Bigfoot – Hoaxer is Shot !!

[Skeptical Greg]

Bigfoot – Hoaxer is Shot !!




Well Sort of……

I know a lot of you have looked in on the

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=42523)

... thread, from time to time, but you may not be aware of a recent development..

JREF Forum member Dfoot (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/member.php?u=7766) , who recently joined to participate in the PGF discussion here, was very active in the
Bigfoot Forums (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?) discussion of the Film/Video/Photo/Audio Analysis > Patterson / Gimlin Film (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35),
and had spent a lot of time showing how creature suits were made and how those techniques could have been employed in creating what we see in the PGF..

Here is one of the discussions where he was challenging, and being challenged by those who believe the star of the PGF is a real North American primate..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887

If you jump to this post :

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=300099

… you will see where Dfoot announced that he was ready to share some pics of the ‘ Patty ‘ suit he was making, being worn by a neighbor, and he wanted to see what everyone thought…

After a few posts ( couple of pages ) that included suggestions about how the suit could be improved to look more like Patty, one observant member pointed out that one pic was suspiciously close to Patty as found in the film..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=300326

It was quickly revealed ( and realized ) that all of the pics were ‘ Patty ‘ paste jobs..

Condemnation, posturing and backpedaling followed..

Dfoot was suspended and the thread locked.. ( The hoaxer was shot !! )


Meanwhile we are fortunate to have Dfoot as a contributor here at the JREF forums…


Was this an insideous thing that Dfoot did? Was he trying to defraud, as some are suggesting ?




Or was it a test, that revealed the cult-like, blinder impaired behaviour, of people who want to believe, and refuse to see evidence contrary to their beliefs ?


The people who take Bigfoot seriously, need to ask themselves if they really want to be taken seriously.

Do they want to appear to be looking at this scientifically, or just a religious cult that excommunicates heretics ?

Of course some would say, since they have no scientific basis, they really have no choice..



P.S.

We ( members at BFF ) were admonished not to discuss the matter in the locked thread any further, by the board's administrator .. ( Owner ? )

[Huntster]

....The people who take Bigfoot seriously, need to ask themselves if they really want to be taken seriously......

Taken seriously by whom?

You?

[AWPrime]

Bigfoot – Hoaxer is Shot !!




Well Sort of……


You just had to crush my hopes.

[Pup]

Well, I'll tell you what I think. I think dfoot has lost all credibility as a bigfoot suit photographer. Next time he says he's photographed a bigfoot suit, I won't believe him. :)

Which seems to me totally irrelevant, as far as evidence of actual bigfoots is concerned. I mean, he didn't claim to have photographed a bigfoot. He claimed to have photographed a bigfoot suit. So what? One gorrilla suit more or less, or photographs thereof, does nothing to muddy the data about living bigfoots in the wild. The only way this could be a bigfoot hoax is if he claimed the image was of a wild animal.

It was a clever way of proving a point, that worked all too well. Now the people who were made to look foolish are scrambling to attack the messenger.

[Huntster]

...It was a clever way of proving a point, that worked all too well. Now the people who were made to look foolish are scrambling to attack the messenger.

Dfoot's words: (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&st=520)

...I hesitate to show this as it's too early... but... This weekend I had my neighbor get into a temporary version of the suit I want to make to try another experiment. This is just my dummy's head, hands and feet on him. I made an undersuit by duct-taping the foam muscles to spandex pants and a shirt and then sewed black fake fur onto this. (That's a clear close up of the black fur on the right)....

...What do you think?

And here is his corresponding photo (look closely at it, and compare it to Pattersons):

[casebro]

He showed the believers pics of Patty, as if she were a suit, and they shut down the thread! They put their hands over their ears and went 'LALALALALALA' We don't wanna hear this!"

DFoot did better than getting a phone solicitor to hang up on you!

[Huntster]

Here is my post on the same thread responding to his picture post:

QUOTE(Dfoot @ Feb 28 2006, 11:40 AM)
...What do you think?...

* Photo not very clear; needs to be cleared up like Patterson film
* Legs too long and skinny
* Torso looks about right
* Arms too skinny, and not at similar length ratio with legs like Patterson subject
* Of course, as a still and not a movie, we can't see movement
* Also, of course, details like toes found after stabilization of the Patterson film not visible

Otherwise, your work beats the BBC figure (IMO, and so far), and it sure beats the hell out of baseless arguments without any attempt at reproduction.


QUOTE
...I just snapped the pic as he didn't want any of the other neighbors to see him doing this and we ran back inside....


I understand. Even in an L.A. neighborhood (and not in the woods) somebody might take a shot at such a figure.

Is someone prepared to say that Dfoot "caught me" at something with his "test"?

[Huntster]

Tube's response:

Dfoot; your photo is appropriatly Bigfoot-blurry, though the palm trees make me pine for warm, dry weather.

The arms look long, almost inhumanly long. John Green has asserted in the past that the Patterson film subject cannot be a man in a suit due to the inhumanly long arms. As one who has filmed men in costumes and is now building a costume, what is your response to Green's absolute assertion?

Was Tube "caught" by Dfoot?

[Skeptical Greg]

Dfoot's words: (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&st=520)
And here is his corresponding photo (look closely at it, and compare it to Pattersons):

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/attachment.php?attachmentid=1340&d=1141851612__http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/attachment.php?attachmentid=1341&d=1141851815



Interesting, from someone who is trying to point out the deceit of someone else...

Not exactly what the real Patterson film looks like before it is highly enhanced, or what you saw when you first bit..

Try this ..

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dtrapp/patty3.jpg


Now who's flipping who ?

[Huntster]

Another response:

Still a fascinating (and worthwhile) exercise Dfoot. I've not participated much lately - while I'm of course interested I'm personally a little tired arguing that surrounds the effort. Keep it up

How's this one?:

Dfoot, your photo is TOO blobsquatchy. You're trying to crap-up the photo quality too much. You certainly can't measure anything from your photo let alone determine if any features are "inhuman". That aside, looking at your fuzzy image, I'd say the legs are obviously undersized....

How's this response:

Being able to analyze Dfoot's suit in motion, or even well lighted, still images with Dfoot's suit in different positions, will probably reveal just how amazing the PGF is by comparison.

I could be wrong of course.

How does this one sound:

I think he's getting to the motion part...dfoot did say it was a bit early to show the above pic.

This is one of the best threads that has been on this board in months!!!

Thanks to both sides for the efforts.

Dfoot, the legs do look a little spindly, but the rest looks pretty damn good so far, hope you keep going with it!

More response:

Dfoot,
You're doin' a fine job on your project.... I applaud your efforts !!!

Now... what are the 'specs' on your friend ?
Did you apply the padding/duct tape to the under-suit while it was on your dummy or on your friend ?
IOW... was it a custom fit ?

Ya'll need to go over to the ball-park, explain to curious on-lookers exactly what you're doing (call the newspaper?), & video it at a comparable distance in the BRIGHT SUNSHINE !

That oughta help you in your re-creation.

Good Luck to ya both

So, who did Dfoot "catch"? And what did he catch them doing?

[Huntster]

Now, here's where Dfoot gets busted.

Are these photos the same as the 1st photo?

His words:

Check out these three pics from the backyard. I told him that I wanted him to imitate the shot where McClarin walked behind a tree and also do the thing at the beginning of the film when Patty walks over the little hill.

I realized later that because my fur was so black the shadows made it harder for my camcorder to separate the blacks in the footage. It might be better if I avoid the shadows altogether and try doing the whole walk in the bright sun. Still... my friend said later when he looked at the PG film that he compared the two he could see no difference in what we did and in Patty. He said it's basically the same thing - just shot on video instead of film.

You tell me. Is this Patty or another Morris thingy? Is it even close or is it back to the drawing board again?

[Huntster]

Eight hours later:

Dfoot's newest suit might be a photoshop job. I don't have photoshop, I have "microsoft picture it". Using this, I put Dfoot's pose next to the actual Patty.

I note that his shares an unusual amount of similar shaded and light areas. It appears it may have been smudged slightly. maybe.

I also spent about 10 seconds smudging one of the actual Pattys to make it closer to Dfoot's.

So, who did Dfoot catch, and what did he catch them doing?

Looks to me that he caught himself.

[Huntster]

....Now who's flipping who ?

You're trying to flip me or yourself.

The first photo is not the same as the second, and peiltch says so:

Dfoot's newest suit might be a photoshop job.

He's right.

Dfoot is still lying.

[Huntster]

You just had to start this thread, didn't you "Greg".

Are you sure you want to continue this?

You might want to do the PM thing with Dfoot, and either coordinate, or ask if he wants this to continue.

[Skeptical Greg]

Me thinks someone doth protest too much...;)



You might want to double check which board you are posting on...

[Skeptical Greg]

You just had to start this thread, didn't you "Greg".

Are you sure you want to continue this?

You might want to do the PM thing with Dfoot, and either coordinate, or ask if he wants this to continue.



You just don't get it do you ?

And you call us denialists ...:rolleyes:

There is a membership here that has an interest in flim flammery, and I thought it would serve their interest to make this a new topic..

