Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Squatchy McSquatch

Patterson Confession Diary Found?

Recommended Posts

MikeZimmer

.....

 

(I know I've said this before) What really sticks out in my mind is the idea that two unsophisticated cowboys with no expertise were able to pull off a hoax that Disney and Universal Studios didn't think they could, and certainly not without spending a lot of money and time. To me, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

 

 

Agreed; the hypothesis about cowboy genius suit makers makes no sense at all.

Edited by MikeZimmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
What really sticks out in my mind is the idea that two unsophisticated cowboys with no expertise were able to pull off a hoax that Disney and Universal Studios didn't think they could, and certainly not without spending a lot of money and time. To me, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

 

I know what you mean, OkieFoot. Neither man in my view would have had the skill or technical knowhow to duplicate what is seen in that film. A more believable hoax story would be that someone hoaxed the two of them, but then the evidence on the film and at the film site leaves too many questions to be addressed that a hoax doesn't explain in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Although I'm sure it does happen occasionally, I've never heard of any man actually keeping a 'diary'. Researchers and enthusiasts make notes. The men I know would just as soon take a bubble bath and do their nails as keep a diary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

I truly believe it's a hoax.  Roger made his fortune as it were and was able to provide for his widow and children after he died.  No man with a wife and children would ever have jeopardized that by fending a private diary into the hands of essentially a stranger.  That's why there's no suit either.  Now if the guy with the supposed diary has health problems well there's a pretty good reason to create a sensational story and or create the very artifact in question.  Once again bigfoot is about money and drama.  why not just give the diary back to Patricia Patterson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

 why not just give the diary back to Patricia Patterson.

 

..'cause there's no diary.

 

next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If a skeptic wishes to pull some baloney story on the Bigfoot world at least be reasonable enough to come up with something mildly and remotely possible.  How about some made up story of some receipt proving Roger purchased Fur Cloth, or some Morris Suit, or Gemora Suit.  

 

In the PGF case, skeptics charge Roger hoaxed the PGF for the purpose of money.

 

What person would be stupid enough to keep a written record of how they plan to rip people off with a hoax event?  (by that token, what person would be stupid enough to keep a suit around in a glass case in your home). 

 

Come on skeptics, let's at least get creative in some plausible way. A diary, a suit. You can do better than that.  Let me help you out:

 

How about a story where 2 nurses heard Roger confess to them a hour before he died the whole PGF was a hoax.    That might in some extreme case be at least plausible. 

 

These diary claims are like the dumb 1980's court shows all over again.  Just say the missing murdered man is not really dead.  Say, "in one minute Mr. Jones is walking through that door."  When Mr. Jones does not, the lawyer says, "If you looked at the door, you must have thought it was possible Mr. Jones was still alive so you must have reasonable doubt."   Very clumsy and dumb but it works on TV.  That is all these skeptic claims turn out to be.

 

These are just weak attempts to create doubt.  There is no diary. 

 

Claims:

 

-Confessions

-Diary

-Suit in a glass case

 

 

Result:

 

-No confession heard

-No diary

-No suit

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Roger made his fortune as it were and was able to provide for his widow and children after he died.

 

 

All I ever read was that he died broke for the most part.  Where did you learn that Roger died and left his family well off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Bigfoot skepticism = making stuff up hand over fist.  One would think people would have something better to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Except discuss bigfoot on a bigfoot forum.

 

Must be a slow monkey day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

 

What really sticks out in my mind is the idea that two unsophisticated cowboys with no expertise were able to pull off a hoax that Disney and Universal Studios didn't think they could, and certainly not without spending a lot of money and time. To me, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

 

I know what you mean, OkieFoot. Neither man in my view would have had the skill or technical knowhow to duplicate what is seen in that film. A more believable hoax story would be that someone hoaxed the two of them, but then the evidence on the film and at the film site leaves too many questions to be addressed that a hoax doesn't explain in my view.

 

 

Well, I leave some space for the theory that they were the luckiest bad hoaxers alive.  Sort of like college film students who say, "I have a great idea!  Let's take one camera, shake it a lot, film ourselves a lot, and pretend to be scared, all while hiking in a nearby public park.  It could be, what, a great movie to show in the dorm on weekends!"  And then they end up with The Blair Witch Project.

