Jump to content

What Would It Take.....?


Recommended Posts

I can't agree that we can write off Bob 100%. I just don't know.

We can proclaim that Bob is 100% out of the picture and we can be convinced that Bob is 100% out of the picture, but that's not the same as proof. What we can do in any scenario (in my opinion) is make an informed choice based on the evidence. In this case I can't make one on what has been presented.

Various things such as RP's 'Storyboard' for example (as well as a bunch of other things) have over the years led me to make the informed choice that I believe the PGF may well be an elaborate hoax. I don't know that it is but that's how it stacks up for me at this point.

My opinion in the absence of firm facts. Others mileage may vary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I am skeptical of all purported evidence. I am however inclined based on my own research and others believe that the film does depict a live animal. I have issues with no specimen and no fossil record. I do admit that there were probably many Gigantopithecus. There is only