Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3 - Page 213

parnassus · 10th May 2012, 07:09 AM

I'll thank you to keep your point of pedantry in your pants and just research the foxy assistant issue.

wheunis · 10th May 2012, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by parnassus

I'll thank you to keep your point of pedantry in your pants and just research the foxy assistant issue.

How do we know that the foxy assistant even exists? I mean, it could just be a ~~man in a suit~~ transvestite!

I mean, if you look at the way it walks, it just doesn't look real foxy. Nowhattameen?!

AttorneyTom · 10th May 2012, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by wheunis

How do we know that the foxy assistant even exists? I mean, it could just be a ~~man in a suit~~ transvestite!

I mean, if you look at the way it walks, it just doesn't look real foxy. Nowhattameen?!

I have always wondered about the Strike Button ?

Meanwhile:

Based upon new analysis of all the "frames" I have now come to a "reasonable degree of squatchy certainty" that this so called Patty is wearing "falsies".

Based upon the blur it still seems foxy to me ? So.. either they enhanced Bob.. or a male BF.. Patty into the 55D or fake BF in suits wearing falsies are .. well nevermind. I guess what I am getting at is this : The PGF is "enhanced" one way or another !?

tsig · 10th May 2012, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by AttorneyTom

I have always wondered about the Strike Button ?

Meanwhile:

Based upon new analysis of all the "frames" I have now come to a "reasonable degree of squatchy certainty" that this so called Patty is wearing "falsies".

Based upon the blur it still seems foxy to me ? So.. either they enhanced Bob.. or a male BF.. Patty into the 55D or fake BF in suits wearing falsies are .. well nevermind. I guess what I am getting at is this : The PGF is "enhanced" one way or another !?

Falsies?? C'mon if you look close you can see that she's getting excited by the presence of so many alpha males. That look over the shoulder was a coy, come hither look. What happened next is rightly shielded from the innocent.

AttorneyTom · 10th May 2012, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Falsies?? C'mon if you look close you can see that she's getting excited by the presence of so many alpha males. That look over the shoulder was a coy, come hither look. What happened next is rightly shielded from the innocent.

Well, tsig

I guess I will have do a total re examination of this evidence (sigh).

Is it okay if I get back to you on this at a certain time and date that might be appropriate ? I cannot say when.. I will have the rent paid though.. I promise !

AlaskaBushPilot · 10th May 2012, 07:56 PM

Every 'Footer of note has played some kind of angle. Grover Krantz had the dermal ridges. Merldumb is pushing the mid-tarsal break. Munns is doing film analysis. Ketchum is serving up DNA hokum, etc.

Byrne's insight with his primary financier was to catalogue reports over five years in order to establish migration patterns. Once established, ideal field locations could be secured, with Byrne at the ready in his chopper, dart gun in the back and assistant bent over in front.

I have not seen his book, out of contempt I guess - but it would gain insights, possibly the most important of which is going to be pictures with that assistant.

AttorneyTom · 10th May 2012, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Every 'Footer of note has played some kind of angle. Grover Krantz had the dermal ridges. Merldumb is pushing the mid-tarsal break. Munns is doing film analysis. Ketchum is serving up DNA hokum, etc.

Byrne's insight with his primary financier was to catalogue reports over five years in order to establish migration patterns. Once established, ideal field locations could be secured, with Byrne at the ready in his chopper, dart gun in the back and assistant bent over in front.

I have not seen his book, out of contempt I guess - but it would gain insights, possibly the most important of which is going to be pictures with that assistant.

I agree ABP

I would like to see atleast some blurry pictures and/or footage of this so called "assistant" before I make the call and or bra sizing ?

HarryHenderson · 10th May 2012, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Just a point of pedantry because Byrne's book was my sole window into the world of bigfoot in the 1970s, but Byrne brags in his book about his field vehicle - an International Scout. The Scout was a first-generation SUV designed and marketed to compete with JEEPs.

I too used his book as part of the basis of my youth's Bigfoot interest. As I remember it, it was written well enough to take heed in. That is, if Bigfoot was interesting to you. Being the good con man he is, I definitely got the impression he was being straight and 'honest'. One reason his shtick stuck so well was he so seemed like the perfect 'the guy' to be out hunting for such a thing as Bigfoot. Exotic big game hunter with visions of grandeur. If he can't find Bigfoot, nobody can. It's non-ironically ironic that that's proven to be completely true?!

Also as I remember it, he never claimed to have seen hide nor hair of the beast himself. He was always looking for something only others had seen. He saw the obligatory prints and casts and some suspiciously Bigfooty things of course, but never claimed anything resembling an actual creature (that I remember). Now it's clear that was on purpose from the beginning. Short of an actual creature, he was never going to 'see' the beast himself. I can understand how it was important to his con that he never had to lie about that aspect.

In a non-post I didn't make Tuesday because I-somehow-bungled-it-like-a-spaz-and-totally-lost-it, I too mentioned the 4WD International Scout™ Bigfoot Veracity Tour vehicles he was so proud of. Bigfoot wasn't gonna be out of reach for these guys. They got rugged 4WD vehicles with winches that can jerk on other winches' winches if necessary. If Bigfoot was up a tree, he was toast cause those 4WD International Scout™ Cripes They're Buying It Tour vehicles went up trees too. And his mentioning them as regularly as he did made it clear they were donated with his 'only good words' mentions being the stipulation. Sounds like just another one of perks of the scam to me. I mean, donated vehicles can only help the con right?!

"We're out out here bustin' our hump 24/7 looking for Bigfoot, with our donated Coleman™ lanterns, Bausch & Lomb™ scopes and 4WD International Scout™ Carcass Retrieval Tour vehicles, how much more legit do we gotta be?"

wheunis · 11th May 2012, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

He saw the obligatory prints and casts and some suspiciously Bigfooty things of course, but never claimed anything resembling an actual creature (that I remember). Now it's clear that was on purpose from the beginning. Short of an actual creature, he was never going to 'see' the beast himself. I can understand how it was important to his con that he never had to lie about that aspect.

Clever indeed of the rat, to deny the existence of the cat while at the same time keeping an eye out for him.

Bad analogy lol. I really do need to work on those...

But I can see how never claiming an actual sighting with descriptions, would save a lot of backpedaling.
Nobody can turn around and say X years later "what about that your description doesn't match {insert another footer here}'s sightings?"

AlaskaBushPilot · 11th May 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Short of an actual creature, he was never going to 'see' the beast himself. I can understand how it was important to his con that he never had to lie about that aspect.

I think this is correct. I saw one reference that claimed he had a sighting back in the late 1940's, but it was not a direct quote from him. He did find footprints.

Byrne's tactic of posing as a master but playing dumb at the same time has become a standard. Munns pretends not to know splicing is done between frames instead of through them. Merldumb pretends he doesn't know how an occasional human print could have that mid-tarsal hump when anyone who has ever walked on a beach has seen them.

tsig · 11th May 2012, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

I think this is correct. I saw one reference that claimed he had a sighting back in the late 1940's, but it was not a direct quote from him. He did find footprints.

Byrne's tactic of posing as a master but playing dumb at the same time has become a standard. Munns pretends not to know splicing is done between frames instead of through them. Merldumb pretends he doesn't know how an occasional human print could have that mid-tarsal hump when anyone who has ever walked on a beach has seen them.

Madame Woo, sees all, knows all, tells nothing.

AttorneyTom · 24th May 2012, 09:00 PM

Can someone atleast ask her about the sizing ??

mustbeso · 1st June 2012, 05:46 AM

For what it's worth, Bigfoot Evidence is posting a clip of a film that is supposed to proove that PGF is a hoax. The trailer appears to present Greg Longs version comeplete with interviews with Bob H, his mother and the suit maker, Morris. The surreal part of this is that it is brought to us by none other than Tom Biscardi. Perhaps all of this should be re-packaged as a soap opera called As the Bigfoot Turns.

River · 1st June 2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by mustbeso

For what it's worth, Bigfoot Evidence is posting a clip of a film that is supposed to proove that PGF is a hoax. The trailer appears to present Greg Longs version comeplete with interviews with Bob H, his mother and the suit maker, Morris. The surreal part of this is that it is brought to us by none other than Tom Biscardi. Perhaps all of this should be re-packaged as a soap opera called As the Bigfoot Turns.

I was interviewed on Biscardis show a while back when I published that article on the footprints. Ho agreed with the claims I made about the footprints, and is also very outspoken about the PGF being a hoax and has been for years. Not surprising to see him put something together. I actually liked Biscardi after speaking with him a couple of times. Really nice guy.

parnassus · 1st June 2012, 10:07 AM

I wonder what Biscardi is planning to do with his film. Sounds like he is diggin kitakaze's potatoes, so to speak.

I know, I know..

AttorneyTom · 2nd June 2012, 05:58 PM

So... a Biscardi on the Rocks ? This could get interesting.

Vortigern99 · 20th June 2012, 03:51 PM

I'm upping this thread on behalf of our under-educated newcomer, OntarioSasquatch.

OS, please read through this thread from page 1 before commenting further on the PGF. And before you commence to complain as to its length, let me just say: tough. I read 200+ pages of the BF threads here before my very first post.

AttorneyTom · 20th June 2012, 05:45 PM

That is a good thought.

I did the same. It was alot of work and I still missed things but if I had presented myself as someone that was really into BF and believed in the phenomenon I would have really looked naive or not understanding about the JREF or what has been discussed previously.

Skeptical Greg · 20th June 2012, 07:55 PM

Only 200+ pages doesn't quite tell the story..

We have 411 In the first PGF thread.. Here..

Then for some reason, the 2nd thread only made it to 27 pages ..

Here..

Which brings to the 200+ pages of part 3 ..

It's unfortunate that all the links to the old BFF are dead ... There were some great discussions there..

OntarioSquatch · 20th June 2012, 08:15 PM

What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side.

I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently.

Jodie · 20th June 2012, 08:21 PM

Well the PGF just made my eyes roll up into my skull even when I was a proponent. Os you are welcome to your opinion, and even after reading more details you may still have the same opinion.

But at least be open to both sides. If the PGF interests you then start checking the validity of what people say rather than just taking their word for it. That includes those on either side of the argument.

AlaskaBushPilot · 20th June 2012, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side.

That isn't an answer for why you don't read the previous threads.

Quote:

I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently.

Translation: "I refuse to read the evidence, but if it were brought forward...."

They just did. Three separate threads. And you dodged answering why you won't read them. Out of courtesy to the others here.

Vortigern99 · 20th June 2012, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side.

I'm open to evidence. BF's existence isn't a matter of opinion, it's subject to the standards of scientific inquiry.

The "good in discussing" the subject with skeptics is simple: education. When I came to the JREF, I knew less about bigfoot than I know now. I hope that you, OS, will benefit from your time here as I have.

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently.

Yay! Start with SkepticalGreg's links in post #8499. See ya in a month.

Meanwhile, never mind Bob H. Assume for the time being that he is a liar, or grossly mistaken. His involvement is immaterial, IMO.

River · 20th June 2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side.

I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently.

Here's a link to an article I wrote about the footprints.

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/

This image is just a funny, but it does roughly point some interesting things about the suit.

Óðinn · 21st June 2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by River

Here's a link to an article I wrote about the footprints.

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/

http://werd.us/riv3r/pe.gif

Geez it's been awhile since I posted here. River, here's a composite from a graphic from your blog. On the right I added an expanded view of Roger casting the track.

1) Where is the stick/shadow in the 2nd reel frame?

2) Do you expect me to buy that Roger moved all that debris (bottom left in frame) before he shot the 2nd reel footage? Really? Why???

River · 21st June 2012, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Geez it's been awhile since I posted here. River, here's a composite from a graphic from your blog. On the right I added an expanded view of Roger casting the track.

1) Where is the stick/shadow in the 2nd reel frame?

2) Do you expect me to buy that Roger moved all that debris (bottom left in frame) before he shot the 2nd reel footage? Really? Why???

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...39711e79d8.gif

I still await your bug video.

1) the stick/shadow is not present in the footage showing an overview of the prints.

2) I don't expect you to buy anything. Why did Roger have to move it? Could it have been Gimlin? The wind? A passing raccoon? Who knows what or who moved it. It's not present. The locations are the same.

Skeptical Greg · 21st June 2012, 07:36 PM

All that debris ?

Why move it?

Why not ?

What's so hard about believing someone moved bits of trash out of a film site?

I am Bigfoot · 21st June 2012, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side.

Maybe because that is the right opinion? It doesn't matter HOW MUCH material you bring, it is the quality that matters.

Quote:

I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently.

Translation: The PGF is a really crappy film of a still unproven-to-exist creature taken by some shady guys under shady circumstances and that is good enough proof for me!

People are telling you to read the probably 500 pages or so discussing this film. That isn't really necessary. Just find the bits with SweatyYeti and his(?) analysis of proportions of Patty and Bob H.

GT/CS · 21st June 2012, 07:41 PM

Never mind. I don't want to give away the surprise.

I am Bigfoot · 21st June 2012, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

You're right, Sweaty's analysis will definitely prove to anyone who reads it that Patty is a bloke in a suit!!!

Damn it. Don't give away the surprise.

fleabeetle · 22nd June 2012, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

It's unfortunate that all the links to the old BFF are dead ... There were some great discussions there..

If I have things rightly, it has become sort-of possible to get at the old BFF's archives once more. Very much "sort-of": one needs to be registered on BFF, and to get BFF "premium membership". This both involves paying a fee, and requires one to have a "new BFF" post count of at least 100. Frustratingly, that cuts me out; I spend a certain amount of time on BFF and occasionally post there, but my post count is only 60-some.

LTC8K6 · 22nd June 2012, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

All that debris ?

Why move it?

Why not ?

What's so hard about believing someone moved bits of trash out of a film site?

I believe you can still see the trash or remnants of it on the edge of the frame in the video.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?fs8xhnsele85s6l

Óðinn · 22nd June 2012, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

All that debris ?

Why move it?

Why not ?

What's so hard about believing someone moved bits of trash out of a film site?

Not only move it, but smooth out the area you took it from so it would seem like nothing was moved. That's nuts. Same goes for the stick/shadow. Do you see ANY disturbances suggesting anything was moved? Didn't think so. Why move anything? What would be the motive? Don't you think there is enough doubt here so that River's blog is false advertising? Do YOU think this is proof the PGF was hoaxed?

Óðinn · 22nd June 2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I believe you can still see the trash or remnants of it on the edge of the frame in the video.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?fs8xhnsele85s6l

Really???

fleabeetle · 22nd June 2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by fleabeetle

If I have things rightly, it has become sort-of possible to get at the old BFF's archives once more. Very much "sort-of": one needs to be registered on BFF, and to get BFF "premium membership". This both involves paying a fee, and requires one to have a "new BFF" post count of at least 100. Frustratingly, that cuts me out; I spend a certain amount of time on BFF and occasionally post there, but my post count is only 60-some.

Have just learnt -- BFF's requirement here, has been (as of 15th June) reduced to a count of 75 posts. Here, this puts me in with a chance !

River · 22nd June 2012, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Not only move it, but smooth out the area you took it from so it would seem like nothing was moved. That's nuts. Same goes for the stick/shadow. Do you see ANY disturbances suggesting anything was moved? Didn't think so. Why move anything? What would be the motive? Don't you think there is enough doubt here so that River's blog is false advertising? Do YOU think this is proof the PGF was hoaxed?

Sure is.

Maybe I should expect Gimlin to sue me at any moment. (or Pat Patterson) Bring it.

Óðinn · 22nd June 2012, 03:23 PM

Sue you? For not proving the PGF was a hoax? You forget Superman, we don't have X-ray vision like you. Tho I'd prefer to have "airport scanner vision".

Volsquatch · 22nd June 2012, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Sue you? For not proving the PGF was a hoax? You forget Superman, we don't have X-ray vision like you. Tho I'd prefer to have "airport scanner vision".

Why? You already have "Bleever Vision", which is even better.

GT/CS · 22nd June 2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Volsquatch

Why? You already have "Bleever Vision", which is even better.

That depends on whether you read his posts here or on the BFF.

LTC8K6 · 22nd June 2012, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Not only move it, but smooth out the area you took it from so it would seem like nothing was moved. That's nuts. Same goes for the stick/shadow. Do you see ANY disturbances suggesting anything was moved? Didn't think so. Why move anything? What would be the motive? Don't you think there is enough doubt here so that River's blog is false advertising? Do YOU think this is proof the PGF was hoaxed?

We already discussed that the area may have been raked...

With pics.

But I don't want to upset you.

10th May 2012, 07:09 AM	#8481
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	I'll thank you to keep your point of pedantry in your pants and just research the foxy assistant issue.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

10th May 2012, 07:16 AM	#8482
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by parnassus I'll thank you to keep your point of pedantry in your pants and just research the foxy assistant issue. How do we know that the foxy assistant even exists? I mean, it could just be a ~~man in a suit~~ transvestite! I mean, if you look at the way it walks, it just doesn't look real foxy. Nowhattameen?!
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157

10th May 2012, 06:33 PM	#8483
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	Originally Posted by wheunis How do we know that the foxy assistant even exists? I mean, it could just be a ~~man in a suit~~ transvestite! I mean, if you look at the way it walks, it just doesn't look real foxy. Nowhattameen?! I have always wondered about the Strike Button ? Meanwhile: Based upon new analysis of all the "frames" I have now come to a "reasonable degree of squatchy certainty" that this so called Patty is wearing "falsies". Based upon the blur it still seems foxy to me ? So.. either they enhanced Bob.. or a male BF.. Patty into the 55D or fake BF in suits wearing falsies are .. well nevermind. I guess what I am getting at is this : The PGF is "enhanced" one way or another !?
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

10th May 2012, 07:43 PM	#8485
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	Originally Posted by tsig Falsies?? C'mon if you look close you can see that she's getting excited by the presence of so many alpha males. That look over the shoulder was a coy, come hither look. What happened next is rightly shielded from the innocent. Well, tsig I guess I will have do a total re examination of this evidence (sigh). Is it okay if I get back to you on this at a certain time and date that might be appropriate ? I cannot say when.. I will have the rent paid though.. I promise !
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

10th May 2012, 08:03 PM	#8487
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot Every 'Footer of note has played some kind of angle. Grover Krantz had the dermal ridges. Merldumb is pushing the mid-tarsal break. Munns is doing film analysis. Ketchum is serving up DNA hokum, etc. Byrne's insight with his primary financier was to catalogue reports over five years in order to establish migration patterns. Once established, ideal field locations could be secured, with Byrne at the ready in his chopper, dart gun in the back and assistant bent over in front. I have not seen his book, out of contempt I guess - but it would gain insights, possibly the most important of which is going to be pictures with that assistant. I agree ABP I would like to see atleast some blurry pictures and/or footage of this so called "assistant" before I make the call and or bra sizing ?
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

10th May 2012, 07:31 PM	#8484
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,804	Originally Posted by AttorneyTom I have always wondered about the Strike Button ? Meanwhile: Based upon new analysis of all the "frames" I have now come to a "reasonable degree of squatchy certainty" that this so called Patty is wearing "falsies". Based upon the blur it still seems foxy to me ? So.. either they enhanced Bob.. or a male BF.. Patty into the 55D or fake BF in suits wearing falsies are .. well nevermind. I guess what I am getting at is this : The PGF is "enhanced" one way or another !? Falsies?? C'mon if you look close you can see that she's getting excited by the presence of so many alpha males. That look over the shoulder was a coy, come hither look. What happened next is rightly shielded from the innocent.

10th May 2012, 07:56 PM	#8486
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Every 'Footer of note has played some kind of angle. Grover Krantz had the dermal ridges. Merldumb is pushing the mid-tarsal break. Munns is doing film analysis. Ketchum is serving up DNA hokum, etc. Byrne's insight with his primary financier was to catalogue reports over five years in order to establish migration patterns. Once established, ideal field locations could be secured, with Byrne at the ready in his chopper, dart gun in the back and assistant bent over in front. I have not seen his book, out of contempt I guess - but it would gain insights, possibly the most important of which is going to be pictures with that assistant.

10th May 2012, 11:02 PM	#8488
HarryHenderson Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business Posts: 708	Originally Posted by The Shrike Just a point of pedantry because Byrne's book was my sole window into the world of bigfoot in the 1970s, but Byrne brags in his book about his field vehicle - an International Scout. The Scout was a first-generation SUV designed and marketed to compete with JEEPs. I too used his book as part of the basis of my youth's Bigfoot interest. As I remember it, it was written well enough to take heed in. That is, if Bigfoot was interesting to you. Being the good con man he is, I definitely got the impression he was being straight and 'honest'. One reason his shtick stuck so well was he so seemed like the perfect 'the guy' to be out hunting for such a thing as Bigfoot. Exotic big game hunter with visions of grandeur. If he can't find Bigfoot, nobody can. It's non-ironically ironic that that's proven to be completely true?! Also as I remember it, he never claimed to have seen hide nor hair of the beast himself. He was always looking for something only others had seen. He saw the obligatory prints and casts and some suspiciously Bigfooty things of course, but never claimed anything resembling an actual creature (that I remember). Now it's clear that was on purpose from the beginning. Short of an actual creature, he was never going to 'see' the beast himself. I can understand how it was important to his con that he never had to lie about that aspect. In a non-post I didn't make Tuesday because I-somehow-bungled-it-like-a-spaz-and-totally-lost-it, I too mentioned the 4WD International Scout™ Bigfoot Veracity Tour vehicles he was so proud of. Bigfoot wasn't gonna be out of reach for these guys. They got rugged 4WD vehicles with winches that can jerk on other winches' winches if necessary. If Bigfoot was up a tree, he was toast cause those 4WD International Scout™ Cripes They're Buying It Tour vehicles went up trees too. And his mentioning them as regularly as he did made it clear they were donated with his 'only good words' mentions being the stipulation. Sounds like just another one of perks of the scam to me. I mean, donated vehicles can only help the con right?! "We're out out here bustin' our hump 24/7 looking for Bigfoot, with our donated Coleman™ lanterns, Bausch & Lomb™ scopes and 4WD International Scout™ Carcass Retrieval Tour vehicles, how much more legit do we gotta be?"
	__________________ "The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, you know I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin

11th May 2012, 05:15 AM	#8489
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson He saw the obligatory prints and casts and some suspiciously Bigfooty things of course, but never claimed anything resembling an actual creature (that I remember). Now it's clear that was on purpose from the beginning. Short of an actual creature, he was never going to 'see' the beast himself. I can understand how it was important to his con that he never had to lie about that aspect. Clever indeed of the rat, to deny the existence of the cat while at the same time keeping an eye out for him. Bad analogy lol. I really do need to work on those... But I can see how never claiming an actual sighting with descriptions, would save a lot of backpedaling. Nobody can turn around and say X years later "what about that your description doesn't match {insert another footer here}'s sightings?"
wheunis Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 157

11th May 2012, 01:21 PM	#8490
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson Short of an actual creature, he was never going to 'see' the beast himself. I can understand how it was important to his con that he never had to lie about that aspect. I think this is correct. I saw one reference that claimed he had a sighting back in the late 1940's, but it was not a direct quote from him. He did find footprints. Byrne's tactic of posing as a master but playing dumb at the same time has become a standard. Munns pretends not to know splicing is done between frames instead of through them. Merldumb pretends he doesn't know how an occasional human print could have that mid-tarsal hump when anyone who has ever walked on a beach has seen them.

11th May 2012, 05:41 PM	#8491
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,804	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot I think this is correct. I saw one reference that claimed he had a sighting back in the late 1940's, but it was not a direct quote from him. He did find footprints. Byrne's tactic of posing as a master but playing dumb at the same time has become a standard. Munns pretends not to know splicing is done between frames instead of through them. Merldumb pretends he doesn't know how an occasional human print could have that mid-tarsal hump when anyone who has ever walked on a beach has seen them. Madame Woo, sees all, knows all, tells nothing.

24th May 2012, 09:00 PM	#8492
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	Can someone atleast ask her about the sizing ??
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

1st June 2012, 05:46 AM	#8493
mustbeso Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 127	For what it's worth, Bigfoot Evidence is posting a clip of a film that is supposed to proove that PGF is a hoax. The trailer appears to present Greg Longs version comeplete with interviews with Bob H, his mother and the suit maker, Morris. The surreal part of this is that it is brought to us by none other than Tom Biscardi. Perhaps all of this should be re-packaged as a soap opera called As the Bigfoot Turns.
mustbeso Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 127

1st June 2012, 09:34 AM	#8494
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,666	Originally Posted by mustbeso For what it's worth, Bigfoot Evidence is posting a clip of a film that is supposed to proove that PGF is a hoax. The trailer appears to present Greg Longs version comeplete with interviews with Bob H, his mother and the suit maker, Morris. The surreal part of this is that it is brought to us by none other than Tom Biscardi. Perhaps all of this should be re-packaged as a soap opera called As the Bigfoot Turns. I was interviewed on Biscardis show a while back when I published that article on the footprints. Ho agreed with the claims I made about the footprints, and is also very outspoken about the PGF being a hoax and has been for years. Not surprising to see him put something together. I actually liked Biscardi after speaking with him a couple of times. Really nice guy.
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,666

1st June 2012, 10:07 AM	#8495
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	I wonder what Biscardi is planning to do with his film. Sounds like he is diggin kitakaze's potatoes, so to speak. I know, I know..
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

2nd June 2012, 05:58 PM	#8496
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	So... a Biscardi on the Rocks ? This could get interesting.
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

20th June 2012, 03:51 PM	#8497
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,022	I'm upping this thread on behalf of our under-educated newcomer, OntarioSasquatch. OS, please read through this thread from page 1 before commenting further on the PGF. And before you commence to complain as to its length, let me just say: tough. I read 200+ pages of the BF threads here before my very first post.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

20th June 2012, 05:45 PM	#8498
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883	That is a good thought. I did the same. It was alot of work and I still missed things but if I had presented myself as someone that was really into BF and believed in the phenomenon I would have really looked naive or not understanding about the JREF or what has been discussed previously.
AttorneyTom Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 883

20th June 2012, 07:55 PM	#8499
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Only 200+ pages doesn't quite tell the story.. We have 411 In the first PGF thread.. Here.. Then for some reason, the 2nd thread only made it to 27 pages .. Here.. Which brings to the 200+ pages of part 3 .. It's unfortunate that all the links to the old BFF are dead ... There were some great discussions there..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 20th June 2012 at 07:59 PM.

20th June 2012, 08:15 PM	#8500
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 486	What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side. I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently.

20th June 2012, 08:21 PM	#8501
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	Well the PGF just made my eyes roll up into my skull even when I was a proponent. Os you are welcome to your opinion, and even after reading more details you may still have the same opinion. But at least be open to both sides. If the PGF interests you then start checking the validity of what people say rather than just taking their word for it. That includes those on either side of the argument.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909

20th June 2012, 08:40 PM	#8502
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side. That isn't an answer for why you don't read the previous threads. Quote: I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently. Translation: "I refuse to read the evidence, but if it were brought forward...." They just did. Three separate threads. And you dodged answering why you won't read them. Out of courtesy to the others here.

20th June 2012, 09:47 PM	#8503
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,022	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side. I'm open to evidence. BF's existence isn't a matter of opinion, it's subject to the standards of scientific inquiry. The "good in discussing" the subject with skeptics is simple: education. When I came to the JREF, I knew less about bigfoot than I know now. I hope that you, OS, will benefit from your time here as I have. Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently. Yay! Start with SkepticalGreg's links in post #8499. See ya in a month. Meanwhile, never mind Bob H. Assume for the time being that he is a liar, or grossly mistaken. His involvement is immaterial, IMO.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

20th June 2012, 10:51 PM	#8504
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,666	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side. I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently. Here's a link to an article I wrote about the footprints. http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/ This image is just a funny, but it does roughly point some interesting things about the suit.
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,666

21st June 2012, 02:55 PM	#8505
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by River Here's a link to an article I wrote about the footprints. http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/ http://werd.us/riv3r/pe.gif Geez it's been awhile since I posted here. River, here's a composite from a graphic from your blog. On the right I added an expanded view of Roger casting the track. 1) Where is the stick/shadow in the 2nd reel frame? 2) Do you expect me to buy that Roger moved all that debris (bottom left in frame) before he shot the 2nd reel footage? Really? Why???
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599

21st June 2012, 04:37 PM	#8506
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,666	Originally Posted by Óðinn Geez it's been awhile since I posted here. River, here's a composite from a graphic from your blog. On the right I added an expanded view of Roger casting the track. 1) Where is the stick/shadow in the 2nd reel frame? 2) Do you expect me to buy that Roger moved all that debris (bottom left in frame) before he shot the 2nd reel footage? Really? Why??? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...39711e79d8.gif I still await your bug video. 1) the stick/shadow is not present in the footage showing an overview of the prints. 2) I don't expect you to buy anything. Why did Roger have to move it? Could it have been Gimlin? The wind? A passing raccoon? Who knows what or who moved it. It's not present. The locations are the same.
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,666	Last edited by River; 21st June 2012 at 04:38 PM.

21st June 2012, 07:36 PM	#8507
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	All that debris ? Why move it? Why not ? What's so hard about believing someone moved bits of trash out of a film site?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

21st June 2012, 07:38 PM	#8508
I am Bigfoot Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 307	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch What good is discussing it with people who aren't even open to the idea of it existing. It would mean no matter how much material is discussed I would always get the same opinion from the other side. Maybe because that is the right opinion? It doesn't matter HOW MUCH material you bring, it is the quality that matters. Quote: I'm open to the PGF being hoaxed. If the proper evidence can be brought forward showing it's a hoax then i'm all for it, but right now the film and BobH's contradictions speak differently. Translation: The PGF is a really crappy film of a still unproven-to-exist creature taken by some shady guys under shady circumstances and that is good enough proof for me! People are telling you to read the probably 500 pages or so discussing this film. That isn't really necessary. Just find the bits with SweatyYeti and his(?) analysis of proportions of Patty and Bob H.

21st June 2012, 07:41 PM	#8509
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	Never mind. I don't want to give away the surprise.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986 Last edited by GT/CS; 21st June 2012 at 07:44 PM.

21st June 2012, 07:42 PM	#8510
I am Bigfoot Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 307	Originally Posted by GT/CS You're right, Sweaty's analysis will definitely prove to anyone who reads it that Patty is a bloke in a suit!!! Damn it. Don't give away the surprise.

22nd June 2012, 01:02 AM	#8511
fleabeetle Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 424	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg It's unfortunate that all the links to the old BFF are dead ... There were some great discussions there.. If I have things rightly, it has become sort-of possible to get at the old BFF's archives once more. Very much "sort-of": one needs to be registered on BFF, and to get BFF "premium membership". This both involves paying a fee, and requires one to have a "new BFF" post count of at least 100. Frustratingly, that cuts me out; I spend a certain amount of time on BFF and occasionally post there, but my post count is only 60-some.

22nd June 2012, 07:20 AM	#8512
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,696	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg All that debris ? Why move it? Why not ? What's so hard about believing someone moved bits of trash out of a film site? I believe you can still see the trash or remnants of it on the edge of the frame in the video. http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?fs8xhnsele85s6l
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

22nd June 2012, 01:24 PM	#8513
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg All that debris ? Why move it? Why not ? What's so hard about believing someone moved bits of trash out of a film site? Not only move it, but smooth out the area you took it from so it would seem like nothing was moved. That's nuts. Same goes for the stick/shadow. Do you see ANY disturbances suggesting anything was moved? Didn't think so. Why move anything? What would be the motive? Don't you think there is enough doubt here so that River's blog is false advertising? Do YOU think this is proof the PGF was hoaxed?
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599	Last edited by Óðinn; 22nd June 2012 at 01:26 PM.

22nd June 2012, 01:27 PM	#8514
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 I believe you can still see the trash or remnants of it on the edge of the frame in the video. http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?fs8xhnsele85s6l Really???
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599

22nd June 2012, 01:36 PM	#8515
fleabeetle Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 424	Originally Posted by fleabeetle If I have things rightly, it has become sort-of possible to get at the old BFF's archives once more. Very much "sort-of": one needs to be registered on BFF, and to get BFF "premium membership". This both involves paying a fee, and requires one to have a "new BFF" post count of at least 100. Frustratingly, that cuts me out; I spend a certain amount of time on BFF and occasionally post there, but my post count is only 60-some. Have just learnt -- BFF's requirement here, has been (as of 15th June) reduced to a count of 75 posts. Here, this puts me in with a chance !