Jump to content
Guest

Was Roger Patterson Really A Known Hoaxer?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^

 

Roger said that because he knew he had credibility issues.

 

I don't fully agree with what he said, though....because it simply wouldn't have mattered, even if Roger was a Saint.

 

When it comes to 'Bigfoot's existence'.....most people have a strong enough skepticism to overcome the lack of an alleged eyewitnesses' character flaws. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Why do you think RP said this?

 

Do you disagree with him?

 

 

Patterson knew he had people mad at him over finances because of the documentary project not going forward as they were counting on - he didn't take the movie camera back when he should have - and Roger didn't make earn much of a living. These are all things someone could be critical of his character over. So its understandable why Roger would say such a thing. And like Sweaty stated, it would not matter if Roger even had the Pope with him when he encountered the creature - a handful of skeptics would be raising meaningless doubts while others would be claiming bombshells that never go anywhere. The film and the evidence speaks for itself and is probably why the meaningless stuff is so often discussed.by skeptics.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

Greg Long has successfully managed to cast unnecessary doubt over Patterson's character. The fact remains, Roger Patterson not returning a camera, hiring someone to impersonate Bob and not paying up are all irrelevant to the film's authenticity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

There is no subject I can think of in which so much totally irrelevant information has masked the existence of so very much information compelling almost unto proof.

 

If there's a weird species here, I think it's the two-legged one *without* all the hair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

When I first saw the film, I knew Patty was real ... no doubt at all.

 

I am sure that Bill Munns and John Chambers, Hollywood's 2 premier creature costumers,
fully aware of the limits of their craft, knew it too. Before analysing the film, they could see

what she was.

 

Experts repeatedly validate Patty.

 

This puts the insistent Patty deniers on the irrational side of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

The TV version to me looks like some guy in a suit and it took me about 3 years to figure out that the PGF is authentic. There was always a bit of doubt in the back of my mind and it wasn't until I took a close look at some of the higher quality frames that I knew for sure that she's not a costume. It was the individual still frames that did it for me.

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why do you think RP said this?

 

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

 

Do you disagree with him?

 

I axe you, would Roger have said that to confess to hoaxing the PGF? No way. He knew he was the luckiest SOB on the planet because he was running out of time and Patty came along before he had to do something desperate like fake the PGF. But his prayers got answered, which even he couldn't believe, hence my sig line.

 

It certainly was NOT an admission of guilt to hoaxing the PGF. Why would any hoaxer casually admit to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

No, the better question is "why would anyone presume that "I'm probably the worst..." refers to a hoax when it's really far more explainable that it's knowing this is real and confronting a world that laughed at him?  That's the better question.

 

But bigfoot skeptics are known for making...er....the "best" they can out of the nothing that's available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

I axe you, would Roger have said that to confess to hoaxing the PGF? No way. He knew he was the luckiest SOB on the planet because he was running out of time and Patty came along before he had to do something desperate like fake the PGF. But his prayers got answered, which even he couldn't believe, hence my sig line.

 

It certainly was NOT an admission of guilt to hoaxing the PGF. Why would any hoaxer casually admit to that?

 

Giganto's logic (and common sense) is of epic proportion.

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

It certainly was NOT an admission of guilt to hoaxing the PGF. Why would any hoaxer casually admit to that?

 And why would any bright and successful hoaxer end up being dumb enough to get repeatedly hoaxed himself after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

I have learned in recent threads that Patterson and Gimlin must have been masters at the craft of sewing, with access to the latest furs, and had scientific knowledge of gaits and proportions, and even had the wherewithal to include breasts, a conehead, and an injury to the right thigh of their suit. What incredible foresight these men had back in '67...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

One can toss all of that.  Patterson and Gimlin did what any good scientific expedition should:  they had the tools, followed the evidence, and found what was leaving it.  That simple.

 

The biological sciences have made the case:  Patty's genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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

Why on Earth would we not include Patterson trotting around a Gimlin impostor? That is Patterson hoaxing. He's deceiving people with a fabricated reality. Having Gimlin successfully be impersonated would require coaching by Patterson. He was doing PT Barnum smoke and mirrors and believers accept it as part of the "experience." Except Patterson got busted and had the one who did it thrown out of his barnstorming session...

 

In Gimlin's own words during his MNBRT interview, he says that a friend named Jim living in Arkansas contacted him after attending a film showing of the PGF in which the impostor introduces himself as Bob Gimlin. Jim was said to then get up and say, "Hey! You're a **** liar!" and then get thrown out by security. Do not take my word for it (from 43:15)...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mnbrt/2010/02/13/mnbrt-radio-with-bob-gimlin

By your definition of Jeff Pruitt being a hoaxer, Roger Patterson was a hoaxer.

That's not oops, I stole a camera with a bum cheque which I was supposed to return three days later. That's not I ripped off the book publisher and swindled backers for my Bigfoot movie. That's hoaxing. It doesn't matter whether it's a man in a Bigfoot costume or a man in an Apache costume, that's Patterson faking reality for an audience who are not supposed to be aware they are being deceived.

Yes, Patterson was a known hoaxer and that is without including the hoaxed Bigfoot film attempt and tracks reported by Harvey Anderson. Don't believe him. Believe the man trotting the impostor around.

Welcome to Bigfootery.

One can toss all of that.  Patterson and Gimlin did what any good scientific expedition should:  they had the tools, followed the evidence, and found what was leaving it.  That simple.

 

The biological sciences have made the case:  Patty's genuine.

The evidence they followed was a hoax...

BCMpic.jpg

DWA, do you think a living foot, specifically Patty's, made that print?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Re-posting my question from the "Bombshell" thread...

 

 

kitakaze, on 05 May 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

Do I claim to have gotten three confessions or are you confused? 

 

 

In March, 2012....kitakaze wrote:

 

 

 

2) The confessions. These exist as well. The confession comes actually in three to four parts. Four if I can make cooperation happen, three if I don't. All of them the sources of the PGF.

 

 

http://bigfootforums...tprints/page-30

 

 

Yes, I am confused. Care to explain?   :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sure. I said the confessions exist. I didn't say they are recorded. Recording all of them involved travel for the documentary I was unable to do before returning to Japan. You asked me and I answered you about this months ago...

 

Kit - how were you expecting to include the other 2 confessions of which you had not recorded in your documentary?

 

 

By going to Yakima personally and meeting with three people on a native reservation.

The fourth confession and cooperation is a reference to Gimlin and whether or not he would choose to cooperate and go on the record with an admission and come clean about his involvement in the hoax after being presented with confessions of other principles.

Many of the interviews I conducted in the course of the documentary were unrecorded as they were done over many months by phone. For example, I have no proof that I have ever interviewed Bob Heironimus. The only way I could do that would be to have someone else contact him and confirm his connection with me, and still then none of the discussion we had were recorded. This is due to the fact that most of the conversations were conducted so as to set up formal participation in the documentary I was making.

Sweaty, if you think I've become a hoaxer myself and have nefariously created a false claim about a suit, exposing me would be very easy. You don't need to communicate with me at all to do this. You can communicate with any number of people to expose me if I decided to create a hoax to rattle Bigfoot believers about their beloved film.

You announced months ago you were going to call DeAtley. Why have you not done this yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...