Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[jerrywayne]

FYI,

At Cryptomundo, Roger K. was once referred to as Bigfoot lore's leading "Intellectual" by Loren Coleman. I remember reading a piece by RK in which he basically said that the need now in Bigfoot studies was to procure funding, even government funding, to understand the species better. He seemed to be saying it is a waste of time to argue for or against Bigfoot's existence (we are beyond that). He also coined the term "scoftic" relating to Bigfoot skeptics.

(RK, if I've mischaracterized your views let me know. I'm going on memory on this.)

RK: http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/rogerknights.html

 

[rockinkt]

"Intellectual" as in someone who knows how to spell a lot of words - but doesn't have a clue as to their meaning.

 

[tube]

FYI,

At Cryptomundo, Roger K. was once referred to as Bigfoot lore's leading "Intellectual" by Loren Coleman. I remember reading a piece by RK in which he basically said that the need now in Bigfoot studies was to procure funding, even government funding, to understand the species better. He seemed to be saying it is a waste of time to argue for or against Bigfoot's existence (we are beyond that). He also coined the term "scoftic" relating to Bigfoot skeptics.

(RK, if I've mischaracterized your views let me know. I'm going on memory on this.)

RK: http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/rogerknights.html

"He also coined the term "scoftic" relating to Bigfoot skeptics."

Correct:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/01/12/the-origin-of-the-word-scoftic/

 

[William Parcher]

I'll take credit for previously coining the term "Pattycake" given to those who think she is a real Bigfoot. It also applies to apologetics. A fence-sitter could get that label too because they improperly evaluate the evidence for nonexistence of Bigfoot.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Proud to be a Skoftic..

(.. just added to my dictionary, so I don't get the little red squiggly underline....)

 

[CORed]

The comment of a man who claims to be on the fence regarding the PGF being real or not...



Maybe Tulpas have to slow down before they vanish into thin air... Like, who knows, maaaan?

A special tone allowed him to read and transcribe the gold plates. He doesn't have them now because the anger wanted them back.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

FYI,

At Cryptomundo, Roger K. was once referred to as Bigfoot lore's leading "Intellectual" by Loren Coleman. I remember reading a piece by RK in which he basically said that the need now in Bigfoot studies was to procure funding, even government funding, to understand the species better. He seemed to be saying it is a waste of time to argue for or against Bigfoot's existence (we are beyond that). He also coined the term "scoftic" relating to Bigfoot skeptics.

(RK, if I've mischaracterized your views let me know. I'm going on memory on this.)

RK: http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/rogerknights.html

Not very surprising for a guy who continuously uses the word "disingenuous" before then making overtly disingenuous claims. Coleman is into anyone who'll fly the Bigfoot flag without shame or forethought.

A guy who openly told me to ignore the one part of the film that he claimed "troubled him" and then denied ever saying it, despite me quoting the comment right there for him to see, he then put me on "ignore."

Typical "rinse and repeat" behaviour for a so-called "Bigfoot intellectual" in this weird internet world that we live in.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

A special tone allowed him to read and transcribe the gold plates. He doesn't have them now because the anger wanted them back.

"Roger Knights was called a prophet
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
He started the Patty-bend theory
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb).
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)"

 

[Roger Knights]

FYI,

I remember reading a piece by RK in which he basically said that the need now in Bigfoot studies was to procure funding, even government funding, . . .

That was published in the October 2001 issue of the defunct newsletter, Bigfoot Co-Op. It can be read at http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/RK.htm

. . . to understand the species better. He seemed to be saying it is a waste of time to argue for or against Bigfoot's existence (we are beyond that).

There was no such implication of “to understand the species better” in my article, as you’ll see if you check it out. The gravamen (that’s for you, Rockint) of my charge was that “In order for our side to make its case, it needs the resources to prepare its case” and “. . . this dispute . . . has risen to the level of the social and collective (because of the volume of testimony and the size of the potential benefits)” and "... our side must reconfigure the terms of the debate, away from 'true or false?' and toward 'investigate or not?'" There was no case closed, let’s understand the species better presumption on my part.

BTW, this is an off-topic (non-Heironimus) comment. This is about the 8th time I’ve said this (not to you personally, Jerry).

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome
The comment of a man who claims to be on the fence regarding the PGF being real or not...

Earlier in this exchange I said I was a 2/3 believer (67%) in the PGF, and also that I was on the fence regarding its authenticity. I also said or implied that I had been moving (over the years) in the direction of disbelief in Bigfoot as a whole, from 90% pro to 90% con. My 10% hope on is based on it being supernatural, which is a long shot. I posted here my compilation of 25 Skeptics' arguments against it being real (a natural animal). See comment 3146 on page 79.

Eight or ten years ago, or whenever that Coleman quote was made, I was a stronger believer in the PGF—at about the 95% level. I’ve acknowledged that I’ve moved in the direction of skepticism. So there's no conflict in my claims, just one manufactured by Gilbert Syndrome.

 

[Cervelo]

^^^^
If you say so

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Earlier in this exchange I said I was a 2/3 believer (67%) in the PGF, and also that I was on the fence regarding its authenticity. I also said or implied that I had been moving (over the years) in the direction of disbelief in Bigfoot as a whole, from 90% pro to 90% con. My 10% hope on is based on it being supernatural, which is a long shot. I posted here my compilation of 25 Skeptics' arguments against it being real (a natural animal). See comment 3146 on page 79.

Eight or ten years ago, or whenever that Coleman quote was made, I was a stronger believer in the PGF—at about the 95% level. I’ve acknowledged that I’ve moved in the direction of skepticism. So there's no conflict in my claims, just one manufactured by Gilbert Syndrome.

You've basically said a few times that you're on the fence, only to then go and make a claim that would firmly put you in the camp of believer.

I've already got you quoted a few pages back telling a blatant lie about the "problematic butt" that you chose to ignore. Don't make me start quoting you again, because you've left your inaccurate gibberish all over this thread without even caring about how contradictory you've been. Here you are replying to me, when you've supposedly had me on "ignore," yet another blatant contradiction on your part, Roger, but we've all come to expect it from you now.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Earlier in this exchange I said I was a 2/3 believer (67%) in the PGF, and also that I was on the fence regarding its authenticity. I also said or implied that I had been moving (over the years) in the direction of disbelief in Bigfoot as a whole, from 90% pro to 90% con

Judging by this comment here, you don't seem to be moving in the direction of "disbelief:"

I have been troubled by about half a dozen of the phony-looking aspects of Patty that Skeptics have pointed out. Not all of them—many have been debunked, or are iffy / gray box material. OTOH, the authenticating features seem to me to be more numerous and equally convincing. So again I’m a bit on the fence, though leaning more one way than the other.

Or this:

Well, I think some of the features and motions of Patty come close to being out of the human range. Because of that, Patterson’s character doesn’t count directly against them, except in raising the likelihood of some sort of fakery being involved. But if disbelievers can’t match his fakery—not remotely, after decades—that reduces the likelihood of fakery.

You're "on the fence," yet you appear to be more swayed in favour of it being real, hence my comments...which you tried to deny.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Cervelo]

How about that numerous post discrediting Rogers position!
So Roger has the discussion here changed your position or are you just displaying disingenuous, trollish behaviours?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

How about that numerous post discrediting Rogers position!
So Roger has the discussion here changed your position or are you just displaying a disingenuous, trollish behaviours?

I imagine Roger's forearms must be the size of Lou Ferrigno's with all of that goal-post moving he's been doing in this thread.

Roger "I didn't say that!" Knights.

 

[Crowslogic]

edited

 

[Crowslogic]

Old MK pretty much blew whatever minimal credibility he may have had when he conjured up his massacre fantasy. Interesting that rather than the technology explosion of the past decade and a half adding strength to the possibility of bigfoot being real it merely opened the flood gates and brought the whole thing to new levels of stupid.

 

[Crowslogic]

Eight or ten years ago, or whenever that Coleman quote was made, I was a stronger believer in the PGF—at about the 95% level. I’ve acknowledged that I’ve moved in the direction of skepticism. So there's no conflict in my claims, just one manufactured by Gilbert Syndrome.

Eight or ten years ago I was in the proponent camp. I can thank Melba Ketchum, Todd Standing, Erickson, NAWAC, and a gaggle of other lads and laddies for giving me the ringside seat to peer into the workings of the modern scam that grew out of myth from the seeds that the likes of Roger Patterson and his contemporaries planted. It's not even fun to poke holes in it at this point as it's a bit of an easy target.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

FYI, this guys "on the fence," but he's been swayed further into the camp of disbelief...apparently:

Re: the PGF deniers in FX:

No, because they, including myself, were put off by the apparent uninformed arrogance of those subsequent FX debunkers. They hadn’t apparently, studied the film in any detail. And their collective failure to put their money where their mouth was and produce anything matching a Patty suit soured me and other Bigfooters on them. Few even attempted it, that we know of. All their suits have that phony shag-rug look, not the more sparse and body-revealing look of Patty.

re: me claiming that nobody was actually swayed into believing via the comments of the "Disney experts..."

I just told you that I was swayed

He's so "on the fence" that it's all up in him:

Just replicate a leg with hamstrings, a bulging, shapely calf just before touchdown, toes that rise just before touchdown (to avoid getting stubbed, maybe), a mobile kneecap (per Glickman), etc. Or do the same with an arm and hand; or a torso; or a head.

Or just replicate the walk in a cheap rental gorilla suit. That ought to be easy, right? Greg Long says he can do it and anybody can do it (TMoB, p. 377). Show us (and not in a still photo—that’s easy). It doesn’t have to be shot with the same camera and film and lighting—that’s just an excuse. A replicated walk would have certain gross features similar, such as degree of shank lift, a vertical foot before leg lift, 20% of the time with both feet grounded (vs. 2% for humans), smoothness, traversal of outdoor ground (not an artificially smooth surface, IOW), a lookback without breaking stride, etc. No one would demand replication of Patty’s knock-kneed weird leg positions. No one would demand that the re-enactor cut a few inches off his legs to match leg-to-torso Patty’s proportions.

Need I go on?

Oh, okay...

Re: my mentioning of the Gemora butt-pad:

Maybe that’s the frame(s) we should distrust, not the ones I’ve shown, eh?

Then he claims to actually be troubled by such images, despite previously suggesting that they could be ignored, odd:

On the contrary, I said that the diaper butt and images like it troubled me:

Roger then went on to claim he'd never said any such thing re: ignoring the Gemora comparisons:

@ Gilbert Syndrome in comment #3134:
Everything you write is a lie, even the "and" and the "the." IOW, you are a bad-faith disputant whom I will never read or reply to again.

He's since gone on to reply to me several times, btw!


Roger showing how "on the fence" he is, proving once again that he, erm, is more swayed into the camp of disbelief:

FWIW, I discount the opinions of Baker and Winston, whose films are criticized in: “The Patterson-Gimlin Film: What Makes a ‘Hoax’ Absolutely Genuine?” by “Barry Keith” (pen name), who examines Hollywood’s most prominent ape or Bigfoot films, finding flaws in all compared to Patty. Keith also pours scorn on the scornful comments by Hollywood’s big-name FX workers re the PGF. And he makes the pointed point that none of these bigshots have ventured to match the Patty suit.

Well, I'm convinced, Roger is on the fence and is definitely more swayed by the disbelief camp...if you totally ignore everything I just typed and quoted.

 

[GT/CS]

But he's 90% sure bigfoot is not real. I still can't wrap my brain around that discrepancy.