Guest Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Right, but BG and RP have never been proven to put on a hoax that has been fooling the bigfoot community for years ... more than 40 of them. Critics have tried to discredit them pretty much every way imaginable without any success. If the worst you can say about someone is that they were a cowboy or that they were enterprising and tried various avenues to make a buck, then pretty much most of America is in the same boat. . I'll tell you another boat the overwhelming majority of America is in, that the PGF is a fake. Patty looks and acts like a man in a suit shot on poor quailty film(60s tech). The way that thing is saunteering through that creek bed I could catch her with 2 broken legs, yet P&G could not. So it is my opinion that Gimlin knows the truth, but will take it to his grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I'll tell you another boat the overwhelming majority of America is in, that the PGF is a fake. Patty looks and acts like a man in a suit shot on poor quailty film(60s tech). The way that thing is saunteering through that creek bed I could catch her with 2 broken legs, yet P&G could not. So it is my opinion that Gimlin knows the truth, but will take it to his grave. Citation please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 denialist, on matters of opinion, I will respect yours even if I don't agree with them. If you make an analogy by stating that "you could catch her with two broken legs" then I can't dispute your belief that the gate was too slow, or that you are just extremely fast by some other means of locomation. However the stride and frequency of the steps would have made this trek nearly impossible for a person in a HUGE suit and over sized fake feet to reproduce "The way that thing is saunteering through that creek bed". Yeah, that's some hella smooth saunteering goin on there for sure. Was the man in the suit a professional clown? We can't agree that P&G were trying to catch her at all. I'll leave you with that assumption or assertion. Lastly, it doesn't matter if (in your opinion) "another boat the overwhelming majority of America is in, that the PGF is a fake." The overwhelming majority of America really doesn't know much about anything collectively, let alone this niche thing. But if you are referring to the small mass of armchair quarterbacks that love to sit back and cite the myriad of people all claiming to have pulled the hoax as the overwhelming majority, exactly which part of the charade is the correctly wrong version? Because all of the misinformation can't be right. And honestly, someone does their best work on this, better than the Planet of the Apes series, but they are going to "keep it a trade secret and take it to their grave". R i g h t . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 And I respect your opinion CM, apoligies for the severe derail. My initial question was simply referring to trackers 3 examples of "Gimlin, Goodall and Meldrum" in the original post. I just don't see Gimlin's expertise over many involved in this field, and not just the PHDs. I feel that there are many non scientist BF researchers whose opinions I would take before Gimlins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) I'll tell you another boat the overwhelming majority of America is in, that the PGF is a fake. Patty looks and acts like a man in a suit shot on poor quailty film(60s tech). The way that thing is saunteering through that creek bed I could catch her with 2 broken legs, yet P&G could not. So it is my opinion that Gimlin knows the truth, but will take it to his grave. Hey this is not a pattty debate thread however Watch it at regular speed, Patty was moving pretty good for a heavy creature with a bum leg in gravel/sand. They can keep that pace up over rough and steep terrain.anyways they did sprint and gained some ground. But as soon as she went up that embankment & into the forest. it was bye bye Bob and Rodger nice seeing ya. oh in case some think it's still a suit, she's got a ruptured right thigh muscle, that bulges when her her leg contracts. That pretty realistic for 1967 when hollywood best attempts were using expensive but crap gorilla suits to make the planet of apes movies. have another look. http://www.veoh.com/...1230779PJZtdQHd anyways maybe the critics have a role to play in keeping everyone honest? I almost forgot again, IMO tracker Edited May 5, 2011 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I ve spent some time recently in the media section pondering which new/old books i should buy. Most of the classic Bf books can't be found in public libraries anymore. Many helpfull members were suggesting their favs or were recommending books based on reviews. So okay i open another tab and pull up a couple titles and read the reviews. But it occured to me why should i trust some no name critic when talking about this subject? Who are these joe blows setting themselves up as experts? An unknown reviewing a credible authors or researchers who have they spent many years researching for their book? To me this seems wrong, like a commuter critiqing how a race car driver should drive? The other thing was are some of these people paid to do this? or is it political? That would seem like a conflict of interest to me if so. When is the last time anyone read a bad review on the back of a book cover? So where do these experts come from that they can critique anyones work let alone the real experts or pioneers? What they went to university and remembered the right answers on an exam from a book written by someone else? So okay they wrote a thesiss and now they are a beginner expert and can start critiqing others on any topic after getting their journalisim degree? And what about the ones who don't even have that or any field experience? (which is of higher value to me) So unless their name is Gimlin, Goodall or Meldrum even. Or they are best selling non fiction author or a scientist in a related field first. Then these people don't have the credentials to be a reviewer. So maybe they should stop bombarding the web sites with their POV? Who cares what joe blow has to say about Meldrums or Greens work for eg: Anyways I always find it funny how some people start believing they are an expert after reading everyones elses work on the subject. Even better when they show up on web sites, forums, conferences and in the field ready to show off their knowledge and abilities. Then fall back on someone elses work when in a debate or when trying to make point. I am not an expert I've only spent 25-30 years in the field, this is JMO. Maybe someday i'll earn the right to be a critic? Until that day comes i am just tracker Can you be specific on where these reviews are, are these the customer reviews given on Amazon? Or reviews given here on the forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Can you be specific on where these reviews are, are these the customer reviews given on Amazon? Or reviews given here on the forum? no not on the forum just goggling books and coming across reviews. sure it's just opinion but some go over board like they are on the same level as Meldrum, Goodall & Green or want to be. it must be the topic that makes some try to pump up their credibility and seek out or extend their 15 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Than in that case yes people should give reviews, even if I don't agree with them. If I'm looking to buy anything, especially something that will require investing my time in like a book, than yeah I want to know as much about it as possible before I buy it. Especially bigfoot. Am I going to get the same old thing I read before? Is it detailed in it's examination of the evidence? So far every book I have read on bigfoot I have been disappointed with the lack of information on what convinces the author or a scientist in favor of supporting the evidence. I don't want to just read "This track could not have been made by a fake foot because it exhibits natural foot movement" (paraphrasing) I want to see that natural foot movement. I don't want to read just someone's conclusion, I want to see what it was that got them to reach it. I want details, so that I can form my own opinion. The subject of Bigfoot generally lacks these details, as if people have something to hide. Than it just becomes entertainment. If I wanted entertainment, I would just read fiction. As a customer, I have the right to be informed of what I am buying before I buy it. I shouldn't, and I won't, buy something first and then judge whether I wasted my money or not. When I provide a product or service to my customer, whether it is a full time job or temporary client, I inform them of exactly what they are getting before they give me money, a lot of times I give them that before they pay me money. I expect no less from those I would pay my money to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Does anyone remember a movie critic with black fuzzy hair? Maybe Gene something. If he rated a movie bad it was almost a guarantee that I'd love it. You're thinking of Gene Shalit. OT I find reviews useful regardless of the reviewer's pedigree. I've used reader reviews to help me make choices on purchases on a range of products from books to dvd players to firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 My initial question was simply referring to trackers 3 examples of "Gimlin, Goodall and Meldrum" in the original post. I just don't see Gimlin's expertise over many involved in this field, and not just the PHDs. I feel that there are many non scientist BF researchers whose opinions I would take before Gimlins. Gimlin is not deferred to regarding "opinion" on scientific questions. I don't need more opinion. This forum alone is rife with it, and I have my own. What Gimlin has that most others don't is experience. He was, he claims (and many, including I, believe) in the visual presence of a sasquatch, had a rifle in his possession, and has evidence to support his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Wolftrax, If someone wrote the book you describe how many copies would sell. Those type of scientific references are very expensive and aren't aimed at a mass market. The Bigfoot books we have been mentioning are aimed at a wider audience, don't you think. I don't think anyone is hiding anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Wolftrax, If someone wrote the book you describe how many copies would sell. Those type of scientific references are very expensive and aren't aimed at a mass market. The Bigfoot books we have been mentioning are aimed at a wider audience, don't you think. I don't think anyone is hiding anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I want to be fair. I appreciate what it takes to earn a Psy.D or PH.D and defend a thesis. It is generally accepted that someone with an advanced degree and tenure in their field of practice or research has more merit than the average Joe, or Bob etc etc. Although these creds get thrown out of court every day too. On the other hand eye witness testimony is still considered\refused\accepted across the world 24\7. Yes it is fallible and many men have wrongly served prison terms or even been put to death due to mistaken eye witness accounts, but BG isnt testifying that he saw a 500lb rapist fleeing the scene and chose Patty in a line up. He states that he and Roger came upon the creature and as it walked away, attempted to film it in accordance with the purpose of their visit. We have a film of what he swears he saw in person and that's substantial. He never strayed from this, he doesn't have 3 different versions and his character and credibility is widely accepted as above reproach. If BG were to actually critique someone's publication or work, other than of his own biography, then I would have to consider if he were qualified to make that assessment. I do consider though that he has been in the mix of research much longer than a lot of folks around these days and would value his opinion on most things bigfoot above a lot of folks who can google their pants off. Myself included! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Hey Bob knows alot more than what he let's on about at "the conferences" Guys like him and Green get constantly bombarded with the same old questions. He gets swarmed everywhere he goes with people constantly asking him for autographs or pictures or to shake hands or to recount his PGF encounter. He's got nothing to prove he already accomplished what he set out to do in 67. There were some hard times for Bob and Rodger before and after that film was taken. The popularity of this topic goes up and down like the dow jones index. Right now it's on an up swing so good old Bob makes a little extra income from speaking and appearences. Good for him I just hope he's still around when a specimen is obtain. But don't expect him to lower himself and say i told you so. When that happens how will the skeptics and critics make ammends for all the finger pointing over the long years? JMO tracker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Wolftrax, If someone wrote the book you describe how many copies would sell. Those type of scientific references are very expensive and aren't aimed at a mass market. The Bigfoot books we have been mentioning are aimed at a wider audience, don't you think. I don't think anyone is hiding anything. No, it's respecting people's intelligence instead of assuming they will eat anything that is spoon feed to them. Edited May 6, 2011 by Ilikebluepez delete offensive image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts