Question Regarding Hoaxes

[Airdale]

Just finished reading this thread from start to this point. If I'm grokking hiflier's point, it is that a "hoaxer" would probably use an extra reel of film to shoot more footage of the "creature", and/or, if you were going to obtain footage of casting, the added backstory of having forgotten the casting material would detract from the perceived credibility of the "hoaxer" as a serious researcher. If that is correct, it makes some sense to me. That said, perpetrating such a deception is so far out of my wheelhouse that I'm probably not the best person to be second guessing the thought processes of someone who would.

 

What jumped out at me is that many of the comments, as Norse alluded to, indicate unfamiliarity with Bill Munns' rigorous research work on the subject, culminating in his book "When Roger Met Patty". As with everything he addresses, Bill details the process of loading/changing film reels in the cine camera. He also explains in great detail how he determined that the film was not spliced and the footage we see of "Patty" was filmed in one take at the end of the reel. If you have an opinion, pro or con, of the legitimacy of the PGF, but have not read that book, it is opinion unsupported by readily available knowledge. The late Col. Townsend Whelen, noted soldier, hunter, writer and rifleman once opined "Only accurate rifles are interesting." Speaking for myself, only informed opinions are interesting, on any subject. Can't help it, kind of obsessive/compulsive in that regard.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Airdale

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way.

Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why???

Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.

 

The PGF does not stand on solid legs.  Here's is me standing up and publicly  stating my case as a skeptic why this film is not  depicting a real animal.   It cannot be argued that because Roge told people where he filmed means it must be real.  Ray Wallace hoaxed his tracks where they could indeed be seen and were seen.  Furthermore he tipped Roge off that Roge should go to a place where Ray had been plying his art.  Why should Roge and Ray even know each other?  Roge was a artsy cowboy and Ray was a road builder.  They both shared an interest in bigfoot?  Are we to assume that Ray became interested in bigfoot because of his hoaxing activities?  Ray sends  Roge off to Bluff Creek laughing all the way knowing Roge would take the bait.  It's also worth remembering that Jerry Krew worked for Ray and isn't that a bit convenient that Jerry casts the very first bigfoot track while in the employ of the stomper king himself?  Fun times to be Ray Wallace and easy times to be a bigfoot hoaxer as well.

 

Now then about that film Roger shot.  One either swallows it or they don't.  In order to swallow it the one must get down the fact that the bigfoot craze sweeping the PNW in the late 50's-mid 60's was largely created by hoaxers fueled by Sir Edmund Hillary's Yeti reports (also still as unproven today as it was then).   In order to keep the film swallowed one must flavor it with luck and bottle lightening.  It must be given further confection by ignoring the shady story of it's developing that even professional  film analysis must be ignored if the game is going to go into play and lead Patty to the goal line in victory.  Sure let's look at the film but let's not look at the human world the film emerged from.  Well we have to look at that human world since it was a human who wielded that camera and it was a human who sold it to the world.

 

The PGF springs to light from nowhere and it leads the viewer nowhere.  It fades off the screen and in the half century of diligent researchers, authors fans and "scientists" provides nothing in the way of what it was where it went and how can the trail be effectively resumed.  However the trail just may have rightful heirs.  It's rightful heirs are in the form of the Ivan Marx, Todd Standing, Rick Dyer, Ray Wallace, and a host of unidentified pranksters carrying on the tradition for better or for worse.  We are actually better than a half century into the modern bigfoot age and it is still nothing more than the myths that the indigenous folklore presented it.  However I sense that we're more in the twilight of the myth.  The folks who were memorized/terrorized during the bigfoot golden age are now mostly old men.  It is curious watching Krantz age to gray and frailty, it is equally interesting watching Meldrum do the same, and Rene and John.  A lot of good men have staked their life's work on what is supposed to be on that film and one by one they are beaten and go to their long night unvindicated.  At some point perhaps the ghost of a parent or grand parent needs to tap us on the shoulder and tell us to grow up it was all just a joke there was nothing ever to it.  

