Jump to content
Guest

Was Roger Patterson Really A Known Hoaxer?

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

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.

 

Kitakaze certainly gave you support for the above statement when he posted an unrelated video on covering extremely shallow shoe prints in dust while referencing it as showing how prints in wet packed sand can be hidden quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^Showing a kid putting on a Halloween costume as evidence how easy faking Patty would have been is pretty much doing the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

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.

 

Read "The Making of Bigfoot" and you will discover where some of these claims come from. Whether you agree with Greg Long or not, it is full of information.

You'll see comments here from folks who have not read it, so do yourself a favor and at least read it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I'd advise against spending a penny of one's own money to do ^^^this, however.

 

When the Foreword presumes the conclusion that no evidence supports, one is not looking at a quality piece of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I'd advise against spending a penny of one's own money to do ^^^this, however.

 

People can check it out of the public library and/ or the library can get it on loan from other libraries. By all means - no need to waste money on it. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Read "The Making of Bigfoot" and you will discover where some of these claims come from. Whether you agree with Greg Long or not, it is full of information.

You'll see comments here from folks who have not read it, so do yourself a favor and at least read it.

 

There is zero real information in Greg Long's book about Patterson hoaxing anything bigfoot.

 

And yes I have read it.

 

Lastlaugh is better off ignoring that heap of rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Nothing I hate more than total red herrings obstructing a scientific investigation.  That book is one of the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Patterson has some things in his behavior that make him seem like the guy you don't want your daughter marrying. But those are separate issues.

 

When skeptics say Patterson was a "known hoaxer", I think they really mean he is a known "crook" or "con artist"     Yet, being a crook or a con artist or even a hoaxer are all different skill sets.   One can be a hoaxer and never have a criminal background or act in their life.  One can be a crook and never perpetrate a hoax.   The idea from the skeptics is to use words a set of words all designed to make Roger look bad.  It is not certain Roger was a crook.  He may have been a deadbeat and not paid his bills but I don't think there is any criminal record we can really point to. 

 

Where is the proven evidence of Roger Patterson doing a hoax prior to the PGF?  If such does not exist, he cannot be called a "known hoaxer".

 

 

I have read on the BFF somewhere a claim where Bob Heironimus was known to have a history of jumping out in an ape suit to scare people.  If this is even true, then we could say, "Bob Heironimus is a known hoaxer!"

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Nothing matters but this:  could the scenario that makes P/G a fake have happened?

 

No one knowing everything, or even close, would bet it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

There is zero real information in Greg Long's book about Patterson hoaxing anything bigfoot.

 

And yes I have read it.

 

Lastlaugh is better off ignoring that heap of rubbish.

 

Then you didn't really read it. Try doing so without BF goggles and you'll gain some knowledge and insight into human behavior and motivations. Anyone who has a keen interest in the Patterson BF should consume all the information they can on the topic. Your opinion aside, there is a wealth of information in that book that would make most reasonable people question certain "facts".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

DWA,

 

We must admit the Nature of any previous hoax is the issue.

 

If we took a guy who tired to sell a Picasso painting found in his garage, that painting was found to be a forgery, then we would say that man was either duped himself or he tried to sell us a fake.  Now if he found another Picasso and another and another, we would have to take into consideration the previous history. The Nature of the repeated claim now reasonably becomes the issue such as the the painting as well as the finder of that painting.

 

In Roger's case you have a guy who had a big interest in Bigfoot.  He fished where he thought the fish were, based on the recent track reports.  He went there to film the tracks and/ or make a documentary.  It is reasonable they stumbled upon such a creature and it walked away.

 

Now if prior to the PGF Roger had 2 or even 1 clumsy attempt of actually filming Bigfoot with a man in a bad costume that would be suspect.  If say 2 years before he had a film of a man in a Gemora Ape suit running around in the backyard and (this is the key) tried to sell it as the real deal, then that would be suspect.  That would make Roger a 'known hoaxer' prior to this. 

 

If Abe Zupuder who filmed JFK at Delay Plaza getting shot makes that film we accept that film showing the killing.  Now, if we found out Zupuder was arrested the month before for dealing drugs (just to make up an illustrated point) that changed nothing on the film.  He may then be a man who was a 'known drug dealer' but not a known hoaxer.

 

Roger would have to do some similar Bigfoot hoax on one or more occasions to be a hoaxer and there would have to be proof he did this and actual proof it was a hoax.  

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

No, MB.  Just Say No.  (And Backdoc, I am concerned about what is on this film.  What came before it or after is irrelevant.)

 

One thing matters.  What is on that film and how did it get there?  I am sick to here of people who can't address that going to "human behavior and motivations" like that is the answer.  What is the proof that this film was hoaxed?  No, I WANT THE PROOF.  There isn't even Scrap of Evidence One yet.

 

Obstructing a scientific investigation is all that book is.  It is a buttsore screed, and nothing more.  The skeptics have never been able to get anything right on this; and it is waaaaaaaay past statute of limitations.  Waaaaaaaaay.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

DWA,

 

The film is the primary evidence.  Agreed.   But we just cannot say the man running the camera or making a claim is irrelevant.

 

If we had a cop who arrested someone for murder it does not matter really they were suspended 10 years before for tearing up the speeding ticket for a buddy who was speeding.  It DOES matter if that same cop was suspended from work for planting evidence and fired from a previous job for beating a suspect into a confession.

 

All I am saying is this:  We can come up with some scenario in about any example (like my police example above) where someone's previous history is relevant.  But really we are talking about 'to what EXTENT' it should be.  In some scenarios it should be very important. In others, it means very little. 

 

Otherwise, we get into a situation where, "my kid can do no wrong"  We see this from some Skeptics involving Bob Heironimus. He can do no wrong.  Don't be part of the 'patty is real' wing and say, "Roger can do not wrong"   Let's consider all bits of information we can get our hands on.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

You may be right on your cop example; but this isn't that.  He has to have been able to do this.  He wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Masterbarber has twice cited Greg Long's book. This thread is about Patterson being a known hoaxer. There are zero facts in Greg Long's book confirming that Patterson was a known hoaxer. Anybody rushing out to get Greg Long's book is going to be severely disappointed if they expect to find any confirmation that Patterson was a known hoaxer. There is just nothing in there.

This thread isn't about Patterson not paying his phone bill or not paying back Vilma Radford. It is about Patterson being a bigfoot hoaxer. This is not known to be a fact. It is known to be a fact that he was repeatedly hoaxed himself though.

 

Edited for typos.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...