Jump to content
Guest tallmonkey

If Bob Gimlin Professed The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

Gimlin didn't make the PGF.

In that regard, Heironimus would be more a part of it than Gimlin.

Prove it.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for, Sweaty. Do you want proof Gimlin would have had a lesser role in the PGF than Heironimus, or do you want proof Heironimus was in the PGF. If it's the latter you want, I've already detailed how that will become available to you and other PGF proponents.

Regarding a confession from Bob Gimlin, let's say he's just confessed and he just told you Heironimus was Patty. He's too ashamed and embarrassed now to talk to anyone and he wants to be left alone. You know this is not from someone else and you know Gimlin was not forced to make an untrue statement. Boom, Bob Heironimus was Patty, Gimlin said so. Gimlin won't talk more than that.

So do you go about villifying him equally or what should actually be quite a lot more compared to what you've done for Heironimus? At least Heironimus came forward to tell you about it and then was promptly demonized by Bigfooters. He wasn't doing the convention circuit prior to that and working the crowd as Gimlin has. If Gimlin in one fell swoop vindicated Heironimus, but didn't want anything to do with talking any more about it, is he going to get helping of Heironimus-style hate from you?

And was the Georgia hoax a crime, Sweaty?

Also, finally, could you please answer in the Poser 7/Daz Studio thread this question?

Your welcome. Does the scaling on the wall and thus the camera perspective change in a way that affects the foreshortening of the figure in a way that nullifies the physical recreation of the Poser 7 skeleton?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

"Creature" is ambiguous?

Wheelie:

let me google that for you:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100507204001AA41Uet

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100507204001AA41Uet

and

2 Corinthians 5:17:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallmonkey

I'm close to believing the PGF is a hoax now. If Bob Gimlin were to proclaim the film a hoax, it would push things over the edge for me. But I would still have some major questions. The main one being, how did they make the tracks and how did they get the bottom of the feet to look so much like the casts? That mystifies me. The creature appears to be making the tracks that Roger and Bob ended up casting later. If the film is a hoax, how was that done? (Maybe we can take that question to another thread if it hasn't been done already...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

I'm close to believing the PGF is a hoax now. If Bob Gimlin were to proclaim the film a hoax, it would push things over the edge for me. But I would still have some major questions. The main one being, how did they make the tracks and how did they get the bottom of the feet to look so much like the casts? That mystifies me. The creature appears to be making the tracks that Roger and Bob ended up casting later. If the film is a hoax, how was that done? (Maybe we can take that question to another thread if it hasn't been done already...)

tmonk

Patterson had apparently made at least two versions of his stompers in the past, as documented in Greg Long's book, The Making of Bigfoot. According to the camera store owner, the second version looked almost like a huge human foot. The "feet" we see in the PGF look like huge human feet, also, but I don't think we can say much more about them, given the resolution of the film. I can't tell you what sort of feet came with the Morris costume, or whether or not Patterson altered them, or whether he would have made another set of stompers, or altered the ones he already had. We can certainly say that Patterson was an energetic creative 'crafty' person who was obsessed with bigfoot and the film project, and had no job to go to, in terms of time to devote to this project.

Second, as to how they made the tracks, we know that Patterson had practiced making tracks previously, not to mention the fact that on two previous occasions, and possibly three, he suspiciously showed up in remote locations the day after giant human-like tracks were found (Laird Meadows, Walla Walla, and Mt. St. Helens). In other words, Patterson had spent a lot of time and effort making stompers and practicing their use. If you live near a stream, you can discover how easy it is to sink into sand bars if the substrate is wet. Not only do you sink in, but the substrate oozes into the cracks and crevices between your toes, making an imprint that is much different than what you would get walking on dry hard ground. This is the kind of imprint that appears in the so called second reel. A slightly elevated sand bar next to a flowing stream allows you to choose the degree of moisture you desire, and even add moisture if you wish, knowing that if you then make tracks and wait a few hours or a day or two, the water will drain out of the sand, and the substrate will then become hard again.

Third, if you look at the material compiled by River, you will see that the second reel footage seems to have been filmed BEFORE the supposed date of the PGF, and the trackway appears to have been hoaxed, because the imprint which appears beyond the casted imprint, was not there when Patterson was pouring the plaster ie it was created AFTER the rest of the filmed tracks.

p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tallmonkey

Third, if you look at the material compiled by River, you will see that the second reel footage seems to have been filmed BEFORE the supposed date of the PGF, and the trackway appears to have been hoaxed, because the imprint which appears beyond the casted imprint, was not there when Patterson was pouring the plaster ie it was created AFTER the rest of the filmed tracks.

p.

What??? You totally lost me with your third point here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Third, if you look at the material compiled by River, you will see that the second reel footage seems to have been filmed BEFORE the supposed date of the PGF, and the trackway appears to have been hoaxed, because the imprint which appears beyond the casted imprint, was not there when Patterson was pouring the plaster ie it was created AFTER the rest of the filmed tracks.

When River can present the elusive rake and water can that his theory relies on, and a logical reason to change the terrain surrounding the tracks, then I'll start taking it more seriously. Otherwise they're just poor excuses for a very weak theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

What??? You totally lost me with your third point here...

see this site for River's work.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

including a satisfactory explanation for how they created a suit that still can't be replicated today.

There's a difference between a suit that has not been replicated today versus a suit that cannot be replicated today. That it has not been replicated does not automatically mean that it is not possible to replicate it. Someone has to really want to replicate it enough to try, and if they fail, then you have your "can't". It is just as easy to propose that it can be replicated, but simply hasn't because of the lack of motivation to do so.

Back to the topic. I would believe him if he admitted it. I think that a lot of people would not believe him, suspecting that he had some gun to his head to lie about it being faked, due to a commitment to believing Patty is the real deal so firmly that even an admission would not shake the faith.

However, I also don't think Gimlin would admit it, as he has many friends who are believers, and it would break their hearts. It would be like coming clean about having an affair, why do it, why tell the truth if the truth hurts people. But if it was a hoax and someone found out for sure and he had no other option to maintain the story that it was real, he'd probably take the fifth. Maybe break down and say the only reason he maintained the legend was because of all the good people, all the good friends, and not wanting to hurt them with the truth. Like an evangelist confessing to having a long lasting affair with a prostitute. Fun while it lasted, knowing it was essentially wrong, not figuring it would really hurt anyone, especially if they never found out. But Bob confessing would seriously damage a LOT of people's hopes, dreams, beliefs, trust, their sense of center in a questionable world. I can't see him admitting to anything that might upset that world. If proof of a hoax came out and he was left looking like a fraud, he'd hang his head, say how sorry he was, and become a recluse. Maybe write a book, a doozy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

At this point , I really don't see alot of hopes and dreams getting dashed . Bob's standing in the world of Bigfoot has given him many friends who have had multiple encounters and their worldview is not in question . His role in a historical event would go south . But I really don't think the man lives on the opinions of others . There's a big difference between the trouble iinconsiderate people cause you and wanting them to like you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...