[Guest Crowlogic]

If several takes were required why has no one seen them?  Film is not like digital media.   Someone monitored the development but no one claims to have ever seen it.  The clips not used still existed after the film was produced but where are they?   Who decided which clips to throw out and which to use?    Cecil B DePatterson?   I do not remember any claims made that they saw Patterson having or using a film editor.   Many saw the Patty film within days but no one claims to have seen the outtakes that never made the film.    How would something that could not fool Bob H's Mom suddenly be good enough to be the Patty film?. Sharp learning curve?           Patty is supposed to be a costume but no one can produce it.    Crow constantly complains that not one hair of evidence exists for BF but the skeptics dream up all of these things that were required to produce a hoax film but cannot produce any evidence any of it has ever existed other than someone's word they saw a costume or put the costume on and became Patty.       That anecdotal evidence from a handful of people with an agenda is not as good as that hundreds of impartial BF witness can provide and yet skeptics disdain and dismiss anecdotal evidence?    Put those outtakes or that Patty costume on my lab table then I might believe they exist.          .  

OMG why?  Because the the other takes looked like crap.  Why would anyone show the out takes?  What for to blow their hoax to blow their meal ticket? 

[norseman]

The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way.

Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why???

Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.

The PGF does not stand on solid legs.  Here's is me standing up and publicly  stating my case as a skeptic why this film is not  depicting a real animal.   It cannot be argued that because Roge told people where he filmed means it must be real.  Ray Wallace hoaxed his tracks where they could indeed be seen and were seen.  Furthermore he tipped Roge off that Roge should go to a place where Ray had been plying his art.  Why should Roge and Ray even know each other?  Roge was a artsy cowboy and Ray was a road builder.  They both shared an interest in bigfoot?  Are we to assume that Ray became interested in bigfoot because of his hoaxing activities?  Ray sends  Roge off to Bluff Creek laughing all the way knowing Roge would take the bait.  It's also worth remembering that Jerry Krew worked for Ray and isn't that a bit convenient that Jerry casts the very first bigfoot track while in the employ of the stomper king himself?  Fun times to be Ray Wallace and easy times to be a bigfoot hoaxer as well.

 

Now then about that film Roger shot.  One either swallows it or they don't.  In order to swallow it the one must get down the fact that the bigfoot craze sweeping the PNW in the late 50's-mid 60's was largely created by hoaxers fueled by Sir Edmund Hillary's Yeti reports (also still as unproven today as it was then).   In order to keep the film swallowed one must flavor it with luck and bottle lightening.  It must be given further confection by ignoring the shady story of it's developing that even professional  film analysis must be ignored if the game is going to go into play and lead Patty to the goal line in victory.  Sure let's look at the film but let's not look at the human world the film emerged from.  Well we have to look at that human world since it was a human who wielded that camera and it was a human who sold it to the world.

 

The PGF springs to light from nowhere and it leads the viewer nowhere.  It fades off the screen and in the half century of diligent researchers, authors fans and "scientists" provides nothing in the way of what it was where it went and how can the trail be effectively resumed.  However the trail just may have rightful heirs.  It's rightful heirs are in the form of the Ivan Marx, Todd Standing, Rick Dyer, Ray Wallace, and a host of unidentified pranksters carrying on the tradition for better or for worse.  We are actually better than a half century into the modern bigfoot age and it is still nothing more than the myths that the indigenous folklore presented it.  However I sense that we're more in the twilight of the myth.  The folks who were memorized/terrorized during the bigfoot golden age are now mostly old men.  It is curious watching Krantz age to gray and frailty, it is equally interesting watching Meldrum do the same, and Rene and John.  A lot of good men have staked their life's work on what is supposed to be on that film and one by one they are beaten and go to their long night unvindicated.  At some point perhaps the ghost of a parent or grand parent needs to tap us on the shoulder and tell us to grow up it was all just a joke there was nothing ever to it.

Absolutely not!!!!

If you are standing up and going public with your "work"? Then what is your name, credentials and what town do you hail from? Do you plan on any national tours or lecture circuits in which to showcase your work? Where can I buy a ticket to hear your lecture?

Espousing your "opinion" on a public forum under a pen name is NOT going public. And as of yet I have not seen you conduct any scientific work concerning the PGF.

So indeed your simply one of the ones in the shadows throwing rotten fruit at the film.

[hiflier]

Lining up all the hoaxers and insinuating that Patterson and Gimlin fell for some kind of plot to fool them, or that they were maybe involved themselves or that out takes weren't good enough is much harder to prove than the reality of the film itself LOL. There are actual members of this Forum who claim to have seen this "Patty"-type creature. Why don't you simply cut to the chase and question them?

 

Your arguments again are still steeped in conjecture and still do not meet the subject of this thread head on. It only appears that you do by trying to undermine a one minute piece of film with hypothetical (your own word) out takes. Lets get back on topic shall we since innuendo and guilt by association tactics do nothing to diffuse the points I'm pursuing.

 

Conversely there is no innuendo here: a 59.5 second shot of a "guy in a suit" exists. There is no more. Suggesting out takes tries to muddy the waters but the fact remains 59.5 seconds is all we have. So it is the event as related to the public by P&G that I go by and I do that without the what-if's. The what-if's are your list of hoaxers and your supposed out takes. I am only working with what we have on film and the story told concerning it. It is that story that has brought up the questions in this thread about what a hoaxer would do. You say where's the extra footage and you comeback saying there could be some but it wasn't good enough. I'm saying how did they know that without first developing the film?

 

Having to constantly refocus a topic after posts like yours is a real pain in the neck but I refuse attempts at creating arguments that do not or cannot directly address the ones I've presented in this thread. I stated those arguments several times already and so won't repeat them. You either understand the points being made or you don't. If you do understand them you either address them head on or you don't. If you address them head on you either agree with them and state why or you don't. It's that simple.   

Edited May 27, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

 

 

The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way.

Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why???

Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.

The PGF does not stand on solid legs.  Here's is me standing up and publicly  stating my case as a skeptic why this film is not  depicting a real animal.   It cannot be argued that because Roge told people where he filmed means it must be real.  Ray Wallace hoaxed his tracks where they could indeed be seen and were seen.  Furthermore he tipped Roge off that Roge should go to a place where Ray had been plying his art.  Why should Roge and Ray even know each other?  Roge was a artsy cowboy and Ray was a road builder.  They both shared an interest in bigfoot?  Are we to assume that Ray became interested in bigfoot because of his hoaxing activities?  Ray sends  Roge off to Bluff Creek laughing all the way knowing Roge would take the bait.  It's also worth remembering that Jerry Krew worked for Ray and isn't that a bit convenient that Jerry casts the very first bigfoot track while in the employ of the stomper king himself?  Fun times to be Ray Wallace and easy times to be a bigfoot hoaxer as well.

 

Now then about that film Roger shot.  One either swallows it or they don't.  In order to swallow it the one must get down the fact that the bigfoot craze sweeping the PNW in the late 50's-mid 60's was largely created by hoaxers fueled by Sir Edmund Hillary's Yeti reports (also still as unproven today as it was then).   In order to keep the film swallowed one must flavor it with luck and bottle lightening.  It must be given further confection by ignoring the shady story of it's developing that even professional  film analysis must be ignored if the game is going to go into play and lead Patty to the goal line in victory.  Sure let's look at the film but let's not look at the human world the film emerged from.  Well we have to look at that human world since it was a human who wielded that camera and it was a human who sold it to the world.

 

The PGF springs to light from nowhere and it leads the viewer nowhere.  It fades off the screen and in the half century of diligent researchers, authors fans and "scientists" provides nothing in the way of what it was where it went and how can the trail be effectively resumed.  However the trail just may have rightful heirs.  It's rightful heirs are in the form of the Ivan Marx, Todd Standing, Rick Dyer, Ray Wallace, and a host of unidentified pranksters carrying on the tradition for better or for worse.  We are actually better than a half century into the modern bigfoot age and it is still nothing more than the myths that the indigenous folklore presented it.  However I sense that we're more in the twilight of the myth.  The folks who were memorized/terrorized during the bigfoot golden age are now mostly old men.  It is curious watching Krantz age to gray and frailty, it is equally interesting watching Meldrum do the same, and Rene and John.  A lot of good men have staked their life's work on what is supposed to be on that film and one by one they are beaten and go to their long night unvindicated.  At some point perhaps the ghost of a parent or grand parent needs to tap us on the shoulder and tell us to grow up it was all just a joke there was nothing ever to it.

