Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

Why Skeptics Can Still Enjoy The Pgf

Recommended Posts

DWA

"Skeptichole..."???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

 

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

 

OkieFoot,

 

Was this from one of John Green's books? Do you have a source reference that folks could review? This is certainly a compellling set of linked claims, and can be coupled with the observation of Janos Prohaska and the eventual denial by John Chambers that he made the suit. We should not omit the expert observations and deep study by Bill Munns of course.

 

Contrary claims by makeup/costume experts have been made of course. Did the do anything more than superficially observe a bad copy? Were their minds made up before the fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

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?

I think if Bob Gimlin confessed it was all a hoax? The PGF for the most part would be done. Maybe a few holding on to conspiracy theories. Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

If Gimlin said it was all a hoax...he'd still have to provide sufficient explanation how it was done.  A person doesn't fit in that suit.  "I did it" is not an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

"Skeptichole..."???

 

 

Hmmm, sounds like a medical condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

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, as any investigator should be, am skeptical when starting to hear any Sasquatch related report. It is what happens during the follow-up investigation that will determine for me if the event was real or a hoax. The accuracy of that determination will depend on my ability to carefully examine the evidence based on my own experience and observations. In the end - the evidence will speak for itself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

If Gimlin said it was all a hoax...he'd still have to provide sufficient explanation how it was done.  A person doesn't fit in that suit.  "I did it" is not an explanation.

I think it would be done, explanation or no. With few exceptions.

Although the reverse has been true, even with it causing marital strife, he has never confessed to a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

...and still, the evidence would point to the reality of the animal (and in my personal case, P/G would stand unsullied and I'd have to wonder what made Gimlin do that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I think if Bob Gimlin confessed it was all a hoax? The PGF for the most part would be done. Maybe a few holding on to conspiracy theories.

 

 

That would be quite a hurdle to overcome, norseman...if Bob Gimlin claimed the Film was a hoax.

 

But, fortunately, it will never happen. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

If a skeptic is a person with no strong pre conceived notions and hopefully goes where the facts take him then I like to think that is me.  I like to think so anyway but being a person I have the same bias as anyone one of us being both a victim and a benefactor of my own past experiences.  Now a skeptic can be convinced Bigfoot is real.  For example, I would say Bill Munns is a skeptic who trimmed the fat on some things bigfoot, looked into things and came up with a conclusion bigfoot is real. This does not stop Munns from saying a movie of someone hiding behind a tree in a Chewbacca mask is bigfoot as the facts to not support it.

 

If somehow a film came forward showing Bob and Roger with a Patty suit at Bluff Creek in Oct 1967 caught in the act of faking the PGF the thing would speak for itself at least as the PGF is concerned. That is, if someone was hiding in the woods on 10/20/67 and filmed Roger and Bob from 50 yards away hoaxing the film from start to finish, there is little defense of the PGF being real.  

 

I came to the Bigfoot Forums a while back to get a sense of what the best case was offered by the skeptics on why the PGF is fake.  I have been shocked how weak their case has been. Most of their case has been character assassination and personal attacks.  We have the Blevins suit actually offered and a demonstrative bit of evidence to prove Patty is a man in a suit. It does the opposite.  I could go on and on in this way.

 

When I read the Munns report or read WRMP I think they are compelling works. I don't see the 'Munns is wrong report' and so on. I see some clumsy attempts to debunk Munns with 3rd hand accounts, extreme reaching to make other pieces fit, and so on.

 

I have said it before:  If a Patty suit is so easy to make then we should be able to have someone do what 2 cowboys did back in 1967 with 1967 era materials.  That IS the whole issue as far as the PGF is concerned.  Can you tell me this has been done?  We hear how Creature man Chris Walas gave an hoax opinion about the PGF and that is fine. My problem with Walas is he doesn't SHOW US how it was done. He is a man who spent time on the old BFF so the issue interests him at that time. Yet he cant do what 2 cowboys did?  How do we know this?  If we were on a Martial Arts Board and the topic was 'can a man break 3 boards with one kick?' what would Bruce Lee (Chris Walas) do if he was a poster on that forum?  Would he argue for 6 months and say how easy it would be?  Would he say, it would easy to break 3 boards and leave it at that?  NO   He was would just grab 3 boards, have a guy hold them, and film himself kicking the boards breaking them.  He then would 'drop the mike' and that would be that.  

 

With such a weak case being made by those on the skeptic side, how can any 'skeptic' be anything but skeptical of the case being made Against the PGF?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

[everything else you said bravo!]

 

With such a weak case being made by those on the skeptic side, how can any 'skeptic' be anything but skeptical of the case being made Against the PGF?

 

Giving the slightest bit of credence to the 'skeptical' case against the PGF after reviewing the evidence is proof one is NOT a skeptic.  One is coming to an irrational conclusion based on incredulity...something a skeptic will not let himself do.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^^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.

 

I would agree. Supposing Bob G. would suddenly "confess" to the whole thing being a big hoax, I wouldn't believe him without any type of explanation of how the technical aspects were faked.

Not after 48 years of him giving interviews, appearing before groups and talking about the encounter and the film and answering people's questions, and even appearing on an episode of Finding Bigfoot, all as though the encounter and film is genuine.

 

Assuming a hoax, something else that doesn't fully make sense to me is; if Roger and Bob G. had faked the PGF, using a man in a cheap fur suit, would they really take it to Universal Studios and show it to their experts? And get told the film looked fake? Would he really think he could fool movie industry experts? Or science experts? He had to know the film would be scrutinized.

 

Would a counterfeiter show his fake money to currency experts? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

It's been said that were one trying to have one's hoax debunked, as hard as possible...one would go step for step with P and G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

OkieFoot,

 

Was this from one of John Green's books? Do you have a source reference that folks could review? This is certainly a compellling set of linked claims, and can be coupled with the observation of Janos Prohaska and the eventual denial by John Chambers that he made the suit. We should not omit the expert observations and deep study by Bill Munns of course.

 

Contrary claims by makeup/costume experts have been made of course. Did the do anything more than superficially observe a bad copy? Were their minds made up before the fact?

 

My statement about how could the movie experts not detect a fur suit was just my own question. I based the question on what I've read about what the experts at Universal and Disney have said. This is just my opinion but I just don't think a man made suit from 1967, and a cheap one at that, would fool experts that do it for a living.

I've thought the same as you about the costume experts that believe it was a fur suit; I've also wondered how much they really studied the film; if they just watched it a time or two and formed their opinion, or did they study it much more closely. 

 

The Universal Studio and Disney comments I had came from a Janet and Colin Bord book I have, "The Evidence for Bigfoot and Other Man Beasts", and their source was John Green's book. A Peter Byrne paperback I used to have had the Disney comments (not sure of his source). Wikipedia also had comments on the Universal and Disney viewings; wiki had the "almost impossible" comment from Universal.

 

Here is an interesting tidbit on the Disney viewing on the Cryptomundo site, from Craig Woolheater (from 2006, It said Peter Byrne showed the film to Disney.)

 

"After viewing the film, the studio folks refused to believe that it was genuine. The reason? It was too good to have been faked on a low budget.

They insisted that it had to have been created by a foreign film studio, as the quality was so good. They refused to believe that it could have been done by two rodeo cowboys.

They stated that they could replicate it, but only with considerable time and expense, millions of dollars and a year’s worth of time. They wanted Peter to confess that it was made by some movie studio, not two cowboys by the name of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

I would love to see the original report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...