Did you miss the part where I posted the link to the thread at BFF?

Your little ' out of context ' quotes won't satisfy most of the members here..
They tend to check things out for themself ..

Everyone here can follow the discussion and judge for themself..
Unless the censors at BFF decide to wipe the thread...


If Dfoot has a problem with this, I will be happy to ask that the thread be locked.. I will be surprised if he does..

[LTC8K6]

Okay, so for the sake of argument I stipulate that dfoot lied and created a hoax.

I don't see how that removes the problem that the believers have when they commented on dfoot's hoax.

Ivan Marx lied and created a hoax. That does not relieve John Green & others of the embarrassment of authenticating Ivan Marx's hoax.

[Skeptical Greg]

Okay, so for the sake of argument I stipulate that dfoot lied and created a hoax.

I don't see how that removes the problem that the believers have when they commented on dfoot's hoax.

Ivan Marx lied and created a hoax. That does not relieve John Green & others of the embarrassment of authenticating Ivan Marx's hoax.

I agree that he did also.. But in what context and to what end ?

This was a sting operation..

Should we condemn all sting operations because they involve lies and deceit?

[LTC8K6]

Should we condemn all sting operations because they involve lies and deceit?

Entrapment? :D

No, I don't think we should.

I just wanted to point out that even if we spot Huntster his points about dfoot, it still doesn't let him off the hook for what he himself* did and said in reaction to dfoot's setup.

*(or anyone else either)

[LTC8K6]

Suppose we could prove 100% that those straight line tracks that John Green is measuring in that photo were made by Ray Wallace.

So, Ray lied and hoaxed people.

That wouldn't relieve John Green of his own errors in failing to recognize fake prints. Green would still be obligated, imo, to explain himself.

[tube]

Tube's response:



Was Tube "caught" by Dfoot?

I've never argued that Patterson's film subject does not appear to have long arms. The real question is not about IM indices or other anatomical considerations, it is simply; What kind of illusion can a man create while wearing a costume? Even Daegling's analysis of the film should have cut to this chase.

The notion that "it CAN'T be a man in a suit seems to come from way back, when Green and Byrne interviewed someone at Disney studios. That a number of the best professional costume makers in the business such as Stan Winston and John Vulich claim that it IS a man in a suit is compelling evidence IN AND OF ITSELF.

As far as Dfoot's actions go, that is a value question, not a fact-based question. As I've said before, I would not have done what he did. What his suit looks like remains to be seen, and I'm still looking forward to the results.

To be bluntly critical, I think Dfoot needs to pay more attention to his still photography and abandon these montages. I think he is presenting intriguing evidence, but it is not coming across well, so far.

[Huntster]

I agree that he did also.. But in what context and to what end ?

This was a sting operation..

Who got stung?

Please be specific, and please post your evidence.

[Huntster]

....As far as Dfoot's actions go, that is a value question, not a fact-based question.....

Sir, do you think both of these figures (posted by Dfoot, and in different posts) are the same?

[Huntster]

....Did you miss the part where I posted the link to the thread at BFF?....

Yes, I did.

Even after I searched your posts.

[Skeptical Greg]

Sir, do you think both of these figures (posted by Dfoot, and in different posts) are the same?

They ( the figure in the images ) are all cropped images of Patty from the PGF..


They are not from the same frame of the film, if that is what you mean..

[Dfoot]

Whew! It's only me... for a second there I thought Gimlin had fessed up among the wrong crowd.

BELOW: That's "new suit Patty" on the left and "real Patty" on the right. I merely used different frames from the PG flick. Anyone can plainly see that the limbs are all wrong and as one BFF member said, "How is that anything like Patty?" How indeed.

Anyhow... as long as we are on the subject of hoaxing and lying...

GIMLIN told GREEN in his 1992 interview that they emerged from the forest around 8 pm after catching Roger's horse, making casts of Patty prints and looking for her. He says they THEN DROVE TO EUREKA TO MAIL THE FILM TO DEATLEY, got back to their campsite and talked the night away until 12:30 or 1 am.

Okay.... but he leaves out the interview he did with the reporter for the TIMES STANDARD that night. You'd think that Gimlin would recall this as he recants every little detail for Green - yet he doesn't. The reason may be what that very first article contains.

The article came out the morning of Saturday, Oct 21. In it ROGER and BOB say BOTH of them were thrown from their horses around 1:30 pm when Mrs. Bigfoot was sighted. They BOTH had to scramble to capture their steeds and the pack horse that had run off to join the fleeing horses. However, later GIMLIN says that he remained on his horse and merely stepped down to join Roger. Perhaps the first version was too comical.

ROGER tells the reporter (who spoke to Gimlin and Patterson only 8 hours after the sighting) that they had been to Eureka to airmail the film THAT AFTERNOON.

If GIMLIN is telling the truth it's impossible for him to be both at a midnight mailing of the film on Oct. 20th (which is roughly what time he would have to be in Eureka if everything else he says happened really did happen) AND be back in the woods also by midnight at Bluff Creek.

If ROGER is telling the truth and he mailed the film from Eureka in the afternoon (during normal business hours) then all of the other things Bob Gimlin claims they did (hunting Patty, making extra film demonstrations of themselves, casting the prints, visiting Al Hodgson and recounting the story again and again) couldn't have happened.

GIMLIN tells us the sun began to go down at 3:30 pm that day and they filmed the creature at 1:30 pm. Roger's scenario is also as impossible.

So what really happened that does fit in with reality? How about the following:

THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION:

The official story is that Patterson was in the Bluff Creek area in September briefly and returned in October with Gimlin upon hearing about new tracks.

The unofficial story would be this:

GREEN visited the area in early August and then again sometime after Labor Day in order to view new prints found around the soft dirt of a logging road being built around Blue Creek Mountain – just above Bluff Creek.

Patterson, Gimlin and Heironimus were in the Bluff Creek area sometime before Labor Day (Sept. 4). Patterson knew the road crew would be off for the long, hot and sunny Labor Day weekend. In fact, many of them would head home or perhaps attend the nearby festival. The logging road itself would most likely be devoid of people at this time.

The tracks found around BLUE CREEK MOUNTAIN after Labor Day were part of a set-up.

Patterson and Gimlin made their film with Heironimus and sent him on his way to mail it. They then made the tracks in the soft dirt road around Blue Creek Mountain where they would surely be found by returning workers the following Tuesday. They made sure to make enough of them (in three sizes) so that they would be easy to spot.

Patterson and Gimlin returned to Yakima, got the suit from the trunk of Heironimus’ car and pretended that they were hunting Bigfoot in the (now rainy) Mount St. Helen’s area until the supposed call comes from AL HODGSON to PATTY PATTERSON about the new tracks GREEN is down there looking at.

The odd thing about the call is the fact that HODGSON had already told GREEN that ROGER was planning a trip down there. But this doesn’t really fit the timeline of when HODGSON called PATTERSON to tell him about the prints and Patterson and Gimlin claimed they had no plans to go to California. How did Hodgson know to tell Green Roger was coming before Roger supposedly knew anything of these tracks or made any plans to see them?

Patterson and Gimlin return to Bluff Creek around Oct. 14 (without Heironimus) having already viewed and prepped the film developed by DeAtley. They pretend to hunt for more tracks (since the ones they’d made that were seen by GREEN were washed out by the now rainy weather).

They wait for a day that appears to have enough sun popping through the sky that someone might believe their sunny Sept. film was made on that day instead and make new tracks to simulate where “Patty” had walked.

They emerge from the forest with their story for the TIMES STANDARD (Genzoli) about how they’d just filmed Bigfoot and airmailed the film to DeAtley. They will talk about how anxious they are to get back to their campsite to continue their search.


All of that scenario fits in with reality and the story told by Heironimus.

Either HEIRONIMUS version is true... or GIMLIN is able to overtake the laws of time and space. Which could be possible given his magical ways of smooth-talking around a subject. Then again, he doesn't allow anyone with a real investigative mind to question him on these details. Fans only please.

- Dfoot

[Red Siegfried]

Yes, some people protest WAY too much ... when you've spammed out half the posts in the thread you know you're being way too defensive.

Face it, dfoot demonstrated that the footers are far too emotionally invested in the existence of bigfoot to be even remotely considered objective anymore. That irritates certain people in this thread and the other footers, which is an understandable human reaction.

Now, the mature thing for certain footers to do would be to stop pretending they are skeptical about the PGF, and admit that NO amount of evidence to the contrary will EVER convince them that bigfoot is not real, which is the exact opposite of skepticism. That won't happen. Instead they are going to argue that dfoot hoaxed his hoax of a hoax, which makes him a hoaxer, you see, ergo, bigfoot is real.

Now even if I don't know what the hell I'm talking about in regards to this situation, it doesn't matter whether dfoot's photos are of a real costume, a digitally manipulated costume, a real bigfoot, a digitally manipulated bigfoot or of my aunt's fanny because:

PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILM STILL DON'T PROVE WHETHER BIGFOOT EXISTS OR NOT. ONLY A LIVING BIGFOOT IN CAPTIVITY OR A DEAD ONE THAT CAN BE EXAMINED WILL PROVE IT EXISTS, ONCE AND FOR ALL. UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT HAPPENS, THE LOGICAL DEFAULT POSITION SHOULD REMAIN SKEPTICISM.

That's the skeptical position. And you'll notice there's no backpedaling on my part involved. As far as I remember that's been the my position on this for quite a while.

But if the photos are as dfoot describes them they do prove that some footers have lost any semblence of objectivity. (That's granting that they ever were objective).

Still no bigfoot. I'm still waiting.

[Huntster]

...they are going to argue that dfoot hoaxed his hoax of a hoax, which makes him a hoaxer, you see, ergo, bigfoot is real......

Nope.

I will argue that Dfoot hoaxed his hoax of a hoax, which makes him a hoaxer, you see, ergo, he is a liar.

[tube]

Sir, do you think both of these figures (posted by Dfoot, and in different posts) are the same?

I'm not contesting any FACTS with regard to what Dfoot did. To directly answer your question, I don't know, and I really don't care, because after Dfoot announced what he did, I stopped paying attention.

I'm sure you and other P&G advocates will be crowing about this for a long time, much like I do with the "Lower Level Leg Lift", so please, carry on...

[Huntster]

...BELOW: That's "new suit Patty" on the left and "real Patty" on the right....

No, it's not.

You, sir, are a liar.

Again, the photos you used in the two posts I cited. They are clearly different from each other, and different that the one you post now.

[Huntster]

I'm not contesting any FACTS with regard to what Dfoot did. To directly answer your question, I don't know, and I really don't care, because after Dfoot announced what he did, I stopped paying attention....

Pay attention now, and observe:

* His bait and switch montage game, and
* The defense by some of his lies

...I'm sure you and other P&G advocates will be crowing about this for a long time, much like I do with the "Lower Level Leg Lift", so please, carry on

I will only crow as they continue to lie and/or defend the lies.

The more he lies and they defend the lies, the more and louder I shall crow.

That's how it works, folks.

[Huntster]

...Anyone can plainly see that the limbs are all wrong...

That's right, and that was pointed out by several posters, myself included.

... and as one BFF member said, "How is that anything like Patty?"....

Please excuse my need to verify your words, but who might that be who wrote that?

[Huntster]

They ( the figure in the images ) are all cropped images of Patty from the PGF..


They are not from the same frame of the film, if that is what you mean..

Nor are they complete crops. Some are partials, so they are similar to the PG subject in some ways, and not in others.

For example, several people (me included) noticed the "skinny legs" in the scene painted on the residential street.

He's pulling a classic bait and switch, but all of his postings (including photos) are there for all to review.

That's a very poor setting to try to pull such an old trick.

[Skeptical Greg]

Dfoot,
You left out an important detail in the PGF timeline..

I don't remember if it was RayG or LTC8K6 who reminded us that Gimlin supposedly slept as Patty made her screen debut in DeAtley's basement..

This, in light of his claim in one of the interviews ,that they were not even sure they had captured anything worthwhile on film..

I guess that was just old laid-back Bob, letting the chips fall where they may...

[Huntster]

...Ivan Marx lied and created a hoax. That does not relieve John Green & others of the embarrassment of authenticating Ivan Marx's hoax.

Yes, Marx lied and created a hoax. Green and others authenticated it. Do they still authenticate it?

Dfoot lied and created a hoax. Some here are justifying it, and stating that Dfoot achieved his goal in the hoax. I have repeatedly challenged all to use statements made on the BFF to support that claim, and provided the links.

And what do we have? 180 degrees from what Dfoot said would happen: he was politely critiqued there, and here people are falsely claiming that the PG advocates were duped and it is now proven that they are not objective there.

Dfoot says that he did this to prove that, even if he actually used the PG film subject, people would reject it.

It didn't work out that way. People critiqued it politely, and suggested he continued with his fine work. The comments were all similar, notably regarding clarity and the legs.

It is not the BFF crowd that is failing to be objective; it is the people here.

And I don't even believe Dfoot when he states that is what his goal was. He has proven to be a liar, and I think he is still lying.

[RayG]

...and as one BFF member said, "How is that anything like Patty?"...

Please excuse my need to verify your words, but who might that be who wrote that?

Not quite the exact quote, it went more like, "How is your picture anything like the PGF?", and was posted by soarwing (#543) on this page. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&st=540#)

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Green and others authenticated it. Do they still authenticate it?

Who cares? The point is, they thought it was real. The look of the suit and the motion of the "creature" was good enough. A suit and a movie made by Marx in a relatively short time.

Had not those kids revealed the secret, who knows how long the Marx film would have held on?

What sort of prints did Marx's bigfoot make, anyway?

[LTC8K6]

he was politely critiqued there

What alternate reality are you living in, Huntster?

[RayG]

...Marx lied and created a hoax.

I agree. Marx intended to gain financial profit from his hoax, and never admitted fabricating evidence.

Dfoot lied and created a hoax.

Dfoot made no attempt to profit financially from his 'hoax', and he immediately confirmed he had fabricated the images when confronted. Hoxers and liars usually do the opposite.

...[Dfoot] was politely critiqued there [BFF]... People critiqued it politely...

Surely you mean BEFORE he admitted he had manipulated Patty images? The backlash AFTER that was direct, and not all of it was polite. (One poster even suggested he receive a 10 day suspension.)

The thread was then locked, and the backlash continues.

RayG

[Huntster]

Who cares?....

Me.

In the near future, I want to compare their acceptance of hoaxed evidence with the acceptance here of Dfoot's hoaxed activities.

[Huntster]

he was politely critiqued there What alternate reality are you living in, Huntster?

Please show any hostility toward Dfoot there that comes close to the hostility shown here.

In other words; evidence, please.

[LTC8K6]

Okay, but I don't see how the comparison is valid.

[LTC8K6]

Well, I think you have been hostile since your arrival here Huntster, so I am not the best person to ask.

[Huntster]

I agree. Marx intended to gain financial profit from his hoax, and never admitted fabricating evidence....

Financial interest in the sasquatch phenomenon may even influence the writings of some here on this thread.

Would that influence your opinion regarding their posts here?

...Dfoot made no attempt to profit financially from his 'hoax', and he immediately confirmed he had fabricated the images when confronted. Hoxers and liars usually do the opposite.

All true.

I'm not convinced about Dfoot's motives, true identity, or goals, but it appears that he isn't driven by money.

However, his "coming clean" is not "clean".

...Surely you mean BEFORE he admitted he had manipulated Patty images? The backlash AFTER that was direct, and not all of it was polite. (One poster even suggested he receive a 10 day suspension.)..

Most specifically, before the folks at BFF were aware of what he has posted here, especially his constantly shifting montages, which aren't under the shell you think it is.

The thread was then locked, and the backlash continues.

It hasn't even started yet.............

[RayG]

Please show any hostility toward Dfoot there that comes close to the hostility shown here.

In other words; evidence, please.

I don't agree with hostility on either board, but it's hard to deny the backlash that erupted AFTER Dftoot confirmed his fabrication.

Did I just see somebody's credibility go down the toilet?

At this point I wouldn't take anything seriously what he says.

If I were Dfoot, I'd probably terminate my "Dfoot" account on this forum and start fresh. It's been fun, Dfoot - - - I'll be waiting to help demolish your next farce.

You are now like the "Bill Buckner" of the Triple "A", farm league, P/GF Skofftics !!!
You may have cost them the "pennant" with this one, pal.

You can now be assured that those less sympathetic to your claims than me are never going to forget your "exercise".

Dfoot isn't done - His varying decrees will become more frequent and his characterizations of PGF proponents as "childish" and "cult-like" probably will be repeated with even more emphasis.

...somebody's credibility was killed.

Well Dfoot, Blackdog recently got a 10 day suspension for posting his hoax. I hope the Mods concider sitting you down for the same period of time.

Those were all submitted before the thread was locked. I'm pretty sure the resentment toward Dfoot has not subsided yet, and he will forever be regarded by some as a hoaxter/scam-artist.

Earlier today I thought I heard Clark Griswald refer to Dfoot as a "cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey sh** he is." :D

'Course Clark might have meant someone else...

I also heard Dfoot was up for a part in the Blazing Saddles sequel. They're going to cast him as one of the rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh**-kickers or Methodists. :cool:

RayG

[RayG]

Financial interest in the sasquatch phenomenon may even influence the writings of some here on this thread.

I think Moneymaker may have cornered the market on that.

Would that influence your opinion regarding their posts here?

Nope, unless they're making money off of something they hoaxed.

RayG

[Bronze Dog]

And the appeals to motivations come in. Stick to the subject: the content of arguments, and not the arguers.

[Huntster]

I don't agree with hostility on either board, but it's hard to deny the backlash that erupted AFTER Dftoot confirmed his fabrication........

.........Those were all submitted before the thread was locked. I'm pretty sure the resentment toward Dfoot has not subsided yet, and he will forever be regarded by some as a hoaxter/scam-artist....

You're right.

...Earlier today I thought I heard Clark Griswald refer to Dfoot as a "cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey sh** he is." :D

'Course Clark might have meant someone else...

No, he didn't.

I'll check. I'm going to Vegas in a couple of weeks.

....I also heard Dfoot was up for a part in the Blazing Saddles sequel. They're going to cast him as one of the rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, sh**-kickers or Methodists. :cool:....

Well, it's about time Dfoot got into comedy.

So far, it's been a very poor attempt at a horror flick; you know, with all the lousy fake monsters and all....................

[LTC8K6]

Okay, I am posting this here as well...

Huntster believes that Dfoot put different legs on Patty in the hoaxed pic below. Presumably, that is why Huntster made some of the comments he did regarding Dfoot's hoaxed pic.

So Dfoot, what frame of the PGF is this "Patty" from?
Alternatively, did you use legs that are not Patty's in this photo?

[LTC8K6]

Patty's legs look no thicker than her arms in this frame, imo.

I won't mention Patty's very short stride, though... :D

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mm1.gif

[LTC8K6]

Let's not forget another admitted hoaxer....

Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

[LTC8K6]

So, is this Patterson casting Patty's prints, or Patterson hoaxing the casting of Patty's prints? Not to mention how odd that one track looks...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/2ndReelStills.jpg

[Correa Neto]

The situation is a mirror of what we saw right here a few months ago. Remember a poster named bagtaggar (one of his avatars was truly hilarious "hit the bird")? He made a couple of fake UFO pics, with the intention of showing that they can be easilly faked. IIRC some creduloids got mad -because they were fooled. Not unlike Dfoot's case.

Beware of the wrath of creduloids...

[LTC8K6]

Bump for dfoot.

[Skeptical Greg]

Not to mention how odd that one track looks...

Isn't that odd track in the film of the Patty trackway, where the ' perfect ' 14. 5 " track shows up ??

Has anyone explained the toes almost perpindicular to the sole ?

[Huntster]

Me thinks someone doth protest too much...;)

You might want to double check which board you are posting on...

Both (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14436&st=0&gopid=301799&), oh Quiet One.

[SphereGuy]

So, let me get this straight, as I'm new to this particular event. A guy photoshops crops from the original film into cityscapes and claims he made a suit to see if the pictures would be critiqued. The pics are critiqued. Then someone notices the simularities and cries foul at which time the hoaxer comes clean. Now there is a claim (this is where I get confused) that it WAS a suit, and AFTER the critiques the pictures were substituted for the cropped/pasted pictures or that some pictures were part suit/part pasted crops from the original film, so the critiques were just. Am I correct that the original hoaxer claims that ALL photos were complete crop/paste pictures?

I wish I would have thought of this. This is even better than the hoax I was about 50% done with.

[LTC8K6]

I think you've got it. Now explain it to me again.... :D

Huntster also still seems both surprised & irritated at being questioned on a skeptics board.....

[Aepervius]

The test you made is really great. This is another evidence that trying to drop a personal belief is one of the hardest things to do. And it also proove again it is far easier to shoot the messenger rather than to stop a second and trying to think again whether one should not reconsider its opinion... This also is a bit of evidence that making your own suit does not really matter.

[Dfoot]

The test you made is really great. This is another evidence that trying to drop a personal belief is one of the hardest things to do. And it also proove again it is far easier to shoot the messenger rather than to stop a second and trying to think again whether one should not reconsider its opinion... This also is a bit of evidence that making your own suit does not really matter.

Thanks. But you know, that's just what I did on my own.

I arrived at the BFF knowing only creature suits from today and was asked to write an article for the website from a "Hollywood perspective" on the PG film. I said it looked very real to me, but I had not yet made an investigation into exactly what was possible for someone like Patterson. So I waited until I did.

Now a year later I've looked at both sides of the issue and have found that the evidence actually does support only one answer. Patterson used a creature suit in the film and the wearer was most likely Bob Heironimus.

When I was joking about "Bob Horroranus" and pasting Greg Long's face onto a Patty photo people thought that was funny. But once I realized that these guys were simply trying to tell the truth and I found that gorilla and apeman fx of the 60's precisely matched what was seen on the film.... I was no longer so popular. (sniff)

Usually when someone posts something deemed offensive a warning is issued and you can see a little gauge near your name letting you know if you've gone too far. I've never had one.

When I tested to see if the people demanding that I build a Patty suit for them really could be genuinely objective, I got more than just a response. I was instantly suspended without a word.

Reminds me of the time Tom Cruises' stunt double (an old pal of mine) questioned why holding onto two metal rods and giving private info on your sex life to Scientologists was really that important.

Needless to say that after a decade of doubling Mr. Cruise he suddenly was told not to return... (sniff)

Damn that truthiness.:p

- Dfoot

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you've got it. Now explain it to me again.... :D

Huntster also still seems both surprised & irritated at being questioned on a skeptics board.....

But notice; he has recently been exploring the joys of skeptical brevity ..

A large number of his recent posts have consisted of:


" Evidence ? "


There may be hope...

[Huntster]

But notice; he has recently been exploring the joys of skeptical brevity ..

A large number of his recent posts have consisted of:


" Evidence ? "


There may be hope...

When dealing with people who have proven themselves to lie or deceive, it is especially imperative to ask for evidence each and every time. They just can't be trusted.

[Huntster]

Now that the issue has been addressed at BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14436&hl=), I will ask it here:

...Skeptical Greg, are you really Greg Long, banned member emiritus, and author of "The Making of Bigfoot"?...

Diogenes, aka Skeptical Greg at BFF, are you really Greg Long, banned from BFF as Greg Long, and author of "The Making of Bigfoot"?

[SphereGuy]

When dealing with people who have proven themselves to lie or deceive, it is especially imperative to ask for evidence each and every time. They just can't be trusted.

I think while someone perpetrating a hoax is technically lying, I would not then go so far as to call them a liar, which you do over and over. That's like calling an undercover policeman a liar (but, your honor, I shouldn't be convicted because that undercover officer LIED to me!!!). His hoax was to make a point, that using the same creature (real or not) from the Patterson film, superimposed on a sidewalk, would be seen as an obvious suit while the Patterson film is seen as a real creature. And, reading through this thread, the other long one here, and the BFF thread, it looks like he made his point.

Seriously, and I'm trying to be as polite as possible, you are coming across as someone who was fooled and is angry about it and now you are just lashing out at the person who fooled you. You would have a lot more credibility if you just said, okay, I was taken in by this, time to move on.

[tube]

Now that the issue has been addressed at BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14436&hl=), I will ask it here:



Diogenes, aka Skeptical Greg at BFF, are you really Greg Long, banned from BFF as Greg Long, and author of "The Making of Bigfoot"?

Hunster, How is your question different from someone asking you if you are really Eric Beckjord, banned from JREF, and author of wacko prose?

[Huntster]

Hunster, How is your question different from someone asking you if you are really Eric Beckjord, banned from JREF, and author of wacko prose?

It's different in this way:

I'll answer, truthfully:

No, I am not Eric Beckjord.

[Huntster]

I think while someone perpetrating a hoax is technically lying, I would not then go so far as to call them a liar, which you do over and over......

He lied over, and over, and over again for months about the suit he was building.

Or, perhaps you're right: maybe he wasn't lying until recently, when he discovered that the "Halloween suit" he had claimed he was working on was a piece of $hit, and he was too embarrassed to offer it up as a moving model, and figured this was a wonderful way out of his dilemna.

....Seriously, and I'm trying to be as polite as possible, you are coming across as someone who was fooled and is angry about it and now you are just lashing out at the person who fooled you....

That is exactly the case.

...You would have a lot more credibility if you just said, okay, I was taken in by this, time to move on...

No, I wouldn't. The people here are as prejudiced as they claim the believers in bigfoot are. I'll never have any credibility here, and that isn't much of a loss.

[Skeptical Greg]

Now that the issue has been addressed at BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14436&hl=), I will ask it here:

Diogenes, aka Skeptical Greg at BFF, are you really Greg Long, banned from BFF as Greg Long, and author of "The Making of Bigfoot"?

Hey ! I'll post the same answer I posted there...


Reading “ The Making of Bigfoot “ was one of the most painful experiences of my life.
While I can’t speak from personal experience, I would equate it with snorkeling in a
septic tank, in the hope of finding a rare coin or two.

I think you would be challenged, to find in any of my posts, where I used any specific
information from that book ( information not generally available anywhere else ) to
support my position..
If you see any in the future, please do me a favor and point it out to me while the edit
window is open; or afterwards, if you are feeling real mean.

I believe I mentioned once before, that I regard insults and compliments to be
meaningless unless accepted.. I don’t accept this one..

I didn’t think my spelling and grammar was that bad.. I’ll try to do better..

_____________ http://www.bigfootforums.com/style_emoticons/1/new_guitar.gif ______________

P.S.

