Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Squatchy McSquatch

Patterson Confession Diary Found?

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

This popped up last November.

 

Haven't heard anything since but it's worth a mention.

 

Thanks to Al Hodgson's signed copy (vs. rubber-stamped bookclub sigs) we have at least a partial match of Roger's true handwriting.

 

Scoff all you want but I would like to know if the female recipient of the alleged diary was Betty Allen.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2014/11/someone-claims-to-have-roger-pattersons.html

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Other Bettys it could be is Betty Grable, Betty Crocker, Betty Paige, Betty White, Betty Rubble, and Betty Davis. All rumored to be women Roger dated.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Betty Allen was the unsung columnist who brought early proponents of bigfootery together.

 

She was an acquaintance of Patterson, Crew, Wallace and others.

 

Whether or not she was the recipient of the alleged Patterson diary is beside the point.

 

It's speculation for the point of conversation, 

 

This site is built upon such a concept.

 

I never said Roger dated her. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Highly unlikely that Patterson would leave behind  a loose end like a diary. If he faked the film, he obviously covered his tracks very well for us to be discussing nearly 48 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Doesn't do much good if we don't even know if a diary actually exists. The story the guy gave just sounds like bits pulled from the forums.

 

Posted in November and it's now August, what's he waiting on?

 

Also the writing in Al's book is believed to be written by Al, not Roger. It matches Al's handwriting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I made it to the 7:50 mark, before I had to stop the video. I couldn't stand listening to his ramblings....about how he can "get along" with others who don't believe the PGF is legit.

 

As if that should be an obstacle to a friendship... :wacko:

 

 

One interesting thing I noticed, though....is when Henry was trying to give strong reasons why he thinks the Film is legit...he mentioned Bill Munns' work/book...but he didn't cite any particular 'point of analysis' of Bill's, that proves Patty is real.

 

Instead, he just mentions "Bill Munns"....three times. That doesn't exactly speak strongly, for Bill's findings...if the best Henry can do is refer to Bill's name...instead of his ground-breaking findings. 

 

Unfortunately, the die-hard skeptics of Bigfoot will never play-along with "Bill says". Some point of analysis is needed, which will be a more definitive, undeniable aspect of a real animal...versus a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

For me the film is proof enough that he didn't fake it. Even if Roger himself told me that he faked it, I wouldn't believe him. Not with the film being as good as it is. 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Betty Neversigned it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

....

 

One interesting thing I noticed, though....is when Henry was trying to give strong reasons why he thinks the Film is legit...he mentioned Bill Munns' work/book...but he didn't cite any particular 'point of analysis' of Bill's, that proves Patty is real.

 

Instead, he just mentions "Bill Munns"....three times. That doesn't exactly speak strongly, for Bill's findings...if the best Henry can do is refer to Bill's name...instead of his ground-breaking findings. ....

 

Maybe the problem is with the speaker on the video rather than with Bill Munns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

The problem is with neither person, Trog. :) 

 

I don't mean any disrespect to Bill....or his work. As the old saying goes...."it is what it is". I just don't think Bill's findings rise to the level of 'proof', that Patty was a real creature. 

 

The only problem I see, is people promoting his work as "proving Patty is real"...yet not being able to cite specific details on Patty which cannot be replicated in a suit. 

 

Not too long after Bill's book was published, I asked Bill what specific finding/s of his proved Patty was real...and even he didn't specify one detail. Instead, he said I'd have to read the book, to fully understand his work...and conclusions. 

 

I just think something stronger is needed, to effectively prove that the Film is legit. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

This is a rambling by someone who claims second-hand knowledge of a document that has not been produced for examination. Kind of like speculating about a photo that has not been authenticated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Well the diary needs to be on genuinely 50 year old paper and written in correct period ink. for starters.  OTOH depending on how long the diary is the question needs to be asked who would go to the trouble of making it?  As usual there won't be anything clear about it's origins and it's authenticity.  Typical bigfoot mish mosh that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Betty Allen was the unsung columnist who brought early proponents of bigfootery together.

 

She was an acquaintance of Patterson, Crew, Wallace and others.

 

Whether or not she was the recipient of the alleged Patterson diary is beside the point.

 

It's speculation for the point of conversation, 

 

This site is built upon such a concept.

 

I never said Roger dated her. 

 

Yes - I thought if rumors were now proof of anything, then I'd start one about Roger dating all those gals named Betty.

This is a rambling by someone who claims second-hand knowledge of a document that has not been produced for examination. Kind of like speculating about a photo that has not been authenticated. 

 

Sounds like the skeptics version of the dead Bigfoot in the Georgia freezer caper.

Well the diary needs to be on genuinely 50 year old paper and written in correct period ink. for starters.  OTOH depending on how long the diary is the question needs to be asked who would go to the trouble of making it?  As usual there won't be anything clear about it's origins and it's authenticity.  Typical bigfoot mish mosh that's all.

 

How are you coming by the way on explaining away the guy wearing cowboy boots making tracks 6x deeper than other men wearing boots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

I sure hope Roger's "confession diary" includes:

1. Where he found a 500lb. human to be the actor since it would take someone of 500lbs, or maybe even more, to leave tracks as deep as the creature did. And with the body proportions as seen in the film. And was able to walk as fluidly and smoothly as the creature in the film did. That was an amazing 500lb. human.

 

2. Who taught the person how to walk so as to dupe scientists into believing it had a nonhuman gait.

 

3. How he faked the foul odor they smelled. Did they carry a foul liquid in their saddlebags, stop before they got to the film site, tie the horses up, walk to the film site, spread the foul smelling liquid around, then walk back to their horses and continue to the film site and then gave the cue to the actor who was standing by waiting. 

 

4. What the purpose was for faking a foul smelling odor. Just the sight of the person in a suit would be enough to spook the horses; would creating a foul odor in the air really be necessary?  Foul odors don't show up in a film.

 

They'll find Jimmy Hoffa before we see a "Roger Patterson Confession Diary".   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Betty Allen was the unsung columnist who brought early proponents of bigfootery together.

 

She was an acquaintance of Patterson, Crew, Wallace and others.

 

Whether or not she was the recipient of the alleged Patterson diary is beside the point.

 

It's speculation for the point of conversation, 

 

This site is built upon such a concept.

 

I never said Roger dated her.

It is built on such a concept, but that doesnt stop denialists from asking for proof every other post and mocking proponents when they cannot provide it.

Well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...