Jump to content
Guest

Was Roger Patterson Really A Known Hoaxer?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

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?

 

 

kit also wrote:

 

If you think it's because you saw it, fine. If you think it is just really rare, fine. If you think it's based on the evidence you've seen, fine. I did the same thing and that was fine. 

 

 

And:

 

 

...it's fine to believe Bigfoot because you think you saw it, think it's very rare, or think the evidence you've seen is compelling...

 

 

And:

 

 

Thus for me to think Johnson really saw Bigfoot, there was nothing wrong with it,

 

 

 

And, just last year....kit wrote:

 

 

I never left the club of thinking simply believing in Bigfoot is fine.

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49350-information-wanted-roger-patterson/page-2#entry873133

 

 

 

And....for the Grand Finale... :) ...

 

 

 

 I have many friends in this community who feel differently and they all have perfectly valid reasons different from mine. 

 

Scott Herriott, Henry May, Steven Streufert, John Cartwright, Bill Munns, Rictor Riolo, Cindy Bowers, Mike Rugg, Darren Lee, Masterbarber, wolftrax, rockinkt...

 

All people whom whether they believe in Patty or Bigfoot in general, I support them and have no desire to change their beliefs. 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49183-discovery-channel-bigfoot-gait-analysis/page-4

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

 

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.

 

You missed the qualifier.  I said it very clearly that this is an exception based on the extraordinary evidence.  Ignoring the qualifier is a type of a logical fallacy.

 

If I said I am against killing, but in the case of self defense I think it could understood, and then you quoted me saying I understand killing and called it an example of sociopathic behaviour, that would be ridiculous.  But that's exactly what you did.

 

To your second question, what this film can do for me?  I think you are perhaps more invested in this subject than I am.  The film is an interesting mystery, nothing more nothing less.  There are quite a few elements that would be so difficult to hoax that I have a hard time believing it could be a man in a suit.  As to what it actually is?  Of course we can't be sure unless we had independent confirmation. 

 

And to finish - 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
PBeaton

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.

"..un-Bigfoot..", "Marriage or maybe some cash from who, where and what..",  "..conman Patterson. Patterson was a conman." (are you tryin' ta tell us somethin' ? ), "..un-Gimlin." , "..sunburn reality PGF believers have to face."

 

Really ! :boredom: 

 

post-279-0-12791700-1432588143_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Logical fallacies, now bad poetry...

 

This PGF thing really has kit emotionally invested. 

 

As discussed in this thread, Patterson was probably not a guy you'd want dating your daughter (or I guess Mom in my case).

 

Luckily we don't have to depend on his testimony.  The whole reason we are here still discussing this so many years later is that you (and others) have failed to debunk the film believably.  You cannot refute the actual evidence, so you attack the back story.  Which is the same thing as an ad hominem logical fallacy.  Again, if you don't agree start with this.  Nobody is blindly clinging to the reality of BF, we are moved by very compelling evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Real Gimlin says wife nearly divorced him simply for being witness to a Bigfoot filming.

 

What did Gimlins's wife say was the reason that she was contemplating divorce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

LastLaugh wrote:

 

 

What did Gimlins's wife say was the reason that she was contemplating divorce?

 

 

It was because Bob let Al get the suit...to display in his home...

 

"It's always Al.....Al gets everything....never us, is it Bob?!"...   :roadrage:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

 

Kit, why on earth would you be goading SY into contacting big Al to inform him that the jig is up with his PGF "trophy"? Wouldn't that be it for the suit? Don't you think big Al would ensure the suit never saw the light of day after he discovered someone breached his office? Why would you hope for that? What are you thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

As discussed in this thread, Patterson was probably not a guy you'd want dating your daughter (or I guess Mom in my case).

 

 

 Oh I don't know. I heard he was a Korean War veteran and used to give little kids free pony rides and had a spirit of adventure about him. Too many people here only talk about the negatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Real Gimlin says wife nearly divorced him simply for being witness to a Bigfoot filming. ....

 

 

Kit - you seem like a smart guy, clearly steadfast in your opinion... but -

 

You say the proponents here can't deal with reality and are clinging to BF desperately, yet you can't seem to respond to most of the arguments that are being put out.  If it's such a childish delusion, then this should be shooting fish in a barrel for you.

 

You quoted me out of context to make a condescending point (via logical fallacy), then ignored the rebuttal.  You claim to be interested in debate, yet fail to actually respond when you're in one.

 

So...

 

What specifically did Mrs. Gimlin get upset over concerning the results of Bob being connected to the film?  You say it's because of Patterson being a hoaxer, how do you know that?

 

Do you really think that BH is the man in the patty suit?

 

Do you really think that Patterson hoaxed the trackway separately from the film?

 

How do you explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

39019e15 (2).jpg

kitakaze,

You said  "What each of these collections show is an internal consistency with the hoaxer creating the fake prints.", I've asked multiple times, what evidence do you have that Roger made/hoaxed all these tracks. You used this as evidence of Patterson hoaxing...please...do tell. 

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Good queation, Pat. Considering several of the cast are washed out as far as detail goes, I too would like to hear what Kitakaze has to say. In my view, it is looking more and more that like Kerry did - Kitakaze will say anything regardless if it is so or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

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.

This actually just got laid out to you, in English.  Do you understand?

 

Why are you unable to make a single point in favor of your argument, insisting instead with metronomic regularity on condescending posts like this?  Why are you refusing to give us anything to respect about your stance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^

 

Good queation, Pat. Considering several of the cast are washed out as far as detail goes, I too would like to hear what Kitakaze has to say. In my view, it is looking more and more that like Kerry did - Kitakaze will say anything regardless if it is so or not.

 

 

That's exactly the reason why I'm not interested in what kitakaze has to say, regarding the evidence for Bigfoot. I personally put very little weight in anything he says...(regarding the evidence.)

 

IMHO...looking for 'kit's word' on the evidence is kinda like going 'dumpster diving' with kit, into his dumpster....looking for little nuggets of gold. I think you're going to be generally disappointed, with the nuggets you do find... :stinker:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze had claimed Patterson hoaxed tracks, thus the PGF tracks were easy for him to do. Neanderfoot had asked him for proof of Patterson hoaxing tracks prior to the PGF, kitakaze used this as one of his pieces of evidence. I told him Patterson has images of only two casts in his book that was written in 1966. If Patterson didn't make/hoax all these tracks as kitakaze claims, an as I suspect to be the case...then kitakaze has some unfinished business. I reckon that's why he's not answerin my repeated question regardin the matter.

 

Pat...

 

Hoax= an act intended to deceive or trick

Deceive= cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage:

 

 

That said, if you can find any evidence that I have participated in any hoax, PGF or otherwise, I will sponsor the premium membership of anyone you choose and resign my own BFF membership.

 

Neanderfoot, Posted 20 April 2015 - 04:15 AM (Think Like A Hoaxer thread)

If you can show us that Patterson had "years of experience" in hoaxing bigfoot tracks I will pay £1000 to the charity of your choice.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7847-think-like-a-hoaxer/page-21#entry901781

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

39019e15 (2).jpg

kitakaze,

You said  "What each of these collections show is an internal consistency with the hoaxer creating the fake prints.", I've asked multiple times, what evidence do you have that Roger made/hoaxed all these tracks. You used this as evidence of Patterson hoaxing...please...do tell. 

 

Pat...

The one next to Roger is a Wallace stomper print cast.  So Roger wasn't astute enough to know the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...