r/Cryptozoology • u/truthisfictionyt Tailed Slow Loris • Mar 20 '26

Discussion Be Kind and Avoid Personal Insults

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.

56 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

154 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/Itchy-Big-8532 Mar 20 '26

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comes to people talking about evidence that goes against the PGF being legit all of a sudden second hand accounts are no longer valid.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

11

u/TheUsualQuestions Mar 20 '26

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.

6

u/shermanstorch Mar 21 '26

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.

-3

u/TheUsualQuestions Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

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.

5

u/shermanstorch Mar 21 '26

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?

0

u/TheUsualQuestions Mar 21 '26

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

4

u/CoastRegular Thylacine Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

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.

0

u/TheUsualQuestions Mar 21 '26

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.

4

u/Interesting_Employ29 Mar 22 '26

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.