Absolutely not!!!!

If you are standing up and going public with your "work"? Then what is your name, credentials and what town do you hail from? Do you plan on any national tours or lecture circuits in which to showcase your work? Where can I buy a ticket to hear your lecture?

Espousing your "opinion" on a public forum under a pen name is NOT going public. And as of yet I have not seen you conduct any scientific work concerning the PGF.

So indeed your simply one of the ones in the shadows throwing rotten fruit at the film.

 

Until your approach or any of the other approaches prove my position and the those with the same position wrong that position stands.  I have stood up and offered a not uneducated opinion that predates your experience with the issue.  I have not made a pea to authority but unless having read the volumes of books and reports since the film was released doesn't equate with an education towards an opinion about the issue then both proponents and skeptics alike need to toss them.  So then what are we left with to draw conclusion about?  Sorry that the best bigfootism has to offer left i nothing to build on and gave rise to the squadron of hoaxers following in it's wake.

[Terry]

The PGF probably shouldn't be considered to be real until bf is proven to be real.  Then the costume can be compared to the actual animal.

 

t.

[hiflier]

Film Patty for 59.5 seconds. Slap in a new film reel and film a trackway- NOT more Patty. What is so danged hard about this? Nothing. But what do I get? Oh, there is a "hypothetical" 10 more out takes. Oh, can't risk a close up. Oh, the extra footage was edited out. Seriously?

Had to go back on horseback for plaster. I say a hoaxer good enough to pull this whole thing off as a hoax would've had the plaster with them. What do I get? Oh, they didn't have it because it would tire the horses. Is there anyone out there that I could discuss these things with that can do any better than this? Because if there isn't then I'm walking away from this thread. The rebuttals so far are grabbing straws out of thin air simply for the sake of having SOMETHING- ANYTHING- no matter what it is- as long as it's a counter statement. For NO OTHER REASON than to have a counter statement. No links, no backup facts, just lashing out with anything one can. Crowlogic this has to be the weakest debate I've ever heard come out of you. Honestly. It is.

Anyone else out there?....

Edited May 27, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest magnum peditum]

Raises another point about the development timeline if there's a potential for editing-out. A film will be developed in full and then edited.

 

I still see unnecessary difficulty in having the last of the reel be the PGF rather than just one reel dedicated to the PGF. It seems to reason that if it happened the way described that there would be no  time to reload and film. It would be on film partially used.

[hiflier]

I agree. If it had been me running that camera I wouldn't have really known how much was left on the Patty reel anyway. I don't know in other words if the camera is set up to count how much is left in either time or footage. Time being the variable dependent on how many fr/sec the camera is set for. Footage left on the other hand is fixed as it is a measure of actual length. I'm actually amazed they got anything at all since there was only a minute at either 16 or 18 fps (frames per second) and the film ended. I could go into that aspect more in a different post perhaps.

OK. A minute of Patty, reel ends, another goes in but not until after Patty is gone. Again, if it was me I'd be pretty excited. Also not entirely convinced that there wouldn't be another encounter either by the same creature or a different one or more than one. I'm sure one was filming the trackway while the other was looking over their shoulder.

And here's the thing. After that encounter- even if it was a hoax with a man in a suit- after the trackway footage why not film the trip back and forth to get the plaster from camp? One could then have the suited one ahead around fifty yards or so on the trail and film him quickly running across the trail and off into the woods and claim that you are now in the middle of a group and they are watching you. Get to camp, grab the plaster to get casts of the faked prints and on the way back have another episode of bigfootery and film the guy in the suit tiptoeing onto the sand bar and then hightailing it back into the woods. After all with a fresh reel of film in the camera with only a trackway on it? There sould have been plenty to shoot several quick events at say 10-15 seconds each and say you were surrounded.

That to me is a hoax scenario. The PGF has nothing on it like that. Nor does any other footage from that expedition other than riding around on horseback. One can argue details and timelines etc. forever but it's the bigger obvious things like what this thread is introducing that have to make some kind of sense. The PGF as a hoax makes no sense at all. And P&G weren't idiots. To go all the way to Bluff Creek hauling horses, get on them, ride the trails, drive and trailer at night, meet up with the guy in the suit and after all that only shoot 59 seconds of film when there was ample film to capture more "Bigfoot" footage? Imaginative enough to set up a hoax but not imaginative enough to use the guy in the suit either for current extra footage or for later hoaxings in different faked locations?