If it will help; think : Skeptical Gregory


Of course, most of the JREF members who read this, may not have read Long's book, so they won't know what I'm talking about..
I hope they don't waste their time...

Meanwhile Hunster,

What does my true identity have to do with who shot the hoaxer ?

[LTC8K6]

Someone tell me who I really am, please.

Skeptical Bill would be the equivalent, I guess.

The Kinks come to mind......"and it goes like this"

****

So what if he is Greg Long, Huntster?

What is the attack on him going to be? One of the ones we're not allowed to use on believers? Profit? Bias? What?

[UrsulaV]

What is the attack on him going to be? One of the ones we're not allowed to use on believers? Profit? Bias? What?

Duh! OBVIOUSLY it's that he's a werewolf.

[Huntster]

...So what if he is Greg Long, Huntster?

What is the attack on him going to be? One of the ones we're not allowed to use on believers? Profit? Bias? What?

Nope.

I'll let him answer:

...Of course, most of the JREF members who read this, may not have read Long's book, so they won't know what I'm talking about..
I hope they don't waste their time...

I'll elaborate with a couple book reviews from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591021391/qid=1141945407/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1755382-1568805?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) (the ones with names attached):

Reviewer: David Lopez "fantasy film afficianado" (Green Valley, AZ) - See all my reviews

Having looked forward to this book, just the latest in a long line of attempts to 'debunk' the Patterson film ( and thus, the bigfoot mythos in general ) and after finally reading it, I am greatly disapointed. Having anticipated what was touted as a final, fairhanded and CREDIBLE expose of the film, what I found within it's pages is a schizophrenic mishmash of sorts. Several of the author's 'witnesses' contradict each other ( and themselves )on many key points, and his facts are presented in a somewhat haphazard manner, particularly where the alleged monkey suit is involved, and this is perhaps the most damning of all. This should not be taken lightly, as this is the central point of his thesis - that the 'bigfoot' in the film is actually a man in a suit. However, this final, irrevocable demolition of the sasquatch legend falls well short of the mark, as his two main witnesses offer conflicted and extremely contradictory testimony as regards the 'suit' itself, and as such, the promised knock-out punch turns out to be a feeble wrist-flap. What most of the media fail to mention is that one of the parties behind this latest revelation was involved a few years back in a widely-seen FOX-TV special wherein he presented an entirely different scenario behind the 'creation' of the bigfoot suit and even produced 'evidence' that pointed to the true identity of the man who supposedly wore the suit ( an entirely different individual from the man who is now claiming that honor ). How does this square with his latest claims? This seems to be a case of 'throw ************ at the wall and see what sticks'. To date, and to my knowledge, there have been no less than SIX different individuals all claiming to have been 'the man in the suit'. Having seen the purely anecdotal and contradictory statements the author is presenting as proof, I can see no reason to accept this latest set of revelations as being any more reliable than the other claims. Perhaps the bigfoot in the film is an actual undescribed hominid. Perhaps not. However, if what was filmed WAS a man in a suit, one should like to see actual evidence ( capital E, in the skeptics parlance ). Please provide some tangible example to back up your claim. It has been nearly 40 years since the footage was shot. Special effects, make-up and costuming have made incredible advances since that time. If the author's claims are true, then it should certainly be possible to recreate the suit that was seen in the film. That, and that alone, would constitue proof, and the matter could finally be laid to rest. This book was a resounding disapointment. If the Patterson film is a fake, I look forward to reading an account that will provide reliable evidence of that fact. That is what I thought this book would be. It wasn't. What I got was contradictory anecdotes and character assassination.

Reviewer: Rodney Eastman - See all my reviews
There is no proof in the pudding! After all the interviews, hypothesis, conjectures, name calling, accusations, character assasinations, the bottom line is: Two men (Hieronimous and Gimnlin) are telling two conflicting stories of one event. One of them is lying. I see nothing in this book that proves that Heironimous is telling the truth and Gimlin is lying. I see nothing in this book that makes me believe that Hieronimous is of better standing than Gimlin either.

Oh, wait a minute. Gimlin supposedly got arrested for stealing plywood and nails 40 years ago. What about Hieronimous? If he is telling the truth than he's been covering a lie for almost 40 years. Why is this guy more believable than Gimlin? Just because the author says so?

And as for the author judging Patterson as a criminal because he may have faked a film, I say 'so what even if he did.' PT. Barnum became a millionare by hoaxing the public his entire life. That's a lot more than Patterson ever got out of it. And if this is a hoax his hoax has withstood the test of time longer even than any of Barnum's hoaxes have. So if it is proven a hoax (and it hasn't been yet) Patterson should be considered a genius of a showman and illusionist, just as Barnum is. If it isn't a hoax, then he has captured what may be the most important scientific footage ever. Either way he deserves accolades.

And who did Patterson really hurt if he did fake this film? That's like saying Barnum hurt people by exhibiting the fiji mermaid as a real creature. Ridiculous. A lot of people seem to have been making money off of this film long after Patterson was dead (Including the author of this book). A shame Patterson isn't around to collect what's being spread around since he's the one who gave it to us... one way or the other.

The same contradicting conspiracy theory in that "book" are repeated here by both Diogenes and Dfoot.

What's more, I find it coincidental that Greg Long was banned from the BFF on 12 Sept 2005, and Skeptical Greg (Diogenes, here) joined BFF soon afterwards on 02 Oct 2005.

[Steve]

What's more, I find it coincidental that Greg Long was banned from the BFF on 12 Sept 2005, and Skeptical Greg (Diogenes, here) joined BFF soon afterwards on 02 Oct 2005.

Whatever was he doing during those 20 critical missing days?:eye-poppi

[tube]

What's more, I find it coincidental that Greg Long was banned from the BFF on 12 Sept 2005, and Skeptical Greg (Diogenes, here) joined BFF soon afterwards on 02 Oct 2005.

That, plus their first names are "Greg". It's an obvious open and shut case. Good work Huntster.

[Huntster]

That, plus their first names are "Greg". It's an obvious open and shut case. Good work Huntster.

Seemed obvious to me. Same sorry conspiracy theory, a plausible timeline, and a hostile attitude toward sasquatch believers.

I may be stupid, but I'm not a liar.

[Skeptical Greg]

Seemed obvious to me. Same sorry conspiracy theory, a plausible timeline, and a hostile attitude toward sasquatch believers.

I may be stupid, but I'm not a liar.

Can you give me a single example of my being hostile to Bigfoot believers ?


Hint: Disagreeing with someone is not being hostile ..

You feeling persecuted is not my being hostile..


Hey Sherlock, did it ever occur to you to check my posting history here at JREF, and see when and how I got involved in the Bigfoot discussions ?

[Huntster]

Can you give me a single example of my being hostile to Bigfoot believers ?


Hint: Disagreeing with someone is not being hostile ..

You feeling persecuted is not my being hostile.....

I'm not going on another merry-go-round.

...Hey Sherlock, did it ever occur to you to check my posting history here at JREF, and see when and how I got involved in the Bigfoot discussions

Yup.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm not going on another merry-go-round.



Yup.

All from the guy who demands evidence from others.... Yup...


_______________ :id: ________________________

[fsol]

Huntster, you really should learn to play the ball and not the man.

[LTC8K6]

the bottom line is: Two men (Hieronimous and Gimnlin) are telling two conflicting stories of one event.

Well, Patterson and Gimlin tell several conflicting versions of one event....

Yes, Huntster feels and acts persecuted, that's why I asked him (and Lu) not to feel any obligation to respond to my questions.

[UrsulaV]

Whatever was he doing during those 20 critical missing days?:eye-poppi

Again--werewolf. I'm tellin' ya.

[Huntster]

Huntster, you really should learn to play the ball and not the man.

I was taught to play a zone.

Yeah, I got burned on a reverse. I lost some yards.

But this game doesn't have a clock......................

[LTC8K6]

Just don't play that damn 4 corners, please! :D

[Dfoot]

When dealing with people who have proven themselves to lie or deceive, it is especially imperative to ask for evidence each and every time. They just can't be trusted.

Very good advice.

Being skeptical of the ability of some to be able to fairly judge the suit being called for, I did a test first to see if my suspicions were well founded. They were.

Okay... that's the horrible, horrible "deception" I pulled.

I won't go into all of details of Roger Patterson's fraud and deceptions. But let me give you just one example of a photo in Patterson's own book that he deliberately faked and YOU can check up on this yourself today:

In Patterson's book you'll find a photo of him that he claims was taken of himself hard at work searching for Sasquatch in the wilds of Mount St. Helens. A roaring fire is in the background to keep him warm during his lonely expedition.

That is what we call a fraud. He's not checking to see if you have the chops to realize this ISN'T really a photo of himself on Bigfoot quest at Mount St. Helens. He is selling this idea to you for money. It never happened.

The truth is that the photo was taken by Jerry Merritt's sister. Her daughter is alive and well and was there. She's willing to speak to any Bigfooter who wishes to speak to her about Patterson. She (and other witnesses) will tell you that Patterson merely walked across the road from his house and squirted lighter fluid on a fire, then got the girl to take that photo he used as evidence of one of his Bigfoot ventures.

