Jump to content
xspider1

The 50th Anniversary of the amazing Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film has arrived and there is no debunk in sight! 8 )

Recommended Posts

hiflier
34 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

I thought he has been quite clear which path he has chosen.  :)

 

It would seem so but, IMHO, stating it outright would be better ;) I mean, why not? I can see being FOR Bigfoot but against the PGF only if one has rock solid proof the film is a hoax. That's something that only happens when one cherry picks separate details in the story. When one looks at a larger picture then there will be at least questions about the hoax-guy-in-a-suit point of view. When one looks at EVERY detail then the hoax point of view doesn't deserve consideration.

 

Some say there are Sasquatches around even today. And some say not. Even that discussion has nothing to do with the 50 year old PGF. That's just practical hard line thinking. My focus is the PGF and ONLY the PGF. Everything else is a diversion away from as empirically as possible showing that what's on that film is a Sasquatch. It is Job one. There's nothing difficult in my mind about strictly maintaining that one pursuit above all others. My reasoning is because there's so much riding on it.

 

In my mind it's simple: if the PGF is a hoax the NONE of the story or debates on timeline, skeleton overlays, or anything else matters one whit. On the flip side, if it isn't a hoax then the PGF is THE most important piece of evidence so nothing else shouldn't be ALLOWED to matter. The data in the images on the film is the key to the whole ball of wax. And so that's where my efforts and focus lie. I'm not a fanatic proponent of Sasquatch. But with regard to that piece of film? The truth of it is the real and only goal. In fact, this entire Forum is inextricably wrapped around it and tied to it. No small matter that.

 

 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

(I wasn't sure if this was the right thread for this.)

Something I have often thought about doing is making a list of everything that would have to be true if the PGF was a hoax. All the items would likely have been mentioned on here in the past in various threads but I think it might be interesting, and maybe a bit of an eye opener, to see them together in one list. Although I'm sure I would miss some things. 

Here's an example of something that would be on the list; If the PGF was a hoax, it means Roger just flat out lied to the newspaper reporter when he called the reporter on the night of the 20th to tell them he had encountered a real Bigfoot earlier that day. It also means he put on an act when he sounded excited while telling about the encounter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
11 hours ago, dmaker said:

BD, is there anything that doesn't make you think the PGF is real?

 

  The development timeline is a big deal to me.   It's not a deal breaker but it's not anything to just be dismissed either.

 

I leave it entirely possible the PGF could be replicated .  If I saw this accomplished in a same or similar way, that would be close enough for me.  The fact that has not been done is a strong weight on the side of the PGF.

 

there are other things.  

 

Tell me what you think is the most compelling thing pointing to the PGF being a hoax.  I am open to hearing it.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

  The development timeline is a big deal to me.   It's not a deal breaker but it's not anything to just be dismissed either.

 

 

 

I can dismiss it very easily....based on the physical analysis of the filmed subject. 

 

I won't bother listing all of the details visible on Patty which have never been seen, and never will be seen, on a 'man in a suit'. :) 

 

On 11/1/2017 at 11:08 PM, dmaker said:

Your selfless aid to fellow bigfooters is praise worthy, no doubt. But you don't mind making a buck or two off of the bigfoot legend, now do you? How much do you charge for a tour of "bigfoot country" in your guided tours? 

 

http://www.sasquatchcountryadventures.com/Rates-Schedules.html

 

 

 

Hey dmaker...is your life so boring, that you have nothing better to do with your time than to make a public objection to someone making an honest living??

 

How pathetic.  :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
4 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

Hey dmaker...is your life so boring, that you have nothing better to do with your time than to make a public objection to someone making an honest living??

 

How pathetic.  :) 

 

dmakers remarks are beyond pathetic. He appears to ask how much the fee is for our service despite my publicly saying SCA has yet to show a profit. He continues to do so even though the prices are listed on the web site and have been since the day we opened. Two hour outings have gone long by 1.5 hours and not a penny extra charged to the customer. I have donated outings to those with hardships - as well as other causes from cancer benefits to the support of the arts in BC. My guides are paid $20 per hr. 

 

Trolls cannot discredit what we do anymore than they can discredit the PGF.

Pattys facial change animation 2_zpshjacwyrw.gif

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Is there any credible evidence that says the timeline did not happen as Roger has said?  There's no reason to rush developing a fake film so what reason would Roger have to fabricate a tight timeline? 

This is another item to go on the list I mentioned earlier. If the PGF was a hoax, it means Roger made up a fictitious tight timeline. If you've made a fake film and want to sell it as real, why make up a timeline that works against you?

 

So if the film is fake, Roger not only lied to the newspaper reporter but he also fabricated the timeline. And while Roger was at Al Hodgson's store, I wonder if Roger lied to Al about encountering a real Bigfoot earlier that afternoon.

This is why I thought about making that list; and those are only a few items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

Is there any credible evidence that says the timeline did not happen as Roger has said?  There's no reason to rush developing a fake film so what reason would Roger have to fabricate a tight timeline? 

This is another item to go on the list I mentioned earlier. If the PGF was a hoax, it means Roger made up a fictitious tight timeline. If you've made a fake film and want to sell it as real, why make up a timeline that works against you?

 

So if the film is fake, Roger not only lied to the newspaper reporter but he also fabricated the timeline. And while Roger was at Al Hodgson's store, I wonder if Roger lied to Al about encountering a real Bigfoot earlier that afternoon.

This is why I thought about making that list; and those are only a few items.

 

OF,

 

I agree with you. Great post.

 

I am just open- minded about the timeline.  I just want to know more.  I have not found anything about it that seems like proof of a hoax.  In fact, I contend a lot of what we think we know about it is really hearsay stuff.  My guess is Roger mailed it off and he and Bob did not have a clue how it was developed after that.   Any statements by Roger and others have us reading into things that really are not accurate to any great extent because they no longer had the film after that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
5 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

Is there any credible evidence that says the timeline did not happen as Roger has said?  There's no reason to rush developing a fake film so what reason would Roger have to fabricate a tight timeline?

 

There is no credible evidence that Roger and Bob's timeline did not occur just as they claimed. Dahinden's failure to not inspect the packaging the film came in was his short coming and not because he was deprived of looking at it. The camera original of both Reels were sent to John Green who had them for two weeks - John also failed to examine the reel and its packaging. Dahinden and  Bonney failed to do the same. Patterson even sought to get people to the film site the following day. These were  professionals who he felt could properly inspect the evidence.

 

The alleged evidence that the timeline may have been hoaxed is because Roger would not say who developed the film. Two things stand out - 1) Roger gave a legitimate reason for protecting his source and 2) Despite Roger's good intentions .... he made the mistake of allowing others to have access to the original which in hindsight could have allowed the missing information to have been learned.

 

It seems to me the mystery of where the film was developed and when is as much as the Bigfoot people who had the opportunity to have learned these things, but failed to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

OF,

 

I agree with you. Great post.

 

I am just open- minded about the timeline.  I just want to know more.  I have not found anything about it that seems like proof of a hoax.  In fact, I contend a lot of what we think we know about it is really hearsay stuff.  My guess is Roger mailed it off and he and Bob did not have a clue how it was developed after that.   Any statements by Roger and others have us reading into things that really are not accurate to any great extent because they no longer had the film after that.

 

 

bd, I would think most everyone would like to know more on the timeline; even if just to satisfy curiosity. It's a bit like reading part of a crime novel and then wondering about the rest of the story. This is just my thinking but with all the analysis of the subject in the film pointing to a real creature, and knowing the developed film was in Al DeAtley's hands on Sunday, the 22nd, I would bet if we knew the full timeline that it would not contradict the analysis and point to hoax. 

 

I would bet you're right about Roger not knowing anything about how it got developed after sending it off. Since Roger took a movie camera on the trip, hoping to get a Bigfoot on film,  he and Al had to have discussed beforehand about getting it developed. So surely Al had a plan in place in case Roger got the film he was hoping for.

 

BH, I can understand Roger/Al wanting to protect sources about developing when it's done outside normal channels. If the film was faked, they could easily have just waited until Monday and got it developed through normal channels.

And rushing the development did not change what is on the film.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Skeptics didn't answer my earlier question:

 

how does it make any sense if the Patterson Gimlin Film was a hoax they would cheat Hieronimus out of his money, Gimlin out of his money, and even in further inflame Gimlim -the cheated coconspirstor -by having a fake Gimlin tour?  How does Gimlin accept that while this fake Gimln is helping Roger makeeven more money for the guys that just cheated him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

I think it's great that members are really starting to think more creatively about this. Your point, Backdoc, is a good candidate for OkieFoot's list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

A list of "everything that would have to be true if the PGF was a hoax" sounds like a good idea for a topic, OkieFoot!  8 )  If Bob H. had done that well acting in a Bigfoot hoax then I think he would have been paid.  No PGf hoax = no pay for Bigfoot mimes and that is apparently what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Regarding the film development timeline....here is an older post of  LAL's, from 2011....which has some interesting information in it...

 

Quote

One reason for hurry might be to get the "bigfooters" there on the weekend before anyone had to go to work on Monday. Peter (Byrne) concluded the film was developed by someone accustomed to moonlighting adult film. Roger already knew where to get his Ektachrome developed. Someone may have had a little sideline going that would have been pretty profitable at the time. Roger said the guy could lose his job. Why, if the film was developed during business hours in Seattle.

Al's memory lapses are frustrating, but I can relate to that. I've been trying to recall a trip to Japan circa 1968. I remember a lot about being there, but I can't give any exact days, have no recollection of the flight there or back but I know I like Gion drums even though I'm not sure if I even heard them live. The PGF apparently wasn't the biggest thing in Al's life. He was tired of Roger's schemes but if Roger called him up saying he had the real deal the dollar signs would have been dancing in his eyes.

DeAtley regularly did business with Richardson Aviation. So, if he sent the plane rather than hiring one out of Murphy Field in Eureka, that explains a lot.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/topic/3174-al-deatley-when-how-and-why-was-he-involved/?page=4

 

Just some things to consider. 

 

 

23 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

dmakers remarks are beyond pathetic. He appears to ask how much the fee is for our service despite my publicly saying SCA has yet to show a profit. He continues to do so even though the prices are listed on the web site and have been since the day we opened. Two hour outings have gone long by 1.5 hours and not a penny extra charged to the customer. I have donated outings to those with hardships - as well as other causes from cancer benefits to the support of the arts in BC. My guides are paid $20 per hr. 

 

 

Absolutely, Bill. :) 

 

It is senseless to attack someone for making an honest dollar.

 

Whether you cross paths with a Sasquatch, or not, has no relevance....to anything. There are people who have spent many years out in the field, searching for the creatures....and have never encountered one. That is the 'norm'. The exception to the rule is the very rare encounter/sighting. 


 

Quote

Trolls cannot discredit what we do anymore than they can discredit the PGF.

 

No, they can't. ;) 

 

All they can do....is what they do best.....Troll. 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
On 11/2/2017 at 11:35 PM, Backdoc said:

Tell me what you think is the most compelling thing pointing to the PGF being a hoax.  I am open to hearing it.

Watching it. After that, the timeline. The ridiculous coincidence. The lack of any confirmed bigfoot evidence anywhere, ever. Roger's back story and reputation as a conman. His drawing of exactly what he filmed. And so on and so on. 

 

On 11/3/2017 at 7:45 AM, Bigfoothunter said:

dmakers remarks are beyond pathetic. He appears to ask how much the fee is for our service despite my publicly saying SCA has yet to show a profit. He continues to do so even though the prices are listed on the web site and have been since the day we opened. Two hour outings have gone long by 1.5 hours and not a penny extra charged to the customer. I have donated outings to those with hardships - as well as other causes from cancer benefits to the support of the arts in BC. My guides are paid $20 per hr. 

Yes, but what you do is still spreading false information. I love bigfoot as a myth. I do. I don't see any harm is some spooky campfire stories or some cultural kitch--I even own some bigfoot socks. 

 

I take issue when people go around telling everyone that will listen that bigoot is real. Which I am sure you do on your tours. In my opinion this undermines science and critical thinking in general. By all means tell spooky stories. Talk about the legend, etc. But you don't do that, do you? You tell people how really real bigfeets are. You even pore over fake casts as part of your customer experience. That is what I have a problem with. Not that you attempt to earn a few bucks, it's that you do so while engaging in harmful spreading of false facts. Especially to children.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
18 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

There is no credible evidence that Roger and Bob's timeline did not occur just as they claimed. Dahinden's failure to not inspect the packaging the film came in was his short coming and not because he was deprived of looking at it. The camera original of both Reels were sent to John Green who had them for two weeks - John also failed to examine the reel and its packaging. Dahinden and  Bonney failed to do the same. Patterson even sought to get people to the film site the following day. These were  professionals who he felt could properly inspect the evidence.

 

The alleged evidence that the timeline may have been hoaxed is because Roger would not say who developed the film. Two things stand out - 1) Roger gave a legitimate reason for protecting his source and 2) Despite Roger's good intentions .... he made the mistake of allowing others to have access to the original which in hindsight could have allowed the missing information to have been learned.

 

It seems to me the mystery of where the film was developed and when is as much as the Bigfoot people who had the opportunity to have l

 

I think this a key point. Plus, remember Roger wanted scientists to look at the film and he also took his film to two movie studios with expertise in special effects and let their people view it. That's like a counterfeiter printing some fake money and then taking it into a bank and letting them inspect it.

 

If it was a hoax film, Roger was doing all the right things to get caught. ;) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×