Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

Why Skeptics Can Still Enjoy The Pgf

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

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.

 

 

Bigfoothunter asked you for answers to my questions, kit...and he is your best "dancing partner" on this forum. Yet you do not answer them.

 

You have plenty of excuses for why you won't answer questions....but there is only one actual reason.....your claims are false, and unsupportable.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Boo Hoo Hoo for me... :)

 

I will continue asking you questions regarding your "confessions" claim, and "Patty suit" claim. And other members will also ask, I am sure.

 

kit wrote:

 

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. 

 

 

kit also declared, in March 2012:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Again...post #225...(the 'Questionable Character' thread).....can you explain how your various statements about the "three confessions" all fit into one scenario??...

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

In regards to any confessions. If someone truly had a smoking gun, why haven't they come forward before now?  What logical reason would there be for waiting 48 years before saying something? It's not like someone is revealing government secrets.

 

Here's an even better question: The PGF has been micro-analyzed many times over and in 48 years still has not been proven to be a hoax. What could anyone possibly reveal now that would blow the lid off things?

 

How would any confession now have any more credibility than Bob Heironimous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Perhaps they haven't come up with a smoking gun out of respect to Patricia Patterson. She is still alive and the PGF is her legacy is as much hers as it is Roger and Bob's and she is still earning money from it.

 

OkieFoot what if the confession comes from a Gimlin or a Patterson? Would you consider that a reliable source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
I'd probably be too excited finding out about the real Bigfoot to be thinking about Patty at that point.

 

That didn't quite answer his question. What if a body was found to look just like Patty ..... would that change your mind on the PGF being a real film or do you think you'd have too much invested and and too little character to admit you were wrong?

Perhaps they haven't come up with a smoking gun out of respect to Patricia Patterson. She is still alive and the PGF is her legacy is as much hers as it is Roger and Bob's and she is still earning money from it.

 

How much money did Mrs. Patterson earn from the film in 2014?  How about so far this year??  Please share what you know about what Mrs. Patterson still earns from the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

You raised the issue.... just answering your post that was made in this thread. So again, how much money did Mrs. Patterson earn from the film in 2014?  How about so far this year??  Please share what you know about what Mrs. Patterson still earns from the film.

 

Could it be that you do not know what Mrs. P still earns from the film ...... that is my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

That didn't quite answer his question. What if a body was found to look just like Patty ..... would that change your mind on the PGF being a real film or do you think you'd have too much invested and and too little character to admit you were wrong?

 

Actually, yes it did. What is underlined above does not appear anywhere in Backdoc's post...

 

 

Kit,

I am curious what you would do if (and I know it would be a Big 'IF') a Bigfoot was ever shot and we had proof in the form of a body, would you still think the PGF itself is a hoax, or would that cause you to reconsider?  We both realize a scenario could happen where a body is shot/proven and that proof could exist separate from some hoax.

 

Would definite proof of a bigfoot creature cause you to reconsider the PGF really was real after all?

 

Backdoc

 

 

You adding it after and saying my answer doesn't address Backdoc's question is par for the course for a man who can not remember his own writing.

 

Would you like to ask me your own new revised question? You need only acknowledge Backdoc never at all made any provisos about a body being found looking just like Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Actually, yes it did. What is underlined above does not appear anywhere in Backdoc's post...

 

 I read it as an inference - because shooting a Bigfoot that looked nothing like Patty wouldn't casue you to change your mind on the PGF. So it made sense to me that he meant 'would the shooting of another creature that looked like Patty then change your mind on the PGF?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Excellent. How about instead of inferring what you think he meant and telling me I didn't answer his question, you either just ask what you think is inferred rather than judge what is or is not answered for a question you never asked in the first place...

 

...or, and I'm sure this is asking too much, you go ahead and use just a portion of that same inference you used with Backdoc's post on the post of mine where that same answer you're looking for is directly implied...

 

 

I get asked this from time to time.

 

Unless the Bigfoot found had a large diaper butt, hairy breasts jutting straight out from the lower torso and a general appearance consistent with Patty, no, a real Bigfoot body being found would do nothing for the PGF for me.

 

I'd probably be too excited finding out about the real Bigfoot to be thinking about Patty at that point.

 

 

Hint: The bolded part has to do with a Bigfoot found looking just like Patty.

 

You need a helmet for this conversation because you are making a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

If NAWAC discovers a mature tree climbing squatch then Patty is still up in the air...... she is a chunky monkey for sure.

