Jump to content
Guest

Was Roger Patterson Really A Known Hoaxer?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I've heard this claim often - That Roger was a "known hoaxer".

 

Is this really true?  What did he actually intentionally hoax as far as bigfoot evidence?

 

Let's not include the Gimlin stand in or anything else that wasn't direct evidence purported to be of BF.

 

Also, please include sources if possible for these claims.

Edited by lastlaugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

It's not known that Roger Patterson hoaxed anything. Those who focus on Roger Patterson's credibility for the purpose of discrediting the film are using a genetic logical fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There isn't anything that Patterson was known to have hoaxed regarding bigfoot. This is nothing more than an opinion his detractors have. It is not a fact.

His biggest detractor here (Kitakaze) couldn't come up with even one example and when he tried to 'fit' something to Patterson's 'hoaxery' he ended up mistaking a human cast that Patterson didn't even make as a bigfoot cast that Patterson hoaxed.

 

Conversely, it is a proven fact that Patterson was himself hoaxed. At least twice (Bossburg and Thailand) and maybe more.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

What you will find are many arguments, repeated over and over, by certain individuals that are designed to persuade the reader that Roger was. 

However, if you fact check the context you will not find any supportive evidence.

Just as mentioned above, no he was not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

In my opinion the only hoax I've seen evidence of is the skeptics claim Patterson was a hoaxer.

 

hoax=deceive=to cause someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Based on my studies of him. Not a hoaxer. A few skeletons in his closet. No one is perfect. If he did hoax anything it would have to be the excellent  PGF.I am not saying he did,but if he did ,it was outstanding job. So, there you have it. Not all skeptics hate on Roger :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

What you will find are many arguments, repeated over and over, by certain individuals that are designed to persuade the reader that Roger was. 

However, if you fact check the context you will not find any supportive evidence.

Just as mentioned above, no he was not.  

 

 

Sounds like the infamous "big lie" technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Based on my studies of him. Not a hoaxer. A few skeletons in his closet. No one is perfect. If he did hoax anything it would have to be the excellent  PGF.I am not saying he did,but if he did ,it was outstanding job. So, there you have it. Not all skeptics hate on Roger :)

 

Then when Patterson had money to spend (not to mention when it started to run out) - Roger was not able to have another encounter or do the alleged brilliant hoax again. Skeptics and Cynics alike have not offered a rational reasonable explanation why a man with all this alleged talent that no other man has ever demonstrated since then was never able to repeat what he is said to have done on 10/22/67.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^

Instead Patterson wasted his money on a wild goose chase to Thailand even when his partner told him the story about a captured Yeti was probably bunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's very informative, thanks all.

 

With the amount of times I've seen Roger called a "known hoaxer", I figured I must have missed something. 

 

Just more slander I guess ... (is it called slander when someone is deceased?)

Edited by lastlaugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Who cares?  People keep thinking this matters.  It doesn't.

 

What is on the film?

 

47 years now and no one is coming up with a way Roger did that in 1967...or any way a human could.

 

Does.Not.Matter.  As I like to put it, if Roger gut-shot his grandma to get the money to rent the camera, and stole the horses...it still comes down to only one thing:

 

What is on the film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

That's very informative, thanks all.

 

With the amount of times I've seen Roger called a "known hoaxer", I figured I must have missed something. 

 

Just more slander I guess ... (is it called slander when someone is deceased?)

 

Consider the sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

In a sense he is.............. he hired Bob H. to shapeshift for the PGF film...

Edited by clubbedfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Consider the sources.

 

The same source that claimed a human foot cast by somebody else entirely was a Patterson bigfoot hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Consider the sources.

 

 

Or....source....(singular). 

 

I know I've seen kitakaze referring to Roger as a "known hoaxer", but...have there been other skeptics referring to him as such??

 

 

And as far as kit's assessment of Roger as a "known hoaxer"....kit has also claimed to have "three confessions from principals of the PGF"....and later, asked if he has ever claimed to have more than one... :wacko: 

 

One thing we can say with certainty, regarding kitakaze's claims/arguments....they are the most unreliable examples of "evidence" presented in these discussions, to date.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...