Jump to content
Guest

Was Roger Patterson Really A Known Hoaxer?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

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

 

 

Given the clarity of the PGF subject, Backdoc....the physical analysis of the subject will ultimately trump any backstory analysis....with the exception of confessions from principals of the Film.

 

Therefore...the question of whether Roger was "a known hoaxer" is essentially a meaningless question. And Greg Long's book....being as highly flawed as it is....is even less meaningful/relevant.

 

Put another way...Long's book gives us un-trustworthy "information" about a general line of analysis which takes a back seat to the physical line of analysis. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Folks, we're all basically in agreement here. Bacdoc's hypothetical argument has merit, there is simply no evidence that it can be applied to Roger. DWA, you are on target regarding the film. I was a junior in high school when it was made and had been interested in the subject for some four years. When I saw the stills in Argosy I knew instinctively that they were authentic. The creature fit the environment, even without seeing the motion. The final point in convincing me was the breasts; that would not fit the time other than something risqué from Hollywood or a serious article in National Geographic.

 

Having edited and reviewed one of the papers co-authored by Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum as well as having a lifelong interest in photography, Bill's book is the final seal on the deal. Regardless of quibbling and questions about lens focal length and/or frames per second, the PGF depicts a real biologic creature clad only in the epidermis it was born with.

 

If I understand MB's argument WRT Long's book, he sees its value as an expose of human motivation rather than any kind of evidence concerning the authenticity of the PGF (and please correct me if I'm wrong sir).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

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. .

 

Did that, could not get past the introductory material. Tabloid sleaze writing style.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

The answer as to whether Patty was real or not can be found in the film itself. Greg Long, Kit, JREFers/ex-proponents/denialists are all looking for reasons to convince themselves that it was a hoax. What better way to do that than to focus on certain aspects of the backstory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Greg Long, Kit, JREFers/ex-proponents/denialists are all looking for reasons to convince themselves that it was a hoax.

 

I find it hard to believe that Long is that poor of an investigator. One thing that I could not help but notice is that Long evaded calling Heironimus on his inconsistencies as if purposely done. This caused me to believe that Long wasn't stupid in as much as he had his own agenda and that was to sell a story.

 

Certain skeptics/denialist are another matter - I do not believe they are totally trying to convince themselves for that could be done by not fishing on a web site that deals with a subject they deem to be a waste of anyone's time. In one particular member's case - he claims to be on a mission. In support of this is the misstatements of fact he continually makes. There are several post from various members detailing such instances. In this and other cases it may just be the nature of the beast within where certain people are seeking attention where they may not get it elsewhere. Those people are easy to spot for their post are never detailed. Instead they think that just repeating the same sentence or catch-phrase enough times that something isn't real will somehow make it so. Their motivation becomes readily transparent in my view and really hasn't anything to do with convincing themselves of anything.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

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.

 

Want me to go for a third? This thread is not about confirming Patterson as a known hoaxer, it asks the question "Was Roger Patterson really a known hoaxer?" There is content in the book that would make a reasonable person question whether or not Patterson was just that lucky or whether he had a direct part in creating his luck in several scenarios. I'm sorry if you can't get past the "confirmation of hoaxing" phase but there is a very valid discussion to be had outside of those narrow parameters. I don't care for Long's writing style or presentation of certain information but I don't toss the whole book out as useless information because it does contain interviews with people who knew and associated with those involved in this film.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

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.

 

It will be a short thread as Patterson was Not a known hoaxer   :sungum:

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

... There are zero facts in Greg Long's book confirming that Patterson was a known hoaxer...

 

 

 

Anyone who has first hand knowledge of events reported in a  newspaper may have experienced first hand that reporters get stuff wrong, on a routine basis, even when well-intentioned.

 

Anyone reading the introductory material in Long's book should realize that the man is:

 

1 - biased against Roger Patterson, sneeringly so

2 - sensationalistic

3 - is not much of a writer

4 - has a style suitable to a tabloid gossip rag

 

Why then would a sensible person trust him to reasonably reveal facts in the remainder of his book? Don't even waste you time going over to the library for this one.

 

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^^And gotsta say I read the Foreword and could have written your post.

 

Like it or not:  any good book has a good introduction.  If a book begins with slander...or is that libel...??...it's not exactly a reference work, IMHO.


Want me to go for a third? This thread is not about confirming Patterson as a known hoaxer, it asks the question "Was Roger Patterson really a known hoaxer?" There is content in the book that would make a reasonable person question whether or not Patterson was just that lucky or whether he had a direct part in creating his luck in several scenarios. I'm sorry if you can't get past the "confirmation of hoaxing" phase but there is a very valid discussion to be had outside of those narrow parameters. I don't care for Long's writing style or presentation of certain information but I don't toss the whole book out as useless information because it does contain interviews with people who knew and associated with those involved in this film.

 

Well, one of my biggest problems with this field is all the irrelevant questions that get asked.  Any questions about Patterson's character past or intent are irrelevant, in the face of something there is no way that either he, or anyone else, could possibly have done with technology available in 1967.

 

One of the most inexplicable failings of logic in bigfoot skepticism is the continued efforts to turn thinking away from the only relevant question:  what is on that film?

Edited by DWA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Masterbarber,

 

Yes this thread is about Patterson being a known hoaxer. Not whether Patterson didn't pay bills or debts. The only known hoaxer talked about in Greg Long's book is Bob Heironimus, for the hoax he perpetrated in fooling some very very gullible people into believing he played 'Patty'.

If Patterson was 'creating his luck' then why did he not even find so much as another bigfoot footprint after his trip to Bluff Creek and why was he so naive to be repeatedly hoaxed by other people, costing him a lot of time and money in the process? This does not gel with the type of bright and successful hoaxer that Long claims him to be. Not in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

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. 

 

I have friends and family members who have welched out of paying me back money they owed me. I wouldn't call them crooks or hoaxers.

 

 

 

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!"
 

 

The thing is, Bob Heironimus 'admits' that he was in a suit hoaxing people (Patty at Bluff Creek). He is a known hoaxer by claiming that. If, as most of us accept, he is making up the story about being Patty then he is a still a hoaxer as his "I was Patty" is one big hoax.

There is no way around either scenario with Heironimus. Bob Heironimus is a known hoaxer. Doesn't matter which version is true in his case. He's a hoaxer. The only known and confirmed hoaxer in Greg Long's book is Bob Heironimus.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

Well said.

The problem is if Hieronimus was a known hoaxer in the form of wearing a Patty suit at bluff creek that day, then Patty was a suit and not a creature of nature. Thus he wants us to know he was a known hoaxer as this is his whole point. He would say, "i have been trying to tell you guys it was a hoax and I am the hoaxer"

You are correct, if Patty is a creature of nature, bob h is a known hoaxer for his phoney balony story, trying to hoax us. He is trying to get us to think that patty was a suit and not real. He is also trying to get us to think He is the man in this unproven suit.

Bob is an admitted back stabber. In his phoney balony story he tells us he was picked because he could be trusted. Then he states he showed the suit to others the very next day showing he was stabbing his friends in the back. Interesting since Bobby H is really saying with that story, "even though these guys trusted me, I told on them the first chance I got. Then, I never told them and right to their face kept asking for the money they owed me for wearing the suit and keeping my mouth shut (which I never did). I had no problem screwing them over behind their backs the next day and had no problem taking their money anyway"

I don't believe his story at all. But, the story he tells, he us begging me to believe he is a back stabber, and a rip off artist, and his friends mean nothing to him.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I have friends and family members who have welched out of paying me back money they owed me. I wouldn't call them crooks or hoaxers.

 

I think we all can relate to this, but there really is no evidence that Patterson had done the same. Roger first had the idea of doing a documentary for which he sought to raise money for with the expectations that the completion and sale of it would generate the necessary funds to repay any and all investors. However, Roger's being summoned to come to Bluff Creek and he and Gimlin's encounter on 10/20/67 had put the documentary on hold. As far as I recall - Patterson went around marketing the viewing of his newly acquired Sasquatch footage and not the documentary he had been working on. And while some people want to see the two occurrences as one in the same - they clearly are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

As far as Heironimus goes - has he not gotten enough attention considering all the contradictions of fact he has made concerning the film. I mean - really? Hair missing off the creature so to show it was shedding its fur (going into winter) - sand as white as snow - glue coated prosthetic eye - met with a Muppet suit and movement nothing like the creature in the film. It seems to me that the only hoax is the one being run by those who make outlandish excuses for the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Why do you think RP said this?

 

"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to."

 

Do you disagree with him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...