So is my aunt.

If a Sasquatch is shot and proven to science and it has reddish brown hair and a cone shaped head but only weighs 100 lbs and is as skinny as a rail? The PGF is gonna get new life breathed into it absolutely.

Look at the human race, and all of the shapes, sizes and colors we come in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Perhaps they haven't come up with a smoking gun out of respect to Patricia Patterson. She is still alive and the PGF is her legacy is as much hers as it is Roger and Bob's and she is still earning money from it.

 

OkieFoot what if the confession comes from a Gimlin or a Patterson? Would you consider that a reliable source?

 

There's nothing for Bob Gimlin to confess to.

The experts at both Disney and Universal Studios saw the film and both said it was an effect that they could not create. Universal said it would be "almost impossible". They said they would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find someone to train to walk the way Patty did.

Both studios also said if they could do it, it would be very expensive and would take a lot of time.

 

With that in mind, how believable is it that unsophisticated men like RP and BG, of more limited means and no expert knowledge in bipedal locomotion, could use a human wearing a cheap fur suit and pull off a hoax that Disney and Universal Studios said they could not? For me, that just isn't believable.

If Disney and Universal didn't think they could duplicate what is seen in the film, there's little likelihood that RP and BG would have been able to do so.

 

If the PGF was a hoax, how could the experts at Disney and Universal not detect a fur suit?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^^Oh, that's easy, Okie.  You just ignore what experts in several fields tell you; click your heels three times;...and deny.

 

The evidence is so compelling that I'd put a flat confession by the principals out of the question to even consider, unless they could show technical chapter and verse how it was done.  

 

There are many reasons to 'confess' to something.  One of which is that the confession is genuine.


OK, fine, I confess.  The giraffe isn't real.  It's all my fault.

 

Yep.

 

Same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I get asked this from time to time.

 

Unless the Bigfoot found had a large diaper butt, hairy breasts jutting straight out from the lower torso and a general appearance consistent with Patty, no, a real Bigfoot body being found would do nothing for the PGF for me.

 

I'd probably be too excited finding out about the real Bigfoot to be thinking about Patty at that point.

 

Kit,

 

That is the issue I was getting at. I will just ask it again to be more clear instead of splitting hairs:

 

If a Bigfoot was shot or captured-so we had the body, and it for all practical purposes looked like Patty would that cause you to reconsider the PGF being real after all?

 

Clearly if such dead bigfoot or captured bigfoot did not match Patty, the Q makes no sense so why ask it.  I should have made my meaning clear in my earlier Q and it looks like I did not.   It is understood the dead or captured Bigfoot needs to look just like Patty.

 

So what do you think Kit?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I am not sure I have ever seen "enjoyment" of anything that feels and sounds and looks so much like hitting oneself with a hammer, over and over, as the way bigfoot skeptics "enjoy" this topic. 

 

It's not enjoyment.


Kit,

 

 

If a Bigfoot was shot or captured-so we had the body, and it for all practical purposes looked like Patty would that cause you to reconsider the PGF being real after all?

 

Clearly if such dead bigfoot or captured bigfoot did not match Patty, the Q makes no sense so why ask it.  I should have made my meaning clear in my earlier Q and it looks like I did not.   It is understood the dead or captured Bigfoot needs to look just like Patty.

 

No, actually, it is not.  There is enough variance in sasquatch reports to indicate an animal that might have a wider range of appearances than any primate other than us.  And neverminding that:  Patty can't be junked because a body doesn't look like Patty.  The problems with matching Patty's proportions with a human remain; the difficulties of a suit - demonstrably impossible for the technology of the time to overcome, and apparently impossible now - remain.  Patty now becomes evidence for one of two things:  (1) the wide range of possible appearances across the sasquatch species; or (2)  that there is more than one species of wild NA primate.

 

 

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

 

Kit (and any other Hard skeptic) can respond to my earlier Q if he wishes.

 

 

 

Backdoc

Backdoc,

 

I would call you a skeptic, that is a curious and intellectually honest man who looks for evidence, confirming and disconfirming. There are quite a number of true skeptics on the forum.

 

I am quite sure a few of the forum posters are not any sort of skeptic by a standard definition: at best they are agenda-driven dogmatists, at worst, they exhibit behavour that is endemic and regretable everywhere on the Internet, reflecting neither honesty nor good will towards men. Most know the common slang used to describe this type of activity.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...