Jump to content
Bill

Think Like A Hoaxer

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

An I've explained it multiple times how you knew it was Gebhart's an still blindly continued to present it as Patterson hoaxin' an alleged bigfoot cast(in your opinion???).

 

kitakaze Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:00 AM

'kitakaze', on 17 Aug 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:snapback.png

Russell Gebhart was a Bigfoot researcher in the late 60's/early 70's. We're going to need some proof tthe owner of the foot was 7 ft tall because this is Roger's foot...

http://i1137.photobu...grogerfoot5.gif

"The following is a physical analysis that I submit as hard evidence that Patterson was indeed a Bigfoot hoaxer..."

 

 

 

Pat...

 

ps: An I noticed ya forgot this once again, your claim Patterson made/hoaxed all the casts in that pic ???

 

 

 

 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Never done the multi quote thing, so not sure how. My above didn't turn out so good, so snapped pic, easier. Just shows kitakaze quotin' himself, so he knew, he just continued on tryin ta come up with some kind of evidence against Patterson.

 

Pat...

post-279-0-03000000-1430857731_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TinyToots

Ron Olson was a client of my father's and they became friends as a result in the early 80's.  My dad often told me about his friend who had a room full of bigfoot evidence and said he'd take me over to see it sometime but that never happened.

My father was certainly convinced of Ron's dedication and honest belief that it was all very real.  Last time my dad spoke with him he was really angry because he had agreed to sell his entire Sasquatch evidence collection to a TV station under the condition that they would present it on television, but after the sale they buried it and it was never seen.  He wanted to go after them legally over it but I don't know how that turned out as my dad hasn't talked to him since then.

 

I don't know what beliefs people have that make the idea of a being like Sasquatch so difficult to believe could exist.  We live in a world where just about anything is possible.  There is so much consistent history and so many similar accounts across all of the globe that all mirror the same beings being seen throughout human history, and there was a time when the evidence that has been collected would have been enough.  I think Paul Freeman's last words about how nothing is going to satisfy academia except a dead body may sadly be accurate.

Edited by TinyToots
completed a sentence
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, TinyToots said:

Ron Olson was a client of my father's and they became friends as a result in the early 80's.  My dad often told me about his friend who had a room full of bigfoot evidence and said he'd take me over to see it sometime but that never happened.

My father was certainly convinced of Ron's dedication and honest belief that it was all very real.  Last time my dad spoke with him he was really angry because he had agreed to sell his entire Sasquatch evidence collection to a TV station under the condition that they would present it on television, but after the sale they buried it and it was never seen.  He wanted to go after them legally over it but I don't know how that turned out as my dad hasn't talked to him since then.

 

I don't know what beliefs people have that make the idea of a being like Sasquatch so difficult to believe could exist.  We live in a world where just about anything is possible.  There is so much consistent history and so many similar accounts across all of the globe that all mirror the same beings being seen throughout human history, and there was a time when the evidence that has been collected would have been enough.  I think Paul Freeman's last words about how nothing is going to satisfy academia except a dead body may sadly be accurate.

 

Bingo! Thats where we need to roll up our sleeves!

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
14 hours ago, TinyToots said:

 

I don't know what beliefs people have that make the idea of a being like Sasquatch so difficult to believe could exist.  

 

When I look at the PGF it's pretty compelling. Yet just as Dr. Grieve (a smart guy) who looked at the footage said his opinion fluctuates between total acceptance of what he is seeing and total rejection at an almost emotional level that these things could be real. [See Wikipedia PGF]   I think he sums up my feelings as well.

 

It reminds me of an expert who studied the Vinland map said to be an ancient Vikings map showing North America 500 years before Columbus.  If could be real or a forgery.  This expert stated, "There are days I look at this and feel it is a hoax and other days I look at it and am convinced it is real"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

In the case of the Vikings,the archaeological digs of the settlements in Newfoundland pretty well establish that the map very likely to be true.    Of course nothing can rule out hoaxers trying to make money on something now known to be factual.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
On 3/6/2019 at 9:59 AM, Backdoc said:

 

When I look at the PGF it's pretty compelling. Yet just as Dr. Grieve (a smart guy) who looked at the footage said his opinion fluctuates between total acceptance of what he is seeing and total rejection at an almost emotional level that these things could be real. [See Wikipedia PGF]   I think he sums up my feelings as well.

 

It reminds me of an expert who studied the Vinland map said to be an ancient Vikings map showing North America 500 years before Columbus.  If could be real or a forgery.  This expert stated, "There are days I look at this and feel it is a hoax and other days I look at it and am convinced it is real"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its real. We know Vikings were here in Newfoundland.

 

The question now is? Where the Romans here?

 

https://www.gaia.com/article/out-of-place-artifacts

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

^^^

 

Don’t want to side track the thread but it is entirely possible the Vinland Map is a clever forgery all by itself.  Separately the Vikings were in North America and settlements in North America prove it.  That fact does not need the Vinland Map being real to make it so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

But sailors draw maps.... for future voyages.

 

How is the Vinland map a forgery if it shows north America relatively accurately and we have evidence of their being here?

 

Thats like saying David Thompson's maps are a forgery while admiting he made the trip through the Rockies.

 

That dog wont hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
30 minutes ago, norseman said:

But sailors draw maps.... for future voyages.

 

How is the Vinland map a forgery if it shows north America relatively accurately and we have evidence of their being here?

 

Thats like saying David Thompson's maps are a forgery while admiting he made the trip through the Rockies.

 

That dog wont hunt.

 

All he is saying is that we know they were here. That doesn't mean that particular map can't be a hoax. Doesn't mean they didn't make other maps though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

^^^

 

Yes and for many reasons Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Excellent post TinyToots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
7 hours ago, TinyToots said:

Some skeptics have gotten themselves into a strange negative feedback loop wherein something must be a hoax for the sole reason that the thing shouldn't exist, not for a reason that is some kind of rational or logical breakdown of some form of evidence.  If they find some evidence within the map itself that indicates that it is not legitimately old through dating or material analysis then that is a reasonable reason to present it as a hoax.  If they merely find the prospect that something interferes with their presumed model of history to be distasteful that is not sufficient reason to discount an actual material piece of evidence.

 

These sorts of behaviors are a defect in academia that has likely developed much as any trait evolves; for self-preservation.

 

Thousands of eye-witness reports by reputable witnesses in all levels of society, foot prints with dermal ridges verified by foremost experts, unidentifiable DNA in biological specimens, audio recordings analyzed by audiological experts and cryptolinguists to be legitimate, all in combination with film that cannot be disproved even if it cannot be wholly proven on its own, a historical record of reports accurately describing the same observances worldwide.  At a certain point it's not illogical to entertain the possibility of a cover-up because there is a level of obstinacy and denial that sometimes seems more mysterious than Sasquatch, which itself is not in my view not nearly the preposterous prospect that so many people seem to view it as.

 

Good thoughts and Welcome to the BFF

 

I would say if a person has reasons to doubt (or strongly doubt) the existence of Bigfoot they would say the evidence you suggest is in error.  They may say it is well-intentioned.  They may say it looks impressive.  In the end though, they can chalk it up to the idea the well-intention person must be making an error of some kind.  

 

For some, it's like a math problem.  No matter what you multiply by zero the answer is always zero.  If the hardline skeptic does this the conclusion always ends with "There is no Bigfoot".  

 

The trick here is for both sides to dispassionately weight the information as it comes in and consider it. There are times a bit of information might not be helpful to one's cause.  It can't be disregarded just because we don't like what the information tells us Skeptic or Believer.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Hi Bill!

 

I have been going back through the old Munn's Report thread from several years ago.

 

Really interesting stuff, but many of the accompanying images are no longer available, (at least not on my computer.)

 

I am after one image in particular. It is from a post you made March 22, 2012.

 

"As noted above, one of the unexpected benefits of Copy 14 is the true full frame segment of Roger casting his track, because the camera does move up and down a bit and I was able to make a composite landscape using 5 frames which produced a larger landscape than any one frame shows, and allows us to see a lot more of the landscape. My master composite is about 4x larger and more detailed than this one, below, but apparently the forum software doesn't like images over 1024 in width when I post them. SO what you see below isn't as high a resolution as I have,

CompositelandscapeCopy14.jpg

 

Is that composite image still available and if so would it be possible to repost it here? Thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×