Jump to content
xspider1

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

^^^Somebody made a bigfoot suit that Roger Patterson filmed.  The fact that worldwide there is zero further graphic or hard evidence in the half century since the film was made indicates for any bigfoot like cryptoid anything more than myth and hoaxing.  That said Roger continued to have an income from the film the same way his widow has continued to have an income from the film.  If Roger made the suit he would have needed to keep it under wraps or expose his hoax.  If the suit was used elsewhere by a pro we'll never know unless we see a ringer for it under the same conditions.  All we know of the film is what we see.  We don't know how many dud takes elsewhere it was shot and tried and we'll never know.  But we know the history and current state of  bigfootism and it is not overflowing with factual and verifiable science.  It is however well endowed with hoaxing tall tales and unlikely/impossible circumstances.


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

This is the Best argument for a real event/ Patty being real.

Roger fakes a hoax and makes $200,000 or so. Then, he hates money so much he refuses to fake another encounter at a later time. Then, he spends money getting hoaxed not just once but twice himself after an encounter you say he knows is fake.

BD

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I don't believe anyone has seen a bigfoot with their own eyes, therefore there must be something else at the root of the anecdote, be it questionable motives or failed perception.

 

dmaker,

 

You just said "Besides which, how can you lay claim to know what others believe?  It's nonsense."  How is it then, that you can claim to know what others have seen ?  

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

It's simple Pat, you cannot see something that does not exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^^^

This is the Best argument for a real event/ Patty being real.

Roger fakes a hoax and makes $200,000 or so. Then, he hates money so much he refuses to fake another encounter at a later time. Then, he spends money getting hoaxed not just once but twice himself after an encounter you say he knows is fake.

BD

He does not make another hoax because he couldn't get his suit to look reasonably convincing again.  He does not make another hoax because he screwed over his mime the first time.  Who hoaxed Roger?  Where are the documents,  for the $$$$ he spent on being hoaxed?  Paul Freeman hoaxed and was a believer in bigfoot.  Belief and hoaxing are not mutually exclusive of one not doing the other.  Roger also wanted to make a fiction cowboy movie about bigfoot.  However some strange stuff happened to his buddy Jerry Merit that puts Patterson as the first in line to have been the perpetrator of the hoax events that took place on Merits property.  The fact that Roger didn't make other expeditions indicates he knew there was nothing to film.  Had Marx not made so many hoax movies maybe he'd have gotten away with one or two of them.  

 

No dice Backdoc,  take off the wishful thinking hat and consider the real world.  Prior to Roger Patterson's film we had campfire stories and Ray Wallace stompin' tracks in the PNW.  Then we have poor boy Roger capturing lightning in the bottle with his film that when looked at with adult eyes and a bit of logic concerning the mechanics of the  film handling is riddled with problematic elements.  Once you've those fundamentals in place take a good look at the years 1968 through to the first quarter of 2016 and have a look at what has transpired in bigfootism and the rest of the bigfoot like myths worldwide with regards to quality evidence or even reasonable evidence.    You might want to make a few comparisons with the documentation of other rare animals, the search and discovery of them and see how it compares to bigfoot documentation in quality and quantity.  Now if after all that you can maintain your faith in bigfoot and especially Patterson's bigfoot then please be my guest.  I am sure that somewhere Roger Patterson is looking down and smiling and perhaps PT Barnum is smiling too. 

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I don't see subsequent hoaxes making sense. Less is more in this case. If Roger had continued to crank out videos, suspicion would sky rocket. Suddenly he is the only person on the planet that can produce video of bigfoot? Is he some kind of bigfoot whisperer? And why are all of his bigfoot videos taken from afar with a shaky cam? He was pushing the coincidence envelope with the original hoax. Anything more would be pushing it too far. The resulting scrutiny would have destroyed everything, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

 

A desire to show that they're superior to others and "know" more.

An unwavering need to be "above" others where intelligence is concerned.

A craving for "Me, My, I" in absolutely all aspects of life.

For the most extreme detractors detractors of course, this is a high level of insecurity that coincides with mental illness even though they go through life highly likely not even knowing this.

The rest of us see it from afar of course, but it's those around them closest that feel the full force unfortunately for them.

 

Steering Committee or not you're over the line smokey.

 

NOT the first time. All pigs are special but some pigs are more special than others in the ruling elite

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

And why are all of his bigfoot videos taken from afar with a shaky cam? 

 

You don't really think that a hoaxer would start off deliberately shaking a camera and then, when he got closer to the subject, hold the camera steady, do you?  That doesn't make sense.

 

Crow - you are all over the 'impossible film development timeline' as if you would declare the film genuine if only another day had gone by before it was viewed.  Fudging the film development timeline also does not make sense from the standpoint of a hoaxer.  If they wanted to, a hoaxer could shoot a roll of film and then keep it in the film canister for quite awhile before having it developed.  Or, one could have strings pulled to get a film developed fast and discretely which in this case makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

He does not make another hoax because he couldn't get his suit to look reasonably convincing again.  

 

 

 

Oh boy, I must say I had to stop there and not read the rest of this post when it started with such a ridiculous statement.

 

I will get to the rest of the post in time.  I am almost done laughing.

 

BD

I don't see subsequent hoaxes making sense. Less is more in this case. If Roger had continued to crank out videos, suspicion would sky rocket. Suddenly he is the only person on the planet that can produce video of bigfoot? Is he some kind of bigfoot whisperer? And why are all of his bigfoot videos taken from afar with a shaky cam? He was pushing the coincidence envelope with the original hoax. Anything more would be pushing it too far. The resulting scrutiny would have destroyed everything, imo.

 

 

He would not have to crank out videos. He would not have to be directly involved.  Say a year later 20 miles away he gets someone else to film the subject which happens to look a lot like Patty.  Seems reasonable enough.  Money rolls in.  Everyone involved further cashes in. 

 

You want me to believe Roger has all this imagination but it ceases to exit after the has him money?  Don't like that logic.  In no way would another effort a year or two later make his first check bounce. If anything, if done right it would buttress the first effort.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

dmaker,

 

"It's simple Pat, you cannot see something that does not exist."  Ha ! Ha ! Good joke !  ;)   If you're goin ta say it wasn't a joke, I'm goin ta say yes it was. If you goin to ask how could I know it's a joke, I'm goin ta say just like you can claim they don't exist. Somethin like that.

 

Backdoc,

 

I got half way through his post, it's just time you won't get back if ya know what I mean.

 

Pat... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Yet, for all that walking that you have done, BH, and for all the paid bigfoot tours you have conducted in your bigfootmobile, you have absolutely zero proof of bigfoots existence. 

 

 

You read as many sources as you could, did you?  Were any of those not penned by a bigfoot enthusiast?

 

Sure I do .... just none that you are obviously informed enough to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^^ Your 'proof' consists of a photo that you refuse to share with the forum.

 

Neither proponent or skeptic can get informed on evidence that is being withheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I wasn't talking about that, McSquatch. I was referring to the evidence that anyone can evaluate if they inform themselves enough to competently do it. Footprints are evidence. Castings are evidence. Film is evidence. The window of time to have gotten the film and sent it off is evidence. The weather prior during and after the film is evidence. There are lots of things that are evidence, but are avoided by those who seemingly don't want to know where it may lead them.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

What you will always fail to understand is that you and I have examined the same evidence.

 

You don't get to tell me I'm misinformed or incompetent because I don't share your views.

 

Footprints have been faked. Castings have been faked. Film has been faked. The PGF processing timeline isn't your friend.

 

My persistence stems from my interest in the PGF and its circumstances.

 

But I do get a chuckle from the complete lack of Bigfoot. Ever    :hunter:

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

What you will always fail to understand is that you and I have examined the same evidence.

 

You don't get to tell me I'm misinformed or incompetent because I don't share your views.

 

Footprints have been faked. Castings have been faked. Film has been faked. The PGF processing timeline isn't your friend.

 

My persistence stems from my interest in the PGF and its circumstances.

 

But I do get a chuckle from the complete lack of Bigfoot. Ever    :hunter:

 

You have never posted anything about the film - the track-way - nor the cast to demonstrate that you have a clue as what to look for. One could hand a cast to a chimp - it doesn't mean that he knows how to evaluate it. And when it comes to the PGF, you have not even gotten as far as to demonstrate how the tracks were made so deep in the ground up to 5x deeper than other men's footprints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...