Jump to content
Guest

Was Roger Patterson Really A Known Hoaxer?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

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.

 

 

And neither did I say anything about them being "recorded".

 

So why then did you ask me this, on May 5th???...

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

You wrote that in response to this statement of mine...(in the 'PGF Recreation Proposal" thread)... 

 

 

"And neither do you know who "wore the suit"...despite "having gotten three confessions from the creators of the Film".

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5441-pgf-recreation-proposal/page-23

 

 

Neither of us said anything about the alleged confessions being "recorded"......only "gotten"/"existing". 

 

So, again....why did you ask if "you claimed to have three confessions"....when you have claimed  to "have three confessions"???

 

Are you confused? :)

 

 

Also...since you claim to have "gotten three confessions from creators of the PGF"......who "wore the suit"....and who "supplied/made the suit"?? :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

 

 

Neither of us said anything about the alleged confessions being "recorded"......only "gotten"/"existing". 

 

Because in terms of confessions, gotten for me equals recorded. If they are not recorded, I have no way to prove that they exist.

 

Do you understand this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Because in terms of confessions, gotten for me equals recorded.

 

 

Really?? Then, when you made this claim...about "confessions" which were not recorded...

 

 

 

 
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.

 

 

....you were talking about "confessions" which "existed"...but you had "never gotten"???  Is that correct? :popcorn:

 

 

Also...since you claim to have "gotten three confessions from creators of the PGF"......who "wore the suit"....and who "supplied/made the suit"??  :popcorn:

 

 

 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

If they are not recorded, I have no way to prove that they exist.

 

 

Then how were you able to make this claim to Jody?...

 

 

 

That's simply far too sensitive a thing to answer on the Internet, Jodie. Sorry.

I can tell you that my documentary will feature at least three confessions. 

 

 

If you had received "three confessions"...and you could tell Jody in a definitive manner, that your documentary will feature them....how is it that now you are saying that "you have no way of proving you've heard them"??

 

You must have thought that you could have had those "principals" confess to you again, and had the confessions recorded for your documentary.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Really?? Then, when you made this claim...about "confessions" which were not recorded...

 

 

 

....you were talking about "confessions" which "existed".....yet you had "never gotten"???  Is that correct? 

 

Yes, as I said gotten refers to recording something which can then be shown to others. I am sure you have familiarity with the technical innovation we call the telephone. Speaking with people is one thing, recording said conversation is another. Do you understand? Have you spoken with Al DeAtley yet, and if not, why not? This is an excellent opportunity for you to expose possible nefarious majestic Bigfoot belief undermining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Yes, 

 

 

So, according to you...."three confessions exist"....which "you have never gotten". :wacko:

 

Playing in your "wonderful world of words" some more....would you agree with the following statement, as being wholly accurate?...

 

"I, kitakaze....have gotten three principals of the PGF to confess to me....while I have not gotten three confessions from principals of the PGF"? 

 

 
 

 

 

...as I said gotten refers to recording something which can then be shown to others. 

 

 
To most people...including some who read this Forum...."gotten" simply means that you have attained, or received something.
 
If I managed to get Bob "the Buck stops/starts here" Heironimus to confess to me that he wasn't Patty....I would say that I had "gotten a confession" from Bob Heironimus.
 
Yet again, folks.....kitakaze has spoken in ambiguous, convoluted, contradictory....and essentially meaningless...terms. :)
 
 
Again....since you claim to have gotten "three confessions from creators of the PGF"...(which you have "never gotten")......who "wore the suit"....and who"supplied/made the suit"??   :popcorn:
 
And, again.....earlier, you wrote:
 

 

 

If they are not recorded, I have no way to prove that they exist.

 

 

How then were you able to make this claim to Jody?...

 

 

 

That's simply far too sensitive a thing to answer on the Internet, Jodie. Sorry.

I can tell you that my documentary will feature at least three confessions. 

 

 

If you had received "three confessions"...and you could tell Jody in a definitive manner that your documentary will feature them....how is it that now you are saying that "you have no way of proving you've heard them"?? :popcorn:

 

You must have thought that you could have had those "principals" confess to you again, and had the confessions recorded for your documentary.

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Like a politician !  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

To say the least, Pat.. ;)  My, it's a great day for a    :bbq:  .....on and off the Forum....isn't it?! :drinks:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Sounds like a cracker jack of an idea !

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

:P

K...now back to your scheduled program !

 

Pat...

post-279-0-78613700-1432514973_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Don't forget the Cracker Jacks, good buddy... :popcorn: ...

 

 

Cracker%20Jacks3_zpst9z11is1.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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...

 

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.

The evidence they followed was a hoax...

BCMpic.jpg

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

 

You mention Harvey Anderson.  Where is this story from?  

 

As far as the Gimlin imposter not being relevant, it's because in this instance I am totally open to the possibility that a conman did in fact luck out and film a real bigfoot. 

 

The reason I am open to this is that I find elements of the film to be nearly impossible to hoax,  if the film was a blobsquatch, then I'd dismiss it out of hand.  This is the opposite, the more analysis, the harder and harder it seems to hoax. 

 

As I've mentioned a few times now, I am totally open to being wrong.  If you can supply a good rebuttal to this   for starters, I will consider changing my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Fake Gimlin which Gimin was not happy about. Yet another reason to pee Gimlin off. Yet real Gimlin still didn't 'reveal the hoax'. Geez was Patterson holding Gimlin's bunny hostage or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Real Gimlin says wife nearly divorced him simply for being witness to a Bigfoot filming. What does wife do when real Gimlin tells world he and Patterson made un-Bigfoot simply out of what, spite? Marriage or maybe some cash from who, where and what and you are the center of scorn for your small community.

No, real Gimlin was drawn in by promises of the grand schemes of conman Patterson. Patterson was a conman. This hurts when finding oneself clinging to Bigfoot, but so sad, that's the truth.

Real Gimlin's wife does not tolerate him flailing around the country with, by Patterson's own brother-in-law's account, less than faithful Bigfoot barnstormer. Gimlin expects to sit at home and get one-third barnstorming money while DeAtley and Patterson set about doing the actual foot work for the Bigfoot is real facade they created. Erm, no, says Al and Roger, so they create un-Gimlin.

Patterson coaches un-Gimlin to be Gimlin. This is the sunburn reality PGF believers have to face. The creator of their most cherished film was a swindling fraud doing PT Barnum smoke and mirrors.

Patterson was a known hoaxer. You can be an apologist about it or face it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You mention Harvey Anderson.  Where is this story from?

From an interview with Yakima camera store owner Anderson and Greg Long in April of 2001. It can be read from page 389 of Long's book The Making of Bigfoot.

Resistance to that information will be made by PGF enthusiasts who will allow Patterson's hoaxing but no, please go away with Anderson's experiences with Patterson.

 

As far as the Gimlin imposter not being relevant, it's because in this instance I am totally open to the possibility that a conman did in fact luck out and film a real bigfoot.

We could not have a better demonstration of the core cognitive dissonance had I specifically asked for it.

This is the very nature of the issue. This is why Bigfootery year after year is a culture of constant failure and excuses, clinging to forever out of reach Fortean dreams in which the real world is never enough.

This mentality of openness to conmen; this is why you have Roger Patterson, Frank Hansen, Rick Dyer, Todd Standing, Melba Ketchum - the people who prey upon Fortean addiction. This culture of enablement creates these people, allows them to do what they do. I think of the analogy of an abusive partner where the abused constantly comes back to that situation no matter how many times they are hurt by it.

Let me ask you very bluntly what you think this film can ever do for you. Do you think it can affirm your beliefs in Bigfoot? Do you think it can win non-believers to your belief system? Do you think in lieu of actual Bigfoot, there will be some sea change where the PGF would ever be taken seriously as reliable evidence of Bigfoot?

I am asking you this as one who was one of you, both a Bigfoot and PGF believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...