Bigfoot – Hoaxer is Shot !!

Skeptical Greg

Agave Wine Connoisseur
Skeptical Greg
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
20,739
Location
Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Bigfoot – Hoaxer is Shot !!




Well Sort of……

I know a lot of you have looked in on the

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

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

JREF Forum member Dfoot , who recently joined to participate in the PGF discussion here, was very active in the
Bigfoot Forums discussion of the Film/Video/Photo/Audio Analysis > Patterson / Gimlin Film,
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 ? )
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Pup said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Dfoot's words:

...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?
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • Dfoot's 1st hoax.jpg
    Dfoot's 1st hoax.jpg
    15 KB · Views: 238
  • Frame 352 PG Film.jpg
    Frame 352 PG Film.jpg
    6.5 KB · Views: 202
Last edited:
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!
 
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?...
Click to expand...

* 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....
Click to expand...


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

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

Was Tube "caught" by Dfoot?
 
Huntster said:
Dfoot's words:
And here is his corresponding photo (look closely at it, and compare it to Pattersons):

attachment.php
__
attachment.php
Click to expand...

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 ..

patty3.jpg



Now who's flipping who ?
 
Last edited:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

So, who did Dfoot "catch"? And what did he catch them doing?
 
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?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Dfoot's 2nd photos.jpg
    Dfoot's 2nd photos.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 77
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.
Click to expand...

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

Looks to me that he caught himself.
 
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.
 
Huntster said:
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.
Click to expand...



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..
 
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.
 
LTC8K6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Should we condemn all sting operations because they involve lies and deceit?
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom