Question Regarding Hoaxes

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 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

 

I have found the truth and the truth I found was that there is no such thing as bigfoot.  You seem to think that people who have known this thing from the beginning and have watched the players come and go must somehow still conclude that bigfoot is real..  Why?  Why is there a proponent mindset that demands the skeptic to keep digging, keep digging and the truth will present itself as bigfoot being real.  Well it dosen't work that way .  The deeper one digs the shallower the roots of bigfoot truth get.

 

You want to know how the PGF was done?  Well Gimlin wasn't going to shoot his neighbor and his neighbor was there to wear the suit Roge came up with.  While you want to know where the suit is I want to know why there aren't any bigfoot after half a century of this thing.  But I'll go on record as saying that a Patty suit being made was a whole lot more possible than North America being host to giant apemen.  

Edited May 28, 2016 by Crowlogic

[hiflier]

I don't mind at all that the PGF is held up for scrutiny. Can't you see that that's what I'm doing? I'm scrutinizing over here. I'm scrutinizing like crazy as to why there's only 59.5 seconds of you guy in the suit. And you know something? You fully get it! And you get why I'm pursuing this line. You just don't think it's relevant; but I do. And you rebuttals don't hold water. \If you can say there's no body so the things don't exist I can say there no extra footage so it isn't a hoax. But this thread is trying to go over things and attempting to make it all fit a hoax and the reasons I think that as a hoax there are things that don't make sense. And you get that too. 

 

You see, scrutinizing something cuts both ways. One should look at this as a hoax as well as not a hoax- belief in nonexistence notwithstanding. Just because you've come to the conclusion that Sasquatch doesn't exist doesn't mean obviously that others have. But at the same time logic can and should be used in both the existence and non-existence camps. Me saying where's the extra footage of the guy in a suit and you countering that hypothetically there may have been some out takes doesn't cut it. 

 

You accused me a while back in another thread of going at this as a footer and not as a hoaxer. Well, my friend as a hoaxer the story doesn't fit. There's as many holes in the hoax scenario as in the non-hoax scenario but the hoaxer holes are much bigger for the reasons I've laid out to this point. Some folks take the story at face value- or they should and work from there. In other words what is the story really telling us? Oops, "gotta mount up and run for plaster". Yep, "Gotta get some film of that trackway". How about, "Hey you know what? We should get Heironimus to do some tree peeping and maybe take off into the woods somewhere as long as we have some film. We could use it in a couple of months from now and double our profits".

Hoaxers Crowlogic. If you were one what would you do in their shoes? Miss the perfect opportunity to drive the hoax home or look like a buffoon who was smart enough to think ahead and get the suit into Bluff Creek but too stupid to take full advantage of it by thinking ahead at future gains? I'm telling you it doesn't make any sense. And for the record I don't care about the suit or no suit. I care about whether or not P&G acted logically as hoaxers. Can't honestly say that they did.

Edited May 28, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Crowlogic]

^The advantage of a short film is the subject isn't on screen long so less chance of hoax being exposed.  Bigfoot is rare and elusive so keep it short and sweet.  Keep it short and sweet and back up your story with some nice track casts.  Go look at Ivan Marx's stuff and had he kept it short and sweet they would come off better.  We've learned in bigfootism less is more.

[norseman]

And Todd Standing used that supposed hoaxer rule and failed evidently.

The PGF is much longer than any of his material.

[hiflier]

^The advantage of a short film is the subject isn't on screen long so less chance of hoax being exposed.  Bigfoot is rare and elusive so keep it short and sweet.  Keep it short and sweet and back up your story with some nice track casts.  Go look at Ivan Marx's stuff and had he kept it short and sweet they would come off better.  We've learned in bigfootism less is more.

 

 

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....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?....

 

Quoted myself here so I wouldn't have to do a repeat. And what about those 10 hypothetical out takes? Oh that's right, see above. Still no links, no facts. You say less is more in Bigfootism but in your case it would seem less is less.

Edited May 28, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Crowlogic]

^And now you're using yet another dodge from the bigfooter grab bag.  I did not say that there were definately 10 out takes.  I supplied examples of famous recorded material that were done with numerous outtakes.  This is common in film and audio recording and you know it.  There is no record of Patterson actually having done outtakes but that does not disprove there aren't any.  You know the old footer crutch of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  And there is speculation that Roge did make some bigfoot footage with Bob H prior to the PGF.  As someone who has had a hand in the recording industry I am very well aware of outtakes and that they almost universal.   If you didn't know it before now you know it.  It's even the same with writers, rough drafts you know.  So there're could be 10 reels of film that Roge shot there's not a single reason why there couldn't be. Do I think he destroyed them?  You bet I do.  Do you think he destroyed the suit, you bet I do.   Unless of course it's a real bigfoot once in a lifetime thing, but hey with all of the interest in bigfoot and folks out there gunnin' for it there's now a few thousand lifetimes worth of nothing to show.  Sure it's real.....................

[hiflier]

Crowlogic, with all due respect I am an author, and a performing songwriter/recording artist. The latter I have been doing off and on for over 40 years. I know all about retakes, rough drafts, re-edits, proofs, mixing, mastering, overdubs, and everything else about having to do something, do it over, and toss out what doesn't work/sound good. Of course in my case a lot got tossed

 

I'm only going to say the following to shore up my case along those lines: "no record", "not definitely 10 out takes", "doesn't disprove there aren't any", "speculation that Roge did make some bigfoot footage with Bob H prior to the PGF", "there're could be 10 reels of film that Roge shot", "Do I think he destroyed them?  You bet I do.  Do you think he destroyed the suit, you bet I do". There is quite a bit of uncertainty there. One would say none of it is supported. I did read where Gimlin was supposed to were a wig for a previous documentary attempt though. 

 

You do a good job poking holes and casting doubt but it's supposition and conjecture for the most part and I think you could agree at least somewhat to that. There is also nothing so far that refutes the facts- if you can call them that- of the story as laid out by P&G and that there is only one way according to that story where results offset the effort; you said it yourself but I swear I will never throw it back in your face later at anytime for any reason: "Unless of course it's a real bigfoot once in a lifetime thing"....

 

I agree that it is unlikely given the track record to date of quality film and documentation and that there's a huge difference between saying yes there was a Bigfoot and yes there was a guy in a suit....HUGE! And I may be at fault for keeping an open mind about it and digging for the truth but I thinks it's something that's OK to do. You are convinced it's not real. I get that. I am not convinced it isn't. I think you get that. I'm not chasing mid-tarsal breaks and zippers. I'm chasing the actions of men in the field 50 years ago and trying to determine if as a hoax that those actions and the results indicates such. Some things do not make sense to me. Some say the creature in the film makes no sense and what those guys did has something to do with that. Creature? Man in a suit? I'm pursuing P&G and the story they told of that day back in 1967. The 59 seconds of results- real or not- is all there is. I'm not satisfied with that unless the story is true and happened just the way they say it did. I'm using their own actions to work through that. 

[MIB]

I have found the truth and the truth I found was that there is no such thing as bigfoot.   

 

You have found nothing, Crow.   You ASSERT that there is no such thing as bigfoot.   No matter how you try to hide it, Crow "logic" boils down to the notion that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.   Everything you say eventually comes back to that and we know that in propositional logic that is a false statement.

 

All you have is your dogma.  Throw up smoke screens, obfuscate all you wish, it still all comes back to the same old false statement.

 

MIB

Edited May 28, 2016 by MIB

[Incorrigible1]

MIB, it seems you and Crow are at equal sides of a conundrum. You've both equal amounts of proof and truth. Yes, one cannot disprove a contention, yet for all the effort from the other side, we've plaster of paris castings of footprints from a yet-to-be-proven actor, and essentially zero physical proof. For all your assertive statements, you (and everyone else) bring precisely as much to the table as does Crow.

 

C'est vie, say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell.

[Guest Crowlogic]

For those of you who can't grasp that Patterson may have shot many outtakes of what became known as Patty here is  a multi take enterprise that I can personal vouch for how it was done because I did it.  How many test shots and color mixes did I try and test shoot before I decided to go with the one shown?

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Crowlogic

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

I have found the truth and the truth I found was that there is no such thing as bigfoot.   

 

You have found nothing, Crow.   You ASSERT that there is no such thing as bigfoot.   No matter how you try to hide it, Crow "logic" boils down to the notion that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.   Everything you say eventually comes back to that and we know that in propositional logic that is a false statement.

 

All you have is your dogma.  Throw up smoke screens, obfuscate all you wish, it still all comes back to the same old false statement.

 

MIB

 

Well of course I have found nothing.  This is bifgoot and there is no bigfoot therefore I would be hoaxing you if I were to present you or anybody else with something claiming to be bigfoot or having come from bigfoot.  You are the proponent and the burden of proof rests with you not me.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Crowlogic

[hiflier]

Hi Incorrigible!. What you say is true. The standoff is obvious. There will be chinks in the armor of any belief system though And even the invincible Achilles had that heel thing. To many the Bigfoot creature cannot possibly exist. To many the Bigfoot creature can possibly exist. Standoff. This thread is exploring the mind of the hoaxer and how it would work or apply to the PGF. The only way to follow the point is to use the actions of the two main characters in the movie and weigh those actions against a sort of hoaxer mentality. YouTube hoaxers want clicks. A hoaxer with a dummy in an ice chest wants money too. Patterson and Gimlin also wanted money. There was much in the story about rights and royalties and selling the footage both before and after the fact.

 

If it's truly a guy in a suit it's a pretty darn good suit- and performance. If it's truly the brass ring though then it's a beaut. All this thread aims to do is look at the story and discuss whether everything related in the story according to P&G and the filming itself with it's content lines up sufficiently as a hoax scenario. For all the opportunity they had to expand the footage of the creature even for later use saying it was in a different part of No. California? They didn't. They didn't apparently add anything Patty to match the effort they made to even get a Patty. 59 seconds- DONE. Leave and get the film onto a plane for developing at all possible haste.

 

I could go into this further but in doing so it would only make the mere 59 seconds even more significant. I'm just trying to see if ALL of their actions combined stand up to hoax. This isn't to prove or disprove a female Bigfoot on film. It to make a judgment call on pre-expedition preparations vs. efforts to getting on location vs. results and the hanging questions that I have been exploring. It has been very interesting going at this in this manner instead of arguing shoulder pads and diapers inside a suit. Much more enjoyable as it goes to the heart of being a Human and running a hoax mentality. It has been thinking about P&G's actions and missed chances and opportunities in the area of hoaxing that brought me here.

[hiflier]

Hey Crowlogic, honey of a Lawson! Gorgeous really. Makes me want to grab a slide and go to town on the thing

[Guest Crowlogic]

The funny thing about hoaxes is the believers fill in the blanks and tie up the loose ends until the hoax is validated.  London trackway is a hoax and look a bunch of footers went down there and cast the tracks claiming victory.  But to the credit of Cliff from FB it was proven a hoax.  I've found oddities in the casts Patterson made and Titmus made of Patty so yes there are indeed cracks in the facade of the PGF's "hard" evidence.  At least one proponent has continually failed to grasp what those discrepancies are even then illustrated.  Skookum Meadow was an elk lay and footers filled it up with plaster and turned it into bigfoot.  Ivan Marx's hoax Cripple Foot had footers make cast of it and there was Ol' Grover drawing bones on it.  Ray Wallace stompped up BCM and even today there's a few die hard footers who say it's real.  I don't think footers can see the truth in many of these things.  Krantz swallowed Marx and even after Wallace stompers went public to be a direct match for BCM some footers cling to them being real.  I dunno about you but I've learned that it takes a lot more self deception to keep belief going and this is why hoax after hoax will continue to get air time and supporters.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Crowlogic

[norseman]

For those of you who can't grasp that Patterson may have shot many outtakes of what became known as Patty here is a multi take enterprise that I can personal vouch for how it was done because I did it. How many test shots and color mixes did I try and test shoot before I decided to go with the one shown?

Except you have a trackway, which triangulates this film.

You have the film subject moving through a specific back drop, as well as evidence of the film subject leaving a trackway. This same film site was again shot by John Green using Jim McClarin as the film subject. They claimed the PGF trackway was still visible, which is believable by the side by side comparison of the two films. They line up fairly well. And the evidence points to just ONE take.

So how could Patterson have taken many different takes without that creek bed looking like a cattle pen?

It's no different with your guitar. Give us your guitar and i can have it analysised and i can tell how many coats of paint you put on it. And I can tell you how many parts per thousand each color mixture for each coat. Its not hard to do.

Explain to me how a man in a costume with legs as wide as a 6'6" man's waist walked along a creek and left a trackway so deep it was visible a month or so later.

Edited May 28, 2016 by norseman