Sasquatch Ontario Kaput!

[roguefooter]

^It's the difference between a suspicious story and evidence of fakery.

 

I don't believe any of the colorful stories, but a story isn't enough to call a hoax. For all I know he could have been doing peyote and believed everything he experienced. That's not hoaxing.

 

Posting pictures of fish eyes, phony handprints, silly audio clips, along with the colorful story (along with story changes and contradictions) all adds up to a hoax and nothing else.

Edited June 8, 2015 by roguefooter

[ohiobill]

Shucks, twas nothing. Almost anyone can make their point clearer than you:) 
 
"Trying to connect x to y because the stories are similar doesn't work, each book or claim or writer is judged on it's own. Mike Patterson is no KB!"
 
We know Mike Patterson is a hoaxer whose opinion and faked "evidence" is worthless. We can disregard his claims. 

 

KB may be telling the truth, he may be mistaken or he could also be hoaxing.  

[ThePhaige]

Shucks, twas nothing. Almost anyone can make their point clearer than you:) 

Im grateful to have such comptent folks all around me for that and you are no exception
 
"Trying to connect x to y because the stories are similar doesn't work, each book or claim or writer is judged on it's own. Mike Patterson is no KB!"

Well I was trying illestrate how some will try to say that someone who is willing to write a book or tries for a financial gain in relations to their experience somehow automatically means they are excluded from having credibility any more.
 
We know Mike Patterson is a hoaxer whose opinion and faked "evidence" is worthless. We can disregard his claims. 

Whos "we" do you represent a group or organisation that you care to list the names, and do you also have evidence for your claim? Id like to see that if ya do...and again with the "We"

 

KB may be telling the truth, he may be mistaken or he could also be hoaxing. 

Ummm yeah he might be...which do you consider likely?

 

Rogue footer said:

I don't believe any of the colorful stories

That says it all RF, thanks for being straight, I dont blame you one bit

 

For all I know he could have been doing peyote and believed everything he experienced. That's not hoaxing

But he didnt say he was doing peyote, and if one is doing something like that and then making claims like hes made

I might likin it to hoaxing...unless one were to say I was on peyote and I could have swore I saw a Ssq, in fact I sat

down with one and he is now my teacher...or refers to me as his teacher. He must have done peyote on many such

occations also since all these claims are over a long period...but ok.

 

Posting pictures of fish eyes, phony handprints, silly audio clips, along with the colorful story (along with story changes and contradictions) all adds up to a hoax and nothing else.

You may well be right...but you have to prove it in order to call it a fact...which to my knowledge you have not done , or have you?

[Guest]

Phaige, please answer this question.  Do you accept everything that Mike has claimed as being real and truthful?  Do you accept his testimony and evidence as being 100% legit and honest?

[ThePhaige]

Im sorry Lastlaugh I thought I was pretty clear in my postion on this in my post above. Does that not answer your question? I think also there are literally hundreds of pages of debate on this going back to when Mike was on this forum under the name Toejam. I have made many times my position clear and I think its been pretty consistent through all of it.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51404-sasquatch-ontario-kaput/page-8#entry909212

[roguefooter]

 

You may well be right...but you have to prove it in order to call it a fact...which to my knowledge you have not done , or have you?

 

Unless there is a logical explanation to show otherwise (key word being show) then the most logical answer is a hoax.

 

I never proclaimed anything as a fact- I said it adds up to a hoax, so I conclude it to be a hoax.

 

Obviously some people have had a problem with that. If a Bigfooter could profess existence through knowing, then I could profess the reality of a hoax through my knowing as well. People could contest or reject that all they want, just like I do.

 

Does KB's story add up to a hoax? I don't know enough about it to make the claim. There are other logical explanations that could have the same outcome while not being a hoax (though most people here won't want to hear those explanations). SO's case meanwhile has no other logical explanation.

 

My suspension of disbelief on Bigfoot ends with the physical creature angle. So anything paranormal or beyond the realm of a feral animal/human behavior or capability just doesn't jive as being logical to me.

Edited June 8, 2015 by roguefooter

[chelefoot]

FWIW, I have spoken to someone who was present when the group KB was with saw the large male. That person was standing right there in nearly the same spot and said he/she saw nothing.

 

I have a heck of a lot of respect for KB. I do NOT believe he is lying, hoaxing about anything he claims. However, I do feel like the power of suggestion could be at play. No disrespect intended to those that believe they saw something that day. I really feel like they all believe what they say they saw. But belief is belief. It's not reliable, it's not scientifically accurate, and it's flawed with perception, bias, and many other things that can influence it.

[Old Dog]

Not exactly my point but to surmise I think who to trust and what do we trust since there are living evidences of fraud, hoax and misinformation in all sectors. Here we have a member of this forum who is in with the Sas according to his personal testimony who most say is the equivalent to rock solid , I have heard many members says over time that if KB is interacting with a SSQ then KB is interacting with a SSQ...So yes I would think a live one would be the most convincing...pretty hard (not impossible perhaps) to hoax a living being...so if he were to somehow lure it out to be interacted with , would this seal the deal for everyone? maybe or maybe not. 

 

You said nothing about luring one out and having interactions with one.  Your statement was :  "Didnt KB Hunter just come face to face with a large living male. I think that's more convincing than a dead one which could always be some phony taxidermy..."  A story, regardless of whom it comes from, is just that, a story.  I don't care how trusted a person is within any community, it is always open to suspicion with out hardcore proof.  Ask anyone who believed Brian Williams was always truthful.  I'm not calling KBHunter a liar, I'm just saying his stories, however compelling, have no hard proof, so should be taken with the usual grain of salt.

 

As to the taxidermy (and other fallacies, hoaxes or lies) comment I dont think it...I have seen the evidence...which I can provide unless you would prefer to do your own research. No thats not to say all evidence collected used to support the theory is fallacy...Im saying much of it is, has and its documented so. This is the same with SSQ ...certainly much of it is hoax , misinformation or lies...but not all of it...but enough of it evidently to warrant discarding the entire phenomenon for some evidently.

 

As to taxidermy being foisted upon the public as proof, I have found a couple of incidents such as Piltdown man and what is called the Piltdown Chicken in my searches, but have found no evidence from any legitimate site that shows any sort of widespread shenanigans going on in the scientific community to hoax discoveries aside from a handful of religious based conspiracy theory sites.  So if you could list your references either here or by PM, I would appreciate the opportunity to look at them.  Then maybe we could discuss that aspect of your statements.  Also, by your statement :  "..I have seen the evidence...", do you mean you have read about it, or actually seen the evidence?

  

Phaige, please don't take this as trying to start an argument, I am just seeking clarification of your stance, and again, I am not calling KB's integrity into question, only stating that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

[Guest]

FWIW, I have spoken to someone who was present when the group KB was with saw the large male. That person was standing right there in nearly the same spot and said he/she saw nothing.

I have a heck of a lot of respect for KB. I do NOT believe he is lying, hoaxing about anything he claims. However, I do feel like the power of suggestion could be at play. No disrespect intended to those that believe they saw something that day. I really feel like they all believe what they say they saw. But belief is belief. It's not reliable, it's not scientifically accurate, and it's flawed with perception, bias, and many other things that can influence it.

It's not important what made KB claim he saw a Sasquatch. What we do know is, it wasn't because he saw a Sasquatch and that is all that matters.

ThePhaige,

How can you give Mike the benefit of the doubt when it was proven on this forum that one of the fish eyes belonged to a salt water species. IMO that is sloppy shameless hoaxing. /case closed

Edited June 8, 2015 by Nakani

[chelefoot]

It's not important what made KB claim he saw a Sasquatch. What we do know is, it wasn't because he saw a Sasquatch and that is all that matters.

So you are saying he claims he saw a Sasquatch for some other reason than he saw a Sasquatch? I'm confused. Are you just restating what I said?

[ThePhaige]

Obviously some people have had a problem with that. If a Bigfooter could profess existence through knowing, then I could profess the reality of a hoax through my knowing as well. People could contest or reject that all they want, just like I do.

The knower was there when it happened...doesnt always mean what is reported or experienced is accurate or even proof, however  your claim to hoax because you know is flawed because you werent there to observe the hoax, you just assume it is because the put up as evidence is not so easy to explain...unless you conclude a hoax which again is and assumption and your opinion only.

 

 

Old Dog Said: Phaige, please don't take this as trying to start an argument, I am just seeking clarification of your stance, and again, I am not calling KB's integrity into question, only stating that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

 

 

Fair enough and I am not looking for an argument, I said what I meant to say there and there is not place really to go. However I am going to challenge the reverse false claim to a hoax where there is no evidence to support the hoax. It is a direct assault to a persons credibility and that I will always challenge. As to your other question you are correct regarding Piltdown man and I commend you for your search for truths in that regard here are couple others from memory. Evidence is evidence ..placing the workd extraordinary on it is all relative. facts are facts not matter how colorful the word play is.

 

Piltdown Man: Was the fusion of a human skull with an apes lower jaw in a blatant hoax.... they filed them down and fooled everybody. In 1912 they discovered the Piltdown man. It was in the New York Times: “Darwin Theory Proved True†from the Piltdown Man. It was gonna be used in 1925 at the Scopes monkey trial as part of the evidence for evolution [The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case, 1925, p. 278] , but the judge said: “The question is not, is there evidence for evolution; the question is, did he violate the law of teaching?†So he was found guilty of breaking the law. The teacher was John T. Scopes down here in Dayton, Tennessee.

