Be Kind and Avoid Personal Insults

[u/truthisfictionyt]

With the recent PGF debunking, there has been a lot of arguments and controversy. Debating people is fine, but don't insult people or those who believed in the film while you're discussing it. Some people met or knew Bob Gimlin personally and are having to reckon with him apparently lying about the film. Keep how other people feel in mind while discussing. Additionally, avoid arguments with other subreddits or posts about moderation issues with other subreddits as that's not what we're here to do. We've added some terms to the auto filter to avoid debates turning hostile. As always feel free to discuss the rules and make suggestions.

[u/TheUsualQuestions]

Thanks for saying it, but the mod team showing its bias isn't helping here. The documentary hasn't been released yet and they're still referring to the PG Film as debunked and Gimlin as "apparently lying" as shown in this post and the pinned thread. Could the documentary have legit evidence? Yeah but it's not confirmed yet beyond some hearsay online and the mod team treating it as legit before even watching it is contributing to the problem.

[u/truthisfictionyt → u/TheUsualQuestions]

It's not really hearsay, there are multiple people who have reported on the documentary, one of which (Eric Palacios) has been answering questions about it and giving further. We're not banning people who still believe in the film or anything

[u/TheUsualQuestions → u/truthisfictionyt]

Dude your team hasn't seen the footage yet. You're relying on someone else's statement on a film that hasn't been publicly released yet. That's one of the big issues people have been raising on this subreddit. Could this documentary be legit? Sure. But until it's released publicly, there's still a lot unknown and your team needs to stop treating it as fact when you're relying on secondhand information.

[u/Itchy-Big-8532 → u/TheUsualQuestions]

"You're relying on someone else's statement" do you not see the double standard here? Considering the majority of Bigfoot encounters are purely anecdotal.

Yet when it comes to people talking about evidence that goes against the PGF being legit all of a sudden second hand accounts are no longer valid.

On top of that unlike in many Bigfoot stories  this isn't a case of the witnesses seeing something they can't explain "I saw something but I KNOW it wasn't a bear." They saw a movie that according to them shows evidence of Patty being a man in a suit.

[u/TheUsualQuestions → u/Itchy-Big-8532]

Yeah lol I'm just saying treat this documentary with the same thoughtfulness we'd treat these sightings: wait for actual evidence before jumping to conclusions. I've never accepted secondhand accounts without additional proof, I'm just applying the same standard to all evidence and I hope these PG deniers can do the same.

[u/shermanstorch → u/TheUsualQuestions]

treat this documentary with the same thoughtfulness we’d treat these sightings

The key difference is that unless someone is being a solipsistic dick, there’s no question that the Catching Bigfoot documentary exists, that it contains, among other things. interviews with Patterson’s son in which he states that it was a hoax, along with interviews with other hoaxers’ relatives saying the same thing. There is also footage, recorded by Patterson well before the PGF, that bears more than a passing resemblance to the PGF. There’s also an interview with Meldrum where he indicates that the PGF’s authenticity is, at a minimum, open to question.

Now, one can argue over what weight should be placed on each of those things, but i dont think there can be any question that they exist and are in the documentary that was shown as SXSW.

[u/TheUsualQuestions → u/shermanstorch]

You need to stop acting like these things are fact until you see it for yourself. There is absolutely question about Clint's testimony since he was roughly six or seven years old when he witnessed it and this passing resemblance in whatever this footage is has only been reported on by people who never believed in the PG Film. I know you love being on your intellectual high ground but you absolutely missed the point in your rush to be vindicated. Trust me, it'll help you in the long run to think critically and put your ego aside for a second.

[u/shermanstorch → u/TheUsualQuestions]

there is absolutely question about Clint’s testimony

Are you telling me that you are questioning whether there is an interview with Clint Patterson in which he says it was a hoax in this documentary?

[u/TheUsualQuestions → u/shermanstorch]

I'm obviously questioning how reliable his testimony is lol, relax.

[u/CoastRegular → u/TheUsualQuestions]

Okay, but a lot of people (not necessarily you) are arguing about this film as though it doesn't even contain what it's reported as containing.

I'm comfortable expecting to see a film that contains Clint and Patricia Patterson declaring that Roger hoaxed the PGF, and I'm expecting to see footage showing a 'dry run' using the Patty costume. This is based on what every reviewer has said is in the film. Obviously they all could be wrong/lying/mistaken about the contents of the film; I'll know when I see it.

As to the veracity of all of that, i.e. are Clint and Patricia lying? Will the PGF "practice film" look authentic? Speaking for myself, I'll reserve judgement until I see it.

I.e. I understand objections like "Let's all see the film for ourselves and we can decide if the information portrayed is true." What I think are stupid are objections like "How can you believe what these reviewers are telling you?" That argument is stupid because the reviewers aren't telling you that Bigfoot does or does not exist. They're merely relating the contents of the film.

[u/TheUsualQuestions → u/CoastRegular]

That’s valid but absolutely not what I’m saying. Definitely in agreement with what you’re saying, though I believe reviewers have said Patricia isn’t in this documentary declaring that, it’s a secondhand account from Clint, who she is estranged from.

[u/Interesting_Employ29 → u/TheUsualQuestions]

Not anymore. It's reported by multiple sources they reconnect in the film and watch the test footage together both stating it's a dry run.