Jump to content

Think Like A Hoaxer


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

I attributed the Gebhart cast to Patterson because of its close similarity and it was attributed to Patterson by Hancock House, his publisher. Was that an honest mistake or a dishonest mistake?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

You "get busted" all the time...posting false/twisted information, and graphics.

 

Which by his own definition it makes Kitakaze a total hoaxer.    :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Uh, no. Being wrong about the source and nature of a cast which is attributed to Patterson by his publisher is simple error and not any kind of ninja hoax.

Coaching and trotting around an impostor to pretend to be your trusty native tracker is hoaxing which got Gimlin's friend in Arkansas thrown out of Roger's showing the film for busting him on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Uh, no. Being wrong about the source and nature of a cast which is attributed to Patterson by his publisher is simple error and not any kind of ninja hoax.

Coaching and trotting around an impostor to pretend to be your trusty native tracker is hoaxing which got Gimlin's friend in Arkansas thrown out of Roger's showing the film for busting him on it.

 

None of which has anything to do with the film and the evidence left behind on the film site. Still waiting for a rational theory as to how Patterson made deep prints in the film site sandbar without disturbing the substrate around them if he didn't wear the alleged Wallace stompers.   (crickets still chirpping)

hoax

 (hÅks)

n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

If you think the source of your Bigfoot film being a hoaxer is irrelevant, you are playing Woods & Wildmen like a pro.

Patterson most certainly was deceiving audiences with his impostor. Making deep prints in wet sand is not rocket science, nor is covering your tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

You were specifically told who made the cast by LAL on Aug 15th, you recognized this sayin' you'll need proof because "this is Roger's foot..", you quote yourself 5 days after that on the Gebhart comment, still sayin' "..I submit as hard evidence Patterson was a bigfoot hoaxer..", so you didn't forget back then. Clearly you acknowledge the cast was made by Gebhart, you just ignore it. Until of course roguefooter posted pic an quote of what you had already been told 7 days earlier.

 

As for your... "This is why I had mistaken Gebhart's cast as a Bigfoot cast made by Patterson..."  HOW ??? Even you recognized it was a human foot cast ! No where was it claimed a bigfoot cast ! An you knew it was said to be a human cast ! Your desire to make Patterson a hoaxer is clear.

 

As I said, how can you claim to forget about what you were actually talkin' about, on April 21st you post the comparison images and say "..even using his own feet which can create enlarged casts using things such as turpentine or a pantograph.
Like Freeman and Wallace, Patterson's casts show the same kind of internal consistency of hoaxing, particularly in the toe areas."

You are explainin' how you thought Patterson hoaxed the "alleged bigfoot cast" he didn't even make...an was no where claimed a bigfoot track.

 

An here you are again talkin' bout Patterson decievin' people !  I'll ask again, you posted image of Patterson with casts an said.."What each of these collections show is an internal consistency with the hoaxer creating the fake prints.", you are suggestin' Patterson made/hoaxed all those tracks. Do you have evidence he made all those tracks ?  

 

In your original post #412 to Neanderfoot, you replied with what you considered evidence that happened to have already been completely debunked, an also presented another image claimin' Patterson was responsible for makin'/hoaxin' without evidence to suggest he made all those casts in the first place.

 

Here is the definition of Deceive: (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage:

 

You said "Being wrong about the source and nature of a cast which is attributed to Patterson by his publisher is simple error..", you knew the cast was said to have been made by Gebhart, there was no claim of it bein' from a bigfoot, and even you recognized it for what it was...a human footprint cast.

 

I think you desire an need to vilify Patterson as a hoaxer is as strong an blinding as it was 3 years ago.

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

From that other site, when you first bring up your observations, you yourself say the cast is attributed to both, Patterson and Gebhart, but I see no evidence of how you already knew it was attributed to Gebhart, without Krantz's book or a image with quote, either way, you knew.  You said... "  Roger was 5'4". The following (on the right) is a 12 inch cast attribute both to him and to a Russel Gebhart..."

 

Pat...
 

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

If you think the source of your Bigfoot film being a hoaxer is irrelevant, you are playing Woods & Wildmen like a pro. Patterson most certainly was deceiving audiences with his impostor.

 

Your mentioning him using a stand-in after the fact. I have seen more deceptions carried out on this  forum by some of Roger's biggest critics.

 

 

Making deep prints in wet sand is not rocket science, nor is covering your tracks.

 

Still waiting for a rational theory or even a hint of a test you have conducted to support what you are alleging.  Just saying something over and over is a Kerry tactic. You are supposed to be the critical thinker and yet your responses are void of details. At least Kerry came up with scaffolds and hanging from  a helicopter .... as ridiculous and asinine as they were.  So far you have not come up with  anything, thus you get another F- for your lack of effort.    :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Pat, if you are going to quote-mine, the original quote in full and a link would be great.

 

The cast on the right was made by Russell Gebhart. The owner of the foot stood about 7 feet tall. It was not Roger's foot.

The other two casts are different sizes because the prints were different depths.

See the caption in Dr. Krantz' book, page 20.

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...

August 17, 2012 4:23 am @ JREF...

 

Guys, I'm looking for some critical feedback. Have a very close look at Roger's foot, particularly the upper sole and toes...

http://s2.jrnl.ie/media/2012/08/roge...on-320x500.jpg

Roger was 5'4". The following (on the right) is a 12 inch cast attribute both to him and to a Russel Gebhart...

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products...s//BigSas1.jpg

Source...

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/bigsas_pics.htm

Now together...

Esteban Sarmiento demonstrated a method using a mold and turpentine on NatGeo to enlarge his on foot into huge stompers. You can see for yourself from 6:04 here...

For context, I have argued that Patterson used the stompers of his associate Ray Wallace for the PGF trackway as shown here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8545173&highlight=Gebhart#post8545173

LAL's post was the first notice I had of any association between the cast and Russell Gebhart. Even after I thought there was a match based on the similarity of the Gebhart cast and Roger's foot.

Was there anything ninja or intellectually dishonest about that?

Your mentioning him using a stand-in after the fact. I have seen more deceptions carried out on this  forum by some of Roger's biggest critics.

Seriously, what's with the bold?

Does Roger having an impostor Gimlin who was busted by Gimlin's friend and then thrown out from a PGF showing in Arkansas qualify to you as a hoax?

 

 

Still waiting for a rational theory or even a hint of a test you have conducted to support what you are alleging.

 

No helicopters, no scaffolding. The video presentation on covering one's tracks in the wilderness showed a very simple and low tech way to prevent making footprints.

The Kerry infatuation is starting to get creepy. Literally you can't make it through three posts without talking about Kerry.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter,

 

It is rather funny, the evidence he presents to suggest Patterson was a hoaxer, he has nothing to back it up. One piece he actually completely fabricates out of his own desire to try an proclaim Patterson a hoaxer...an yet he cracks jokes at us an says only in Bigfootery...ha ! ha ! 

 

:)

 

And then thinks that no one will notice what he is doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I think you desire an need to vilify Patterson as a hoaxer is as strong an blinding as it was 3 years ago.

 

Pat...

Was having Gimlin impersonated something you'd consider a hoax?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

No helicopters, no scaffolding. The video presentation on covering one's tracks in the wilderness showed a very simple and low tech way to prevent making footprints.

 

I must have missed the video. I want to see how one covers up broken uneven wavy sand layers and/or erases evidence in the sand without the surface looking unnatural. Have a link?

 

 

The Kerry infatuation is starting to get creepy. Literally you can't make it through three posts without talking about Kerry.

 

Your mimicking his flawed style of just making statements and leaving out the details seems creepy to me. 

Was having Gimlin impersonated something you'd consider a hoax?

 

It would certainly be deceptive when done outside of the use of a stand-in, thus in my view it could be considered an attempt to commit a hoax. The same could be said about someone deceiving another individual into allegedly sneaking around inside someone's house and streaming video without the owners permission or knowing about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I must have missed the video. I want to see how one covers up broken uneven wavy sand layers and/or erases evidence in the sand without the surface looking unnatural. Have a link?

https://youtu.be/N2O7ANZZIcw

 

 

It would certainly be deceptive when done outside of the use of a stand-in, thus in my view it could be considered an attempt to commit a hoax. The same could be said about someone deceiving another individual into allegedly sneaking around inside someone's house and streaming video without the owners permission or knowing about it.

I've never asked anyone to go anywhere they were not supposed to be. But thank you for acknowledging that Patterson did in fact hoax people with a Gimlin impersonator.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

Not sure about your quote minin' claim, be precise an I'll address it.

Either way, you were told it was made by Gebhart, this you clearly knew. That was back then. But you used it again as evidence of hoaxin' on the 21st, specifically mentionin' the same hoaxin' techniques as 3 years ago. You were specifically asked why you posted the comparison.  

 

You're bein' deceptive here kitakaze, you're sidesteppin' an not adressin' the simple points. You knew it was claimed to have been made by Gebhart, you yourself even recognized it as a human footprint cast right from the get go, an nowhere was it claimed a bigfoot cast. Then you went on your roll claimin' it a dead match an Patterson was a hoaxer.

On the 21st, you added pic of Patterson with casts, sayin' he made/hoaxed them all. I've asked multiple times to substantiate your claim.

 

No, I do not think Patterson was hoaxing when he had an impersonator play the role of Gimlin. He was promoting his show/experience. If a hoax, would you cut your partner out of the money ?

 

1) You didn't forget it 3 years ago.

2) How could you possibly forget it when you are specifically talkin' about it now(April 21st) ?

3) Do you have anything that says Roger made/hoaxed all those casts ?

4) How is/was it an "alleged bigfoot cast" ?

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Pat, I've explained in detail with all the original posts and images how I thought that Gebart's foot cast was Roger. You are certainly welcome to think I tried to ninja fake evidence using an image from one of the best known Bigfoot books available.

 

Edited by chelefoot
GG2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...