It doesn't add up to a hoax. Not saying it isn't but it just doesn't have the depth as a tradeoff for all the work involved getting only the 59.5 seconds. Maybe hoaxers WEREN'T that imaginative in 1967...Agree or disagree?

Edited May 28, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

They were never going to get close to Patty again on that day anyhow.

She got their wind and was gone... Bigfoot style, rapid upslope and then lot's of sneaking, away, away, away.

 

They got what they came for.

 

Everything else is just afterthought, second guessing, 20/20 hindsight.

 

Sometimes you just have to be grateful.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[norseman]

The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way.

Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why???

Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.

The PGF does not stand on solid legs.  Here's is me standing up and publicly  stating my case as a skeptic why this film is not  depicting a real animal.   It cannot be argued that because Roge told people where he filmed means it must be real.  Ray Wallace hoaxed his tracks where they could indeed be seen and were seen.  Furthermore he tipped Roge off that Roge should go to a place where Ray had been plying his art.  Why should Roge and Ray even know each other?  Roge was a artsy cowboy and Ray was a road builder.  They both shared an interest in bigfoot?  Are we to assume that Ray became interested in bigfoot because of his hoaxing activities?  Ray sends  Roge off to Bluff Creek laughing all the way knowing Roge would take the bait.  It's also worth remembering that Jerry Krew worked for Ray and isn't that a bit convenient that Jerry casts the very first bigfoot track while in the employ of the stomper king himself?  Fun times to be Ray Wallace and easy times to be a bigfoot hoaxer as well.

 

Now then about that film Roger shot.  One either swallows it or they don't.  In order to swallow it the one must get down the fact that the bigfoot craze sweeping the PNW in the late 50's-mid 60's was largely created by hoaxers fueled by Sir Edmund Hillary's Yeti reports (also still as unproven today as it was then).   In order to keep the film swallowed one must flavor it with luck and bottle lightening.  It must be given further confection by ignoring the shady story of it's developing that even professional  film analysis must be ignored if the game is going to go into play and lead Patty to the goal line in victory.  Sure let's look at the film but let's not look at the human world the film emerged from.  Well we have to look at that human world since it was a human who wielded that camera and it was a human who sold it to the world.

 

The PGF springs to light from nowhere and it leads the viewer nowhere.  It fades off the screen and in the half century of diligent researchers, authors fans and "scientists" provides nothing in the way of what it was where it went and how can the trail be effectively resumed.  However the trail just may have rightful heirs.  It's rightful heirs are in the form of the Ivan Marx, Todd Standing, Rick Dyer, Ray Wallace, and a host of unidentified pranksters carrying on the tradition for better or for worse.  We are actually better than a half century into the modern bigfoot age and it is still nothing more than the myths that the indigenous folklore presented it.  However I sense that we're more in the twilight of the myth.  The folks who were memorized/terrorized during the bigfoot golden age are now mostly old men.  It is curious watching Krantz age to gray and frailty, it is equally interesting watching Meldrum do the same, and Rene and John.  A lot of good men have staked their life's work on what is supposed to be on that film and one by one they are beaten and go to their long night unvindicated.  At some point perhaps the ghost of a parent or grand parent needs to tap us on the shoulder and tell us to grow up it was all just a joke there was nothing ever to it.

Absolutely not!!!!

If you are standing up and going public with your "work"? Then what is your name, credentials and what town do you hail from? Do you plan on any national tours or lecture circuits in which to showcase your work? Where can I buy a ticket to hear your lecture?

Espousing your "opinion" on a public forum under a pen name is NOT going public. And as of yet I have not seen you conduct any scientific work concerning the PGF.

So indeed your simply one of the ones in the shadows throwing rotten fruit at the film.

Until your approach or any of the other approaches prove my position and the those with the same position wrong that position stands.  I have stood up and offered a not uneducated opinion that predates your experience with the issue.  I have not made a pea to authority but unless having read the volumes of books and reports since the film was released doesn't equate with an education towards an opinion about the issue then both proponents and skeptics alike need to toss them.  So then what are we left with to draw conclusion about?  Sorry that the best bigfootism has to offer left i nothing to build on and gave rise to the squadron of hoaxers following in it's wake.

Look, you can continue to just shout in the wind or you can choose to make a real stab at the PGF as Bill Munns has done.

As I pointed out earlier a type specimen is still very much necessary to prove the existence of the species. The PGF does not negate that need one way or the other.

But I have not seen anything as professional or as complete as Bill Munns work coming from the skeptical side......sorry. I see a lot of character assassination coming from the skeptical side and not much else. Which is too bad because if the film is a hoax? I would like a scientific explanation as to why. If there was a Munns quality rebuttal to Munns work I would be willing to consider it.

But just waving your hand that "surely" its a hoax......just because? Doesnt cut it.

[hiflier]

OK. Unless someone has a definitive answer I just read that it was believed Patterson purchased two 100 foot rolls of film. 16mm film has 40 frames per foot. According to here:

http://www.paulivester.com/films/runtimes.htm

A 100 ft. reel filming at 18 frames per second will last 3 minutes 42 seconds. At 16 fps which is a bit slower one would get 4 minutes 10 seconds of filming. So Roger Patterson had two 100 foot reels which, if one does the simple math, works out to a total of 8 minutes 20 seconds. Not that long really. BUT! In deference to those who say editing may have been done, what is the total developed runtimes of the two reels give or take a few seconds? IMO * minutes 20 seconds of total runtime would be enough for hoaxing more guy-in-suit footage.

Anyone agree with that ^^?

See? I'm not so one sided to where I cannot be objective. I want the truth just as much as anyone else does. This thread has been arguing for that very thing. Not for Sasquatch and not for a guy in a suit- just the truth.

Edited May 28, 2016 by hiflier

[MIB]

 Look, you can continue to just shout in the wind or you can choose to make a real stab at the PGF as Bill Munns has do

 

Crow isn't trying to Find The Truth, Crow is trying to disallow real truth and insert Crow's own dogma as the kool aid Truth it wants us to drink.  Crow can't look at real truth, Crow is not secure enough or confident enough to risk an honest inquiry that might show it how wrong it is.   Think about Crow's history ... it was a proponent that got jaded and gave up.   Being wrong about that means having to acknowledge it was a quitter that sold itself out. 

 

I'm not pro-proof at this point but I think if a person was, you would be right, only a body on a slab will be accepted as proof.   Even with that there would still be some hard core denialists screaming hoax just like the crackpots who think the moon landing, holocaust, Elvis' death, etc were faked.   Crow may be one of those with proof of bigfoot.   Wouldn't shock me.

 

You are right ... if the PGF is a hoax, I not only want to know why, but I want to know **HOW**.   I want to know where a suit that John Chambers said he couldn't make at the time came from.   I want to know where they found someone dumb enough to gamble Bob Gimlin wouldn't unload that '06 into the suit, hoaxer and all.   There are  LOT of real serious questions that need answers the scoftics try to avoid addressing in any meaningful way.

 

MIB

[Guest Crowlogic]

Film Patty for 59.5 seconds. Slap in a new film reel and film a trackway- NOT more Patty. What is so danged hard about this? Nothing. But what do I get? Oh, there is a "hypothetical" 10 more out takes. Oh, can't risk a close up. Oh, the extra footage was edited out. Seriously?

Had to go back on horseback for plaster. I say a hoaxer good enough to pull this whole thing off as a hoax would've had the plaster with them. What do I get? Oh, they didn't have it because it would tire the horses. Is there anyone out there that I could discuss these things with that can do any better than this? Because if there isn't then I'm walking away from this thread. The rebuttals so far are grabbing straws out of thin air simply for the sake of having SOMETHING- ANYTHING- no matter what it is- as long as it's a counter statement. For NO OTHER REASON than to have a counter statement. No links, no backup facts, just lashing out with anything one can. Crowlogic this has to be the weakest debate I've ever heard come out of you. Honestly. It is.

Anyone else out there?....

Since neither you or anyone else has a bigfoot to bring to the table yes indeedy the PGF will continue to be held up to scrutiny and as often as not negative scrutiny.