Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

Why Skeptics Can Still Enjoy The Pgf

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

Nicely written article from Skeptoid about the PGF

 

"Yet, perhaps it was that insistence on being who he was that caused his film to outlive nearly everyone else of his day. Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made."

 

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I have read it before. I did not think much of it. I still don't. Thanks for sharing anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

The same could have been said about the Zapruder Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not many true 'skeptics' posting here I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Nicely written article from Skeptoid about the PGF

 

"Yet, perhaps it was that insistence on being who he was that caused his film to outlive nearly everyone else of his day. Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made."

 

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

 

That's an interesting article. I would nitpick about some small details, like Roger's age in 1967 (34, not 41).

 

The general concept for discussion is more interesting to me - how skeptics can still enjoy the PGF. Having found the film to be a hoax does not lessen my enjoyment of it. It's imagery has fascinated me since I was 8 years old and thirty years later I still have plenty to be fascinated with and all sort of unanswered questions. Did Patterson make the suit himself or was it paid for wholly by DeAtley and made  by someone else? 

 

The plot holes involving DeAtley are still a major issue for the film and I don't think we'll know the resolution until he passes and his family starts talking publicly as was the case with Ray Wallace.

 

No matter what, Roger, Bob G, Bob H and DeAtley pulled off something pretty extraordinary by the very definition of the word. I think the film will probably be exposed finally very close to its 50 year mark which is quite a run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

From the article:

 

 

 

Just over four years later, Roger Patterson lay in bed and drew his final breaths. The film had been a great success, and brought in a constant stream of money unlike anything he'd ever known. Patricia securely owned enough of the film rights to sustain herself. When he finally closed his eyes, Roger went to that great Bigfoot pasture in the sky, without ever having compromising the eternal youth that was in his makeup to be. He never paid his bills. He never sold hours of his life. He never put in an honest day of someone else's work. He never sacrificed his lack of principles. He never gave up being untrustworthy and living his few years on his own terms. Yet, perhaps it was that insistence on being who he was that caused his film to outlive nearly everyone else of his day. Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made.

 

 

As a legit film....it is the greatest film ever made... :) ...

 

BestOfPattyAG3_zps63a3862f.gif

 

 

On a related note....the guy who wrote the article is an uninformed idiot. 

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

I still have plenty to be fascinated with and all sort of unanswered questions. Did Patterson make the suit himself or was it paid for wholly by DeAtley and made  by someone else? 

 

 

Hey kit...you failed to answer my question, regarding your "multiple confessions", in this post...(in the 'Questionable Character' thread)...

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51729-was-bob-titmus-of-questionable-character/?p=916442

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The author made a number of factual errors. Another example is here...

 

Patty had a brother in Yakima, WA, Al DeAtley, a successful asphalt contractor, who provided money whenever it was needed. It was this even keel that got Roger Patterson through.

 

 

Al DeAtley is not Patricia Patterson's brother. DeAtley is Roger Patterson brother-in-law by his marriage to Roger's sister Iva.

 

Calling the person an "uninformed idiot" would be an example of what I think is fundamentalism.

 

You failed to answer the following question...

 

 


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51729-was-bob-titmus-of-questionable-character/page-4#entry915375

 

Do you think there is a reasonable degree of probability that Bob Heironimus wore a suit for Patterson which was filmed though was not the PGF?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Because yes, I=B.  Who, like, *wants* to know all that, you know, information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

The author made a number of factual errors. Another example is here...

 

 

Al DeAtley is not Patricia Patterson's brother. DeAtley is Roger Patterson brother-in-law by his marriage to Roger's sister Iva.

 

Calling the person an "uninformed idiot" would be an example of what I think is fundamentalism.

 

 

Actually, I referred to him as an idiot for a specific reason.....because of what he says here...

 

 

 

Whether or not Bigfoot exists is one question — the answer to which has not exactly whitened the knuckles of science — but the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film is something else. If Bigfoot were known to be a real animal, an investigation into the authenticity of the film would make sense. If Bigfoot were known to not exist, then it would be logically moot to study the film at all; it must be a fake. But for today's purpose, we're going to brush aside the larger question (which should never be done in real science) and focus only on this detail. We'll assume that the existence of Bigfoot is an open question (a big assumption), and just for fun, let's see what we can determine on whether this famous film clip is a deliberate hoax, or 

 

 

Initially, he is talking as if the existence of Bigfoot is unknown/unproven....(which is the case)....and then, right afterwards...says "we'll assume it is an open question....(a big assumption"). :wacko:

 

Well, if he is acknowledging that Bigfoot is 'unproven', either way.....then why does he need to assume that that is the situation? Doesn't he know what he just acknowledged???

 

 

Also, he is uninformed....because he thinks that Phillip Morris and Bob Heironimus were involved with the making of the PGF....(when it has been shown on the BFF that neither one was). If he were better informed, he would know better. :)

 

 

 

You failed to answer the following question...

 

 

You have made a bold claim, of "having three confessions"....which, according to you...."exist".

 

You have made statements regarding them which appear to be inconsistent. So, feel free to clear-up the confusion.

 

How about doing that for us because you "love Bigfoot as a myth"..."enjoy the PGF as a hoax"....("Having found the film to be a hoax does not lessen my enjoyment of it.")....and, I would assume, genuinely like us Bigfoot proponents....who share this love with you. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I do not mind answering questions on a discussion forum as long as the answers are not something that compromises an ongoing effort of mine relating to the documentary, the PGF film or any other reliable evidence claim investigation, and as long as the one asking does not themselves refuse to answer questions.

 

You refuse to answer simple questions so you are experiencing the result of that refusal.

 

I am currently working on trying to obtain a second alleged recorded confession and to authenticate it as being actually what it is purported to be. There are all sorts of questions one could ask about it that I will not answer as it could compromise the effort to document the claim.

 

Like you, Sweaty, I am only interested in the truth regarding the PGF and there are still many unresolved issue for me.

 

If you find yourself writing the words "you failed to answer my question", right at that moment stop and think whether or not that sentence currently also applies to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
I am currently working on trying to obtain a second alleged recorded confession and to authenticate it as being actually what it is purported to be. There are all sorts of questions one could ask about it that I will not answer as it could compromise the effort to document the claim.

 

 

I thought you were turning your documentary work over to anyone who would carry on with investigating it. Sounds like the woo train just made another 180 turn-a-round.   :)

 

 

Like you, Sweaty, I am only interested in the truth regarding the PGF  .......... .

 

You heard him, Sweaty .... can't be any more sincerer than that.

th_pinocchio_zpshdu2pnzh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Anyone who would carry on with it? What are you talking about, man? You can not even remember your own writing...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50381-patty-the-conehead/page-13#entry911678

 

I do not expect you to remember mine.

 

When I am in Japan, making a documentary film is on hiatus. That does not mean investigating claims of reliable evidence is on hiatus or claims of recorded confessions. Do you understand? No, you do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

I don't honestly know if the PGF is real or fake. I can see both sides of the story, how it has a look of autheticity or also what some describe as "diaper butt". Even if it is fake I'd like to know how they did it because if it is fake it's one of the best sci-fi special effects episodes ever filmed in my opinion. Apes and monsters on film at that time very rarely looked that good. I know about the ape suits on Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes but Patty was the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Anyone who would carry on with it? What are you talking about, man?

 

I was talking about your statement that you would turn over your files to anyone who would follow through with what you had started. Was it just more 'woo' from 'you'.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Can you show a quote, as I'm not certain what you are referring to? You can not even remember your own written statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...