner, where the public could see that it was completely 'above board'.

 

The test was pretty much meaningless.   :)

I suspect Roger would have passed his too.  The two people to internalize the event are Bob H and Roger. Especially Roger.  OTOH Bob Gimlin is the true outsider now and I suspect his result would be the most unbiased.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

According to the late René Dahinden, Patterson never took a lie detector test and that the magazine, National Wildlife, fabricated the results. I did get in touch with the magazine and really got no reply other than a form reply, that they had no current contact for George H. Harrison, who, I think was the managing editor of the magazine at that time. I was doing some archival digging in my files about a week ago and stumbled on that note by Dahinden, so I thought it might be worthy of a follow up.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion the P-G film is for real but the story behind the famous movie continues to change.

 

Daniel Perez

Bigfoot Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

It's so fine....letting kit refute kit...   :beach:  

 

It is!  He did it to himself in the gait thread too.

Why?

 

Because they'd probably never meet in person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Crowlogic, A plus one to you from me with thanks for your posting number 32. :girldance:

 


************

Kitakaze, That must have been a heck of a suit with bouncing breasts, and a hernia bulging in and out  in her right leg, in the thigh area. I doubt that could be recreated today, much less 50 years ago.

Edited by SweetSusiq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

 

 

It's so fine....letting kit refute kit...   :beach:  

 

Being amused with your self-righteousness in promoting Gosselin and Griffin's stories, as if we'd cower with tails between our legs were we to discuss their accounts face to face, and as if Bigfoot is the one most reasonable explanation in no way contradicts that it's fine to believe Bigfoot because you think you saw it, think it's very rare, or think the evidence you've seen is compelling is not at all contradictory. It's how you deal with that evidence with others where it becomes not fine. Taking accounts and confronting others as if your belief in them is the only reasonable one and stating we could not face the people who tell them is your fundamentalism, your belief culture. When I first came to the JREF as a fence-sitter, one of the last pieces of evidence that I had trouble squaring away was the encounter story of Dr. Matthew Johnson. I had a hard time explaining it at the time. I personally couldn't see an explanation that fit better than Bigfoot. That was because I was not looking at it clearly or with enough information. Thus for me to think Johnson really saw Bigfoot, there was nothing wrong with it, nor was there when I realized that there was definite psychological factors to be accounted for. When I presented and discussed that sighting account, I did not state that real Bigfoot was objectively the only plausible conclusion nor did I tell the skeptics I was talking to they would cower from Johnson if they met him face to face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It is!  He did it to himself in the gait thread too.

 

 

 

Yup...he did. ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Kitakaze, That must have been a heck of a suit with bouncing breasts, and a hernia bulging in and out  in her right leg, in the thigh area. I doubt that could be recreated today, much less 50 years ago.

 

Susi, unfortunately, you've demonstrated a completely malleable sense of perception and are very easily told what to see, including your texbook adoption of bouncing breasts and hernias. You could not more obviously be parroting Bigfootery memes. You can not even discern a Halloween werewolf gaff from an actual skull, so I have no interest in what you would call a bulging hernia...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49299-werewolf-skull-discovered-in-chained-box/

 

 

Yup...he did.  ;)

 

 

Simple question: Is a real Dogman the most likely explanation for Susi's Dogman sighting? Yes or no.

 

Nanthan< i have been interested in the BF species all of my life, but I was an adult and only because of a sighting did I realize that there is even a species called Dogman or Wolfman, and that they are actually real creatures. I think (I'm not sure) that I first heard about BF sometime in the 70's; 80's? I saw a program with The PGF on it, and I totally believed it to be true. Plus my dad believed so I did too:)

 

 

 

 

Cotter, I sincerely hope that one day somehow somewhere when you are least expecting it you will see a Dogman, and I hope that you will have the courage to come here and tell the truth about your sighting. Perhaps you'll see a BF, but whatever, I just so hope that you have an encounter.

 

 

 

 

...there is no fossil evidence of ANY KIND for a bipedal Canidae. The very thought of a creature of this sort is ludicrous.

 

 

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

 It's how you deal with that evidence with others where it becomes not fine. 

 

 

Oh....thanks for letting me know. :huh:

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

If you believe in Bigfoot because you think you've seen one, that is not unreasonable.

 

 

So, since you have stated that 'Believing in Bigfoot's existence is reasonable'...(welcome to the Club, btw)....on which types of evidence is that 'reason' based? :)

 

Also...would you agree with this nearly-identical statement...

 

"If you believe in Bigfoot's existence, that is not unreasonable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I never left the club of thinking simply believing in Bigfoot is fine. When I stopped believing I did not think I had previously been unreasonable when I did. It's what type of belief you have such as Bigfoot existing across North America as a real species without reliable evidence and what you do with those beliefs - fundamentalism - that becomes not fine. You've already quoted the number of ways in which I think it is fine to believe in Bigfoot.

 

You failed to answer this question...

 

Is a real Bigfoot the most reasonable explanation for Henry May's white Bigfoot in front of someone's home in Mississippi for which he is 95% sure of what he saw? Yes or no?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

I never left the club of thinking simply believing in Bigfoot is fine. When I stopped believing I did not think I had previously been unreasonable when I did. It's what type of belief you have such as Bigfoot existing across North America as a real species without reliable evidence and what you do with those beliefs - fundamentalism - that becomes not fine. You've already quoted the number of ways in which I think it is fine to believe in Bigfoot.

 

 

From my previous post...again... 

 

Since you have stated that 'Believing in Bigfoot's existence is reasonable'...(welcome to the Club, btw)....on which types of evidence is that 'reason' based?  :)

 

Also...would you agree with this nearly-identical statement...

 

"If you believe in Bigfoot's existence, that is not unreasonable."


kitakaze wrote:

 

 

When I stopped believing I did not think I had previously been unreasonable when I did. 

 

 

But, is there "good reason" to "believe in Bigfoot's existence" today?? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

From my previous post... again...

Is a real Bigfoot the most reasonable explanation for Henry May's white Bigfoot in front of someone's home in Mississippi for which he is 95% sure of what he saw? Yes or no?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

You have contradicted yourself many times over, as to whether it is "just fine" to think that Bigfoot may exist...or, whether it is "bizzare/absurd" to think so.

 

Care to try "straightening it all out", kit? :lol:

 

Here is one good place for you to start...

 

Since you have stated that 'Believing in Bigfoot's existence is reasonable'...(welcome to the Club, btw)....on which types of evidence is that 'reason' based?   :)

 

 

Also...regarding this statement of yours...

 

 

 

If you believe in Bigfoot because you think you've seen one, that is not unreasonable.

 

 

...would you agree with this nearly-identical statement?...

 

"If you believe in Bigfoot's existence, that is not unreasonable."

 

 


From my previous post... again...

Is a real Bigfoot the most reasonable explanation for Henry May's white Bigfoot in front of someone's home in Mississippi for which he is 95% sure of what he saw? Yes or no?...

 

 

Regarding Henry's sighting report....I don't know...and I don't care.

 

I don't care to debate the specifics of Bigfoot sighting reports with you...when your contradictory statements have been, for the most part, worded in generalities.

 

 

I will simply continue pointing-out your generalized contradictory statements...(regarding the 'probability' of Bigfoot's existence)...and asking you questions to "try straightening-out the mess"....while watching you only get more entrenched in it. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Henry is 95% sure that he saw a giant white Bigfoot in front of someone's home in an unwooded area in Mississippi. His experience is every bit as valid as either Griffin's or Gosselin's. We can fault none of them if their belief is based on what they saw. To Gosselin I suggest he consider hoaxing and were I to meet him face to face I would talk to him about Pat Lindquist and say he may be sure he saw Bigfoot, but people can be wrong and be hoaxed. He can insist he wasn't and that is fine with me. Both Lindquist and Dahinden were convinced by his encounter. They are no different beyond the fact that we we actually found the hoaxers in Lindquist's case. No tail-tucking, no cowering... that is a scenario which you play out in your mind to feel the righteousness of your belief.

 

You would insist that real Bigfoots are the most reasonable explanation for Griffin and Gosselin when there are other very mundane reasons which can account for their experiences. By the very definition of the word, you are being unreasonable to insist they could not be a reality these men can have experienced. That is what defines fundamentalism, particularly when you insist your explanation is the only plausible one and that we would cower from these people face to face.

 

There is no contradiction in having no issue with the simple act of believing in Bigfoot. I have specified how I think that is fine, and what I think is not fine...

 

 

If you believe in Bigfoot period, no matter what, you're believing in something highly improbable. If you think it's because you saw it, fine. If you think it is just really rare, fine. If you think it's based on the evidence you've seen, fine. I did the same thing and that was fine. I became a skeptic by looking as deeply as I could at the evidence. If you think they're everywhere yet nowhere, not fine. If you think there are 170,000 Bigfoot out there, give your head a shake. People believe in much more improbable things then Bigfoot on far less evidence. 

If you think David Griffin really saw Bigfoot while hunting in Indiana 40 miles from Indianapolis because he believes very strongly he was sure what he saw, that's fine, but you should really pay attention to the details and consider alternatives that could explain it. Hypothermia in - 6 degrees is a far better explanation than little bug-eyed 5 ft greyfoots running around in a state that has only nine more reports than Iowa. Bigfoot is everywhere yet nowhere.

 

 

 
It's reasonable to believe in Bigfoot because you believe Brian Gosselin and David Griffin are honest. I think they are honest. It is unreasonable to act as if Bigfoot is the only plausible explanation for their accounts when there are others. If contradictions are not fine with you, you should start with yourself...
 

SweatyYeti, on 10 Oct 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:snapback.png

 

Yes...the arrow points precisely to where Patty's arm bends...

 

 

SweatyYeti, on 10 Oct 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:snapback.png

 

 

Whether Patty was a real Sasquatch, or a man-in-a-suit...the arm bones are encased in flesh and hair...and that can disguise the precise 'bend-point', to some degree....especially when the arm is bent at only a small angle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Regarding this alleged contradiction of mine...I purposely used the word "can", as a modifier...

 

 

 

...and that can disguise the precise 'bend-point'...

 

 

I made no 'blanket statement', covering all cases....hence, there is no contradiction. :)

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

It is reasonable to believe in Bigfoot because you believe Brian Gosselin and David Griffin are honest. I think they are honest. It is unreasonable to act as if Bigfoot is the only plausible explanation for their accounts when there are others. 

 

 

You are making things overly-complicated with your wording, kit.

 

This is a much simpler matter...you contradict yourself, in generalized statements, regarding whether or not it is "reasonable", or "absurd/bizarre", to think that 'Bigfoot may exist'. 

 

So, to make things simpler.....regarding this statement of yours...

 

 

If you believe in Bigfoot because you think you have seen one, that is not unreasonable.

 

...would you agree with this nearly-identical.....and simpler.....statement?... :) ...

 

"If you believe in Bigfoot's existence, that is not unreasonable."

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...