Aside from talking to these people one might also wish to walk across the street from the old Patterson house and compare the photo Roger claimed was from Mount St. Helens with the area near the little creek. John Green could have seen this. You could see it now. It's there to be investigated.

While I'm trying to prove a point and get to the truth of these matters, Patterson was obviously committing fraud for money. There is a big, big difference.

The Halloween suit I tossed together for fun is nearly on par with the professional Patty suit. It points out how simple the construction of such suits really are. There isn't much difference. Both are suits with foam muscles.

I now ask that you follow your own advice and stop trusting this Patterson huckster.

Follow up on your own request for convincing evidence from a genuine, calculating deceiver within Bigfootery: Roger Patterson.

Look at Patterson's own words and still photo. Look at the location across the steet. Speak to the people involved in making the photo. The answer will be clear. Then apply the same type of thing with regards to what is seen in his faked moving film.

- Dfoot

[Bronze Dog]

The reason you can't make a convincing suit: Because if they're told it's a suit, Patty herself wouldn't be convincing.

[Correa Neto]

OK, but you can't prove Patterson lied ALL times...

:duck: :flamed:

[Huntster]

...Being skeptical of the ability of some to be able to fairly judge the suit being called for, I did a test first to see if my suspicions were well founded....

You mean, there's going to be an encore to this?

What's next?

...In Patterson's book you'll find a photo of him that he claims was taken of himself hard at work searching for Sasquatch in the wilds of Mount St. Helens. A roaring fire is in the background to keep him warm during his lonely expedition.

That is what we call a fraud. He's not checking to see if you have the chops to realize this ISN'T really a photo of himself on Bigfoot quest at Mount St. Helens. He is selling this idea to you for money....

Well I suppose I ought to trust you now, Dfoot. After all, who else but you could verify that?

As a Hollywood motion picture insider, you know that is done all the time. I think they're called "promos", and "commercials", but I could be wrong.

You know; sometimes you guys even create outside scenes inside.

Yup; that's fraud, all right.

...While I'm trying to prove a point and get to the truth of these matters, Patterson was obviously committing fraud for money. There is a big, big difference....

No doubt about it, Dfoot; you're no Roger Patterson.

Patterson was a rodeo rider. You're employed in the motion picture industry. If you or your friends really wanted to, you could create a moving film of a man in a suit that could withstand 40 years of scrutiny. Why, even scientists would be convinced. Hell, if Patterson could do it with 1967 technology, surely you guys could do it much, much more "betta".

You just don't want to. It's not worth your time. Your valuable time is much better spent taking several months and hundreds of long posts and photo montages deceiving people for their own good.

Boy, I sure appreciate that, partner. I sure have learned a lot.

...The Halloween suit I tossed together for fun is nearly on par with the professional Patty suit. It points out how simple the construction of such suits really are. There isn't much difference. Both are suits with foam muscles....

Yeah; piece of cake! No doubt here. No difference.

So, why not show it moving? Just once?

[chillzero]

As a Hollywood motion picture insider, you know that is done all the time. I think they're called "promos", and "commercials", but I could be wrong.

You know; sometimes you guys even create outside scenes inside.

Yup; that's fraud, all right.[/COLOR]

Are you trying to justify a lie by saying that it's ok for a liar to make a false claim, because people in the film industry make films about fictional stuff every day?

:confused:

[Dfoot]

Yeah; piece of cake! No doubt here. No difference.

So, why not show it moving? Just once?

I've already shown you why a thigh pad juts out and how the leg can appear to show this "muscle insertion at the knee" works. I even explained the proposed "hernia" too.

So many things I've demonstrated to you over at BFF, not by words but by actual demonstrations. The last one (the experiment to demonstrate that even people looking at Patty would say things like you are saying above if they merely thought they were looking at another subject) is proven too.

There seems to be one common thread in these arguments over the suit Patterson used. There will always be the standard comeback line, "No it isn't" - even when it is.

On the LEFT is that silly Halloween suit. I can make the muscles in the back as large as I want. I can make them move if I like. What I didn't do was allow an obvious line to appear at the base of the neck where the suit separates. The photo is in focus and clear and no line appears - yet it is there just the same.

In the CENTER photo we see a stuntman with his large monster helmet/head removed. His suit top pulls on over his head like a tee-shirt. Exactly as Patty did. But without his helmet/head connected to the top of the neck we get to see how evident the make-believe spine is.

Patty, on the RIGHT, is shown throughout the film in blurred and pixelated images - yet there is a line on the back of her neck and that line separates from the top of the spine of the suit when her head turns.

The suit on the far LEFT cost about $250 bucks to build.

The one in the center they claim is worth around $50,000. Who knows how they come to these figures? It is seen on BUFFY in the second season and also is seen hanging up in the warehouse of OPTIC NERVE during the BBC show.

And Patty.... if Patterson got $700 dollars ($4000 in todays money) from the Radfords and went to Hollywood with it, do you think he might be able to get one of those $450 gorilla suits altered and have a little left over? Yes. He could and did.

It would be a piece of cake.

- Dfoot

[Huntster]

Are you trying to justify a lie by saying that it's ok for a liar to make a false claim, because people in the film industry make films about fictional stuff every day?

:confused:

Nope.

[chillzero]

But that's really how that reads.

He was called a liar because he took a photo he claimed was one thing and can be proved it is something else. You said Hollywood does it all the time. I don't expect Hollywood films to be truthful. If a perosn tells me they are showing me a picture of themself on a trek in the wiilderness, and it turns out to be their back yard, I won't find them too reliable, and it doesn't matter what Hollywood does.

[Huntster]

I've already shown you why a thigh pad juts out and how the leg can appear to show this "muscle insertion at the knee" works. I even explained the proposed "hernia" too.

So many things I've demonstrated to you over at BFF, not by words but by actual demonstrations.....

Did any of the demonstrations show a moving subject?

...There seems to be one common thread in these arguments over the suit Patterson used. There will always be the standard comeback line, "No it isn't" - even when it is....

I think the "no, it isn't" - even if it is" is a two way street.

...On the LEFT is that silly Halloween suit. I can make the muscles in the back as large as I want. I can make them move if I like....

Hmm. I guess you don't "like". I haven't seen the suit in motion.

...In the CENTER photo we see a stuntman with his large monster helmet/head removed. His suit top pulls on over his head like a tee-shirt. Exactly as Patty did. But without his helmet/head connected to the top of the neck we get to see how evident the make-believe spine is...

Wow.

...Patty, on the RIGHT, is shown throughout the film in blurred and pixelated images - yet there is a line on the back of her neck and that line separates from the top of the spine of the suit when her head turns...

What a lousy suit! Why, anybody could build a better suit than that!

...The suit on the far LEFT cost about $250 bucks to build...

Wow! And you can even make it move "if you like"!

...The one in the center they claim is worth around $50,000...

Wow.

...Who knows how they come to these figures?...

I just don't know, these days! And all that at a relatively low inflation rate over the past several years! Why, just look at the skyrocketing price of new cars! Robbery, I say!

...And Patty.... if Patterson got $700 dollars ($4000 in todays money) from the Radfords and went to Hollywood with it, do you think he might be able to get one of those $450 gorilla suits altered and have a little left over?...

Just $4000 in today's money! Why, it's difficult to believe that someone couldn't make a suit for $4000, and make a simple video with it, and let it also withstand scientific scrutiny for the next 40 years!

Why, I'll bet you could make your $4000 back with a single book deal!

...It would be a piece of cake.

Sure it would!

I wonder why nobody has done it?

[tracer]

Here is one of the discussions where he was challenging, and being challenged by those who believe the star of the PGF is a real North American primate..
Well, of COURSE the star of the Patterson film is a North American primate.

The North American primate in question just happens to be wearing a furry suit.

[LTC8K6]

withstand scientific scrutiny for the next 40 years

This claim is endlessly repeated by footers. Why?

There has been no "scientific" scrutiny of the PGF, imo.

People keep saying there has been, yet there is no evidence of it.

Sure, we've had some amateurish attempts at the use of the IM index, and attempts to guess Patty's weight and height, etc.

Nothing approaching an actual scientific study of the film has ever been done, imo.

[Huntster]

But that's really how that reads....

Well I suppose I ought to trust you now, Dfoot. After all, who else but you could verify that?

As a Hollywood motion picture insider, you know that is done all the time. I think they're called "promos", and "commercials", but I could be wrong.

You know; sometimes you guys even create outside scenes inside.

Yup; that's fraud, all right.

I don't think so.

I'm agreeing with Dfoot, that it's fraud. I'm also deferring to his experience in identifying that fraud, because his industry does it every minute of every day somewhere in their mass media empire.

...He was called a liar because he took a photo he claimed was one thing and can be proved it is something else. You said Hollywood does it all the time. I don't expect Hollywood films to be truthful. If a perosn tells me they are showing me a picture of themself on a trek in the wiilderness, and it turns out to be their back yard, I won't find them too reliable, and it doesn't matter what Hollywood does....