 

Of course, that theory needs some type of corroborative evidence to back it up, like a valid confession or a second reel of film showing the set-up to do the filming and nothing like that is forthcoming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

 

What really sticks out in my mind is the idea that two unsophisticated cowboys with no expertise were able to pull off a hoax that Disney and Universal Studios didn't think they could, and certainly not without spending a lot of money and time. To me, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

 

I know what you mean, OkieFoot. Neither man in my view would have had the skill or technical knowhow to duplicate what is seen in that film. A more believable hoax story would be that someone hoaxed the two of them, but then the evidence on the film and at the film site leaves too many questions to be addressed that a hoax doesn't explain in my view.

 

 

Well, I leave some space for the theory that they were the luckiest bad hoaxers alive.  Sort of like college film students who say, "I have a great idea!  Let's take one camera, shake it a lot, film ourselves a lot, and pretend to be scared, all while hiking in a nearby public park.  It could be, what, a great movie to show in the dorm on weekends!"  And then they end up with The Blair Witch Project. Of course, that theory needs some type of corroborative evidence to back it up, like a valid confession or a second reel of film showing the set-up to do the filming and nothing like that is forthcoming. 

 

 

:)    That theory doesn't make much sense to me from what is readily known about the events leading up to the film. There is no evidence at all that Patterson left for California other than to film the tracks reported to him by John Green and then again by Al Hodgins. There is no evidence at all that had storms not have drove Bob and Roger out of the Mount Saint Helen area - the two men would have gotten the word in time to plan on going to California to see the tracks reported to currently be there. While lots of hoax theories have been introduced and some of those giving Roger special powers he had not been previously known to have - controlling the whether so to set up having a good reason for cutting the St.Helen's trip short has not been one of them.

 

A type of Blair Witch Project as a comparison seems a bit over the top too. The shaking of the camera can be shown to be the result of Patterson's running so to close the gap between the subject and himself. For not doing so would not have resulted the type of images that allowed someone like Donskoy to make the observations he did. It would seem to me that getting closer to the subject so to be able to then steady the camera to get clearer images of the details of the creature seems counter-productive to first shaking the camera from a further distance away so to perpetuate a hoax. Roger's closing the gap between he and Patty allowed people to better scrutinize the film subject's walking dynamics. Had Patterson not have done this, then the same critiques would be using that as evidence of a hoax. It reminds me of the old saying 'I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't'.

 

I understand the remark about the need for corroborative evidence, but further film doesn't need to be forthcoming to those who have closely examined all the available film evidence as a whole. Theories of hand-dug trackways to a man wearing cowboy boots inside a monkey suit have simply not held up to scrutiny. Such theories only need lots of imagination and a strong desire to not ever test their probability of being possible. In that technique there lies a big problem in my view.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

Roger made his fortune as it were and was able to provide for his widow and children after he died.

 

 

All I ever read was that he died broke for the most part.  Where did you learn that Roger died and left his family well off?

Is it not true that she gets 10000$ a pop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I do not believe that is true. I know of a documentary producer who might be able to tell me what the price was that was put to them and I will post it if I get a response.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

 

 

(I know I've said this before) What really sticks out in my mind is the idea that two unsophisticated cowboys with no expertise were able to pull off a hoax that Disney and Universal Studios didn't think they could, and certainly not without spending a lot of money and time. To me, it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

Could you provide a link from Disney and Universal Studios where these statements were made?

 

Thanks

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

I cannot.  Bill Munns mentions this in WRMP.

 

Basically, Bill made the point Disney would not be a good person to take the issue to anyway as they were more known for robotic figures at the time.  Freeborn who did the 2001 ASO, would be a better match to ask.  The work done by 2001 film was more in line with the issues of the PGF.

 

I don't know if Freeborn ever gave an opinion or thought on the PGF.

 

We do know the monster guy Janos Prohaska did give an opinion and he did not think the PGF was a hoax.  He was working during the time of the PGF. As a ape guy his opinion of what could be done IN 1967! is important. 

 

It's easy to say no a runner could run a mile in under 4 min.  Going back to Roger Bannisters time they thought it could not be done.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...