 

Nebraska Man:  Was built from a single tooth and later they even built him a wife. They build a whole missing link from a tooth and were able to determine what his wife looked like also.. Later they determined the tooth was from a pig.

 

Cro-Magnon: still used in the textbooks, yet it's a perfectly normal human. Why on earth is that considered a missing link?

 

Lucy: No hand or foot bones were found other austilapithisthines that were found had curled toes and were obviously knuckle walkers and had a grasping foot or seperated toe. Not human like at all, just an unusual monkey. One knee was found at the site and another was found a year earlier (called the Hader Knee) and nearly 70 meters lower and a mile away ..Yet National Geographic called it Lucys knees five times in the Nov 5, 1985 issue. The Washington Universtity has a display (misrepresentation) (hoax?) of Lucy showing human like feet and hands when none were found.. When confronted with the evidence of the curled feet and monkey likehands of everything else found in the areas The Professor had this to say: " We cannot be updating every exibit based on every new piece of evidence that is found. We look at the overall exibit and interpretation it creates. We think the overall impression this exibit creates is correct ... ummm ok, there that We again intillectual types love that

 

Orce man:  O-r-c-e, They were gonna put a big party for the Orce man they discovered. Till they discovered it's actually a piece of a skull fragment from a donkey. A skull found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia

 

Homo erectus: is still in the textbooks. Homo erectus used to be called Java man, then they changed it to Pithecanthropus erectus, and now called Homo erectus. It was found by Dr. Dubois, a Dutch anatomist who went to Indonesia purposely, to try to find missing links. He hired a bunch of prison convicts to go dig for him. He wasn't even there when they found it. What they found was an ape's skull cap, three human teeth, and a thigh bone found a year later 50 feet away. Dubois put them all together and said: “We have a missing link here.†You don't even know those animal bones go together. Three teeth, thigh bone, and a skull cap from an ape! This was also gonna be used in 1925 as evidence for evolution at the Scopes monkey trial. [The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case, 1925, p. 277]

 

Peking man: was used for years as evidence for evolution. Everything disappeared during World War II; but they found a cave, with a bunch of crushed monkey skulls in there. The skull had been smashed, and they found a bunch of human tools. And so some brilliant scientist said: “Wow, these monkeys are learning to make tools...they didn't tell anybody that they found 10 normal humans in the same cave. Skeletons of humans. In many cultures Monkey brain is a delicacy, the humans were more than likely eating the monkeys and using the tools to bust open the head for the brain delicacy.

 

The Hobbit : was just found here in 2004. The Hobbit was an little bitty, tiny human. Probably a result of secondary microcephaly dwarfism. Just a normal human, about 3½ feet tall! There are people like that today running around the planet

 

Nakani Said:

How can you give Mike the benefit of the doubt when it was proven on this forum that one of the fish eyes belonged to a salt water species. IMO that is sloppy shameless hoaxing. /case closed

 

 

Nothing was proven except that it looks to be a fish eye of a species that is known. other than that as strange and bizarre as that is admittedly we dont know what caused that to say case closed its a hoax, although you personally may have reached that conclusion. its still just an assumption.

[Guest]

So you are saying he claims he saw a Sasquatch for some other reason than he saw a Sasquatch? I'm confused. Are you just restating what I said?

It could be me who is confused. You said someone who was there said there was no sasquatch, all I'm saying is that, wondering why he said there was, is a waste of time.

ThePhaige,

My bad it was a large mouthed bass not a salt water species. So that changes everything. ...not! (Do the kids still say that?)

[ThePhaige]

^^ Haha!! keep working at it Nakani

[roguefooter]

The knower was there when it happened...doesnt always mean what is reported or experienced is accurate or even proof, however  your claim to hoax because you know is flawed because you werent there to observe the hoax, you just assume it is because the put up as evidence is not so easy to explain...unless you conclude a hoax which again is and assumption and your opinion only.

 

 

It's only flawed by your own definition.

 

You don't need to be anywhere to experience a hoax. A hoax can be purely digital- all you need to do is experience it. You don't have to be present to recognize handprints as being drawn, or to recognize story changes or blunders, or to recognize photoshop, or a rubber Halloween costume.

 

I mean if you really want to go down the technical jargon rabbit hole then any Bigfoot encounter can be written off as an assumption or opinion. Unless of course they physically inspected the subject making sure there were no parts made of latex or a person underneath the fur, etc. How can anyone be a "knower" if they really don't know for sure?

Edited June 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[chelefoot]

Back to the topic:

 

From Mike Patterson

 

regarding his demise In my videos I used some of the owner's son and his gf's photos with full permission at the time of posting of course. They've turned on me and are now filing copyright claims on their photos in the videos. If I'd had any insight that they''d pull such a low move, I'd never have used anything of theirs. I will make new videos if I have to. I'm just battling youtube right now and dealing with the fall out of this situation.