I agree wholeheartedly.

Dfoot is a liar.

I suppose it may be his unhealthful exposure to Hollywood. I don't expect them to be truthful.

I should have known better that such a Hollywood insider would be.

I'll be more careful in the future.

[Huntster]

This claim is endlessly repeated by footers. Why?

There has been no "scientific" scrutiny of the PGF, imo......

Why, I thought you folks were applying the "scientific method" in your analysis of the film!

Have you scientifically proven the film to be a hoax?

[tube]

This claim is endlessly repeated by footers. Why?

There has been no "scientific" scrutiny of the PGF, imo.

People keep saying there has been, yet there is no evidence of it.

Sure, we've had some amateurish attempts at the use of the IM index, and attempts to guess Patty's weight and height, etc.

Nothing approaching an actual scientific study of the film has ever been done, imo.

Sir, surely you ignore the good science of Jeff Glickman, who gives us a weight of "Patty" of 1,957 pounds...

[chillzero]

I don't think so.

I'm agreeing with Dfoot, that it's fraud. I'm also deferring to his experience in identifying that fraud, because his industry does it every minute of every day somewhere in their mass media empire.


There's a difference between fraud in lying about being away on an expedition, and the hollywood media business.

So, you are agreeing that Patterson is a liar/ fraud?
That's all I was trying to clarify - I wasn't getting into your little spat with Dfoot.

[Huntster]

There's a difference between fraud in lying about being away on an expedition, and the hollywood media business.....

Does a film documentary on "hunting the sasquatches" not qualify as "media business"? If Patterson filmed himself in the backyard next to a roaring fire, intending to portray that he is "on the hunt" for a sasquatch, isn't that the same thing as Jeff Corwin or Steve Irwin setting a snake or croc up for a wrestling scene?

If not, please tell me what the difference is?

So, you are agreeing that Patterson is a liar/ fraud?

Nope. Nor will I ride that merry-go-round with you, Greg Long, Diogenes, or anybody else on Patterson's "evil side". I don't give a damn about Patterson's past, whether God sent him to Heaven or Hell, if he beats his dog or not, or if his partner stole lumber from a sawmill.

I'm concerned with the figure on the film. It looks like a real, live animal to me.

Nobody has yet proven that it isn't.

[LTC8K6]

Have you scientifically proven the film to be a hoax?

Again, there is no need to do that. It is most likely a hoax. That is the most likely explanation. That stands until a hoax is eliminated by someone who wishes to show that the film is genuine to back up their own claim.

However, if you let me see the original film, I'll give it a whirl. :D

[LTC8K6]

Nobody has yet proven that it isn't.

You must prove that it is an animal. You are backing the unlikely explanation.

The burden is on those claiming that Patty is a new, large, bipedal primate.

There is no burden whatsoever on those who are undecided, or those who back the likely explanation.

Now, if you can come up with some proof that Patty cannot be a guy in a suit, that would change things immediately.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm concerned with the figure on the film. It looks like a real, live animal to me.

Nobody has yet proven that it isn't.

Nope..
Nor this ..

http://ewancient.lysator.liu.se/pic/art/s/l/slshimerdla/unicorn.jpg

nor this..

http://cjbehm.dyndns.org/gallery/albums/Photos-From-Lunch/Nessie.sized.jpg

Nor this ..

http://tbone.suckahs.org/junkie/champ.jpg

Nor this ...

http://www.think-aboutit.com/images/GREY.JPG

Hundreds, maybe thousands of sightings...

I'm sure you understand....

[rgann]

Did any of the demonstrations show a moving subject?
Hmm. I guess you don't "like". I haven't seen the suit in motion.

Wow! And you can even make it move "if you like"!




Huntster

That’s a question that I see coming up often, what exactly about seeing a suit in motion makes such a difference? The best I can understand is that the P&G film by seeing it in motion somehow conveys the perception or feeling that its real, yet all analysis (IM index, bulges, creases, midtarsal breaks, scowls) comes from photo stills that come from a copy of a occasionally still, occasionally in focus16mm Film that has been cropped enlarged digitized, and color separated, we know that we are simply looking at 24 pictures per second (with P&G that is even a mystery 18 fps or what? I would love to see the P&G Film played back at all the available frames per second Patterson’s K-100 could do, who knows what feelings I might get) why such faith in such poor evidence, poor being the original non stabilized non enlarged actual distance from camera over exposed film. Without the photo stills what evidence would be used to point out all of Patty’s inhuman qualities? Why is a suit in motion the standard being set? Taking Dfoot’s work apply all the analysis you want and Tubes experiments with the “inhuman walk” and you’ve got compelling evidence that it really could have been a hoax. I understand seeing something in motion conveys the perception of reality, but why rely on a feeling or intuition when you’ve got a case study right in front of you or do you hope by seeing his suit in motion you would then be able to suspend your (dis)belief do some split screen comparisons showing Dfoot & Patty walking side by side? A suit in motion in my opinion would then be asked to have correct lighting then correct distance then correct background etc.

Rick

[Huntster]

Have you scientifically proven the film to be a hoax? Again, there is no need to do that. It is most likely a hoax. That is the most likely explanation....

One minute you're a lover of science, the next minute your a "most likely" kind of guy.

Are you one of those "evidence & proof" people, or not?

Or is evidence and proof only for "the other guy" to provide, and you're exempt?

... That stands until a hoax is eliminated by someone who wishes to show that the film is genuine to back up their own claim....

Huh?

[Skeptical Greg]

I have never discussed Bigfoot or PGF with my eleven year old son..

The reasoning behind that is a whole nother' story...

He was chasing the cat by my desk , noticed I was posting on the internet, and curiously asked what I was doing.

I said I was talking about Bigfoot..
Without further comment, I said " I want you to look at this..

I rolled the LMS version of the PGF, at the default speed on a 1680 x 1250 display..

I waited till it was over, and asked: " What do you think that was ? "

His reply:

" A man in a Gorilla suit . "

I asked: " Why do you think so much of it was all shakey and blurry ?.."

He said: " Whoever had the camera was jumping around .."

I replied " Well, why do you think they didn't just hold still ? "

Reply: " He didn't want us to see what was really there.. "


He went back to playing with the cat...

[Huntster]

You must prove that it is an animal.......

I don't have to prove squat.

PG shot the film, they said it was a live animal, it looks like a live animal, it hasn't been proven to be a hoax, so I believe it's the real thing.

...There is no burden whatsoever on those who are undecided, or those who back the likely explanation....

I'll agree with that.

So why are you concerned about it? Believe that it's a hoax, and go start a new hobby.

I don't give a damn what you believe. Why do you give a damn what I believe?

...Now, if you can come up with some proof that Patty cannot be a guy in a suit, that would change things immediately...

There's plenty of evidence in the film, but it appears that you reject that evidence.

So, wanna' go on another spin on the merry-go-round with me!?

[Huntster]

...I'm sure you understand....

Yup.

I sure do.

[Huntster]

......................................

Sorry, gotta go for the long weekend. I'd love to play some more, but I can't get out of this engagement.

Bye, folks!

[RayG]

I have never discussed Bigfoot or PGF with my eleven year old son..

The reasoning behind that is a whole nother' story...

He was chasing the cat by my desk , noticed I was posting on the internet, and curiously asked what I was doing.

I said I was talking about Bigfoot..
Without further comment, I said " I want you to look at this..

I rolled the LMS version of the PGF, at the default speed on a 1680 x 1250 display..

I waited till it was over, and asked: " What do you think that was ? "

His reply:

" A man in a Gorilla suit . "

I asked: " Why do you think so much of it was all shakey and blurry ?.."

He said: " Whoever had the camera was jumping around .."

I replied " Well, why do you think they didn't just hold still ? "

Reply: " He didn't want us to see what was really there.. "


He went back to playing with the cat...

Anecdotal accounts mean nothing. :cool:

RayG

[Rolfe]

Diogenes, that biggest picture? Some sort of waterfowl, right? With just the head and neck visible? I'm no ornithologist, but some sort of grebe or cormorant sort of thing?

You're not implying anyone thinks that's Nessie, gimme a break!

Rolfe.

[UrsulaV]

Diogenes, that biggest picture? Some sort of waterfowl, right? With just the head and neck visible? I'm no ornithologist, but some sort of grebe or cormorant sort of thing?

You're not implying anyone thinks that's Nessie, gimme a break!

Rolfe.

Might be an anhinga, they swim with just the head and neck above water, but the beak doesn't look quite right.

But if that's Nessie, then my local lake is swarming with the things, and I gotta take the double-crested cormorant off my life list...

[LTC8K6]

I don't have to prove squat.

If you wish to support the idea that Patty is an animal, you do.

If you just want to believe, then you are correct.

[Ausmerican]

If Patterson filmed himself in the backyard next to a roaring fire, intending to portray that he is "on the hunt" for a sasquatch, isn't that the same thing as Jeff Corwin or Steve Irwin setting a snake or croc up for a wrestling scene?

If not, please tell me what the difference is?
ummm The snake is real?
Sorry couldn't resist that one.
Huntster, you continually ask "So why hasn't anyone done it?" over and over. The reason is simple, and readily shown by dfoots experiment (I won't call it a hoax.) Suppose Hollywood spent the money and recreated the PGF exactly, frame by shaky frame. Who would it prove anything to? Most of us would say "Yup, bloke in a suit, just like we always thought about the last time." Others like perhaps yourself would respond with one of two responses. 1: "Yeah thats a guy in a suit, it doesn't look as athentic as the PGF." Because you are looking through personal bias as did most of the people at BFF when dfoot posted his pics or ...
2: "Yeah thats a guy in a suit but it doesn't prove the PGF was."
So then nothing has been proven to anybody and the money and time spent was wasted.

[LAL]

Paul has reopened the For Dfoot thread:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&pid=302160&st=580&#entry302160

[Correa Neto]

Might be an anhinga, they swim with just the head and neck above water, but the beak doesn't look quite right.

But if that's Nessie, then my local lake is swarming with the things, and I gotta take the double-crested cormorant off my life list...

Shhhhhhhhhhh!

You will attract the wrath of the lake monster creduloids!!!!

NGC's documentary on sea serpents and lake monsters showed an alleged footage of a sea serpent in San Francisco. Guess what it actually was? Seagulls flying low near the water.

OK, now it's me attrating the wrath of the creduloids...

Edited to add:
Diogenes "lake monster" pic (Champ?) can very well be of a log. The "classic Nessie" pic, IIRC, was exposed by the very hoaxers as being of a toy sub.

[fsol]

but make no mistake - making posts that are designed to, or likely to hoax or mislead people on this forum will not be tolerated.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&pid=302160&st=580&#

Surely he is going to have to start suspending everyone for making misleading posts...

"suits like that couldn't be made in the '60s"
"the IM ratio proves it can not be a bloke in a suit"
"this frame shows the mid-tarsal break"
"The PGF clearly shows <insert whatever "unique feature" of Bigfoot you want to here>"
"check out the herniated quad on that beauty"

...and on and on.

[UrsulaV]

Shhhhhhhhhhh!

You will attract the wrath of the lake monster creduloids!!!!


Now I'm just waiting for the Nessie-ist version of Huntster to appear and demand to know why we haven't built a sea monster suit.

And then, the cycle of nature will again be complete...

[Dfoot]

Did any of the demonstrations show a moving subject?



I think the "no, it isn't" - even if it is" is a two way street.



Hmm. I guess you don't "like". I haven't seen the suit in motion.



Wow.



What a lousy suit! Why, anybody could build a better suit than that!



Wow! And you can even make it move "if you like"!



Wow.



I just don't know, these days! And all that at a relatively low inflation rate over the past several years! Why, just look at the skyrocketing price of new cars! Robbery, I say!



Just $4000 in today's money! Why, it's difficult to believe that someone couldn't make a suit for $4000, and make a simple video with it, and let it also withstand scientific scrutiny for the next 40 years!

Why, I'll bet you could make your $4000 back with a single book deal!



Sure it would!

I wonder why nobody has done it?


I don't know. I've shown you how to do many of these things and yet no Bigfooter seems to even put forth a decent effort - even though they are the only ones with an interest in this. Top creature fx guys could care less if people are fooled by the old hoax or not. In fact, they kind of enjoy it.

When Vulich brought the tape of the BBC show to the office for me to look at I asked him why they just gave the producer that simplistic red ape suit to use instead of building some sort of imitation of "Patty". He said Packham couldn't afford to pay them to do that and they were extremely busy with BUFFY at the time.

The idea was just to show how rubber feet bend, how pads fit under skin, talk about it, etc. If Packham wanted a suit they would build it - but he had to pay.

At BFRO they not only foolishly show a photo of the guy in the red ape suit swinging his arm out higher and then claiming this means it's impossible to make a suit with an arm like Patty's, they also made the silly statements that this was "Hollywood's attempt to recreate Patty" and that the BBC show had an unlimited budget (something I'm sure Packham would be surprised to hear).

The expensive Werewolf suit wasn't used by Packham. Nor was any suit made for him. The reason was money. Vulich and the guys are award winning creature fx artists. You want a Patty, pay them their rate and they'll build one for you. A guy with one of those tiny BBC doc budgets doesnt have that kind of dough to spare. He gets the standard red ape hanging on a hangar.

No one in Hollywood (or in most places really) needs anyone to build another Patty gorilla in order for them to "get it". I understand that you do and I also know that if anyone ever did it wouldn't be enough as I've just proven that by showing you pics of Patty that you claimed had legs too thin (even though those are Patty's legs).

At "bigfoot encounters" I read about how John Chamber's dubious claim to fame was this PG film and how he was a mere pathetic shell of a man clinging to this to make himself look good. What planet do these people live on? Chambers was an Academy Award-winning legend in the business. He didn't need a badly executed gorilla on the loose hoax. It was all a joke to him and the people reacting to it made him grin.

The fact that the man got old and had a stroke doesn't mean he was desperate for attention from the world of Bigfooters. That's the kind of bizarre rationalizations that plague this thing. Believe me, behind the scenes and among his friends, Chambers thought this was a hoot.

DON POST sold their gorilla suits for $450. A little cannibalizing and you've got Patty for under $700 in 1967. Since we know Roger never paid for his camera rental (and his check for the film bounced due to the fact that he tried never to maintain a real checking account, thus the check wasn't real) this means that the full $700 ($4000) he scammed from the Radfords was available for suit making.

Piece of cake.

Now you want someone today to try to imitate exactly what someone did in 1967 when they glued together various parts from different creature suits they had lying around. Okay. It can be done by a top pro - IF you can afford it. None of them care anything about this. They won't do it on their own dime. You have to pay their rate.

Me? I'm not a suit maker, I'm merely another Bigfooter (just one with a higher standard when it comes to what passes as evidence) but I'll continue to try experiments with this. I'm surprised that it's not harder. I'm surprised that others keep pretending that it is.

When I have time I'll do another experiment in suit making for you.

To answer your first question: Yes. Patty was in motion when I demonstated to you the fact that even Patty would not be good enough for you guys. Plus, I even put on the head and ran around for you.

How's your investigation going? Any results in? :)

- Dfoot

[TjW]

ummm The snake is real?
Sorry couldn't resist that one.
Huntster, you continually ask "So why hasn't anyone done it?" over and over. The reason is simple, and readily shown by dfoots experiment (I won't call it a hoax.) Suppose Hollywood spent the money and recreated the PGF exactly, frame by shaky frame. Who would it prove anything to? Most of us would say "Yup, bloke in a suit, just like we always thought about the last time." Others like perhaps yourself would respond with one of two responses. 1: "Yeah thats a guy in a suit, it doesn't look as athentic as the PGF." Because you are looking through personal bias as did most of the people at BFF when dfoot posted his pics or ...
2: "Yeah thats a guy in a suit but it doesn't prove the PGF was."
So then nothing has been proven to anybody and the money and time spent was wasted.

I'm sure you'd also hear:
"Well, sure Hollywood can replicate it now... look how much special effects has improved in films over the last (whatever number) of years. But could a non-professional, a long way from the resources available in Hollywood, have done a creature suit that convincing in (whatever year it was)? That's the important question, and nothing about this duplicate film even touches this issue".

On a slightly different note, I'd say Dfoot did a poor job artistically. For a really artistic effect, rather than just a crude experiment, the lead-in posts should have been more carefully written, allowing people to jump to conclusions, rather than telling an untruth.

For example, rather than saying something like "These are pictures of the suit I built, taken in my backyard", you should have just talked about building the suit, and various problems, and then said "These are some pictures I took in my backyard."

That would be perfectly true. The pictures have been modified, but they were taken in your back yard.

The DHMO website is a really funny example of this. All the claims are true, they just leave out the bigger picture. Then, when people suggest you are lying, you could have asked questions like: "Are you maintaining that I did NOT take these pictures in my back yard? Where do you say I took them?" and "I never said these were pictures of the suit I built".

Also, as long as you were modifying them, you should have mirror-imaged the images of Patty, so she was facing the other direction. I'm not enough of an expert to know whether all of the frames have her walking frame left to frame right, but that's how most of them I've seen have been.

Ahh, well, it's too late now.

[Rolfe]

I have got to go find the pic of me in my Babylon 5 costume with Peter Jurasik's arm round my shoulder, just after John Vulich had made him up as Londo Mollari as a demonstration!

Frankly, having seen that guy work, I can't see how anyone could maintain that nobody could make a suit that looks like that Bigfoot film. It's just silly.

Rolfe.

[Huntster]

....When I have time I'll do another experiment in suit making for you....

With your past work in mind, I'll be looking forward to it, and will glean your words with great trust, interest, and anticipation.

...To answer your first question: Yes. Patty was in motion when I demonstated to you the fact that even Patty would not be good enough for you guys. Plus, I even put on the head and ran around for you....

Yet again, you lie.

...How's your investigation going? Any results in?...

It has ended.

The result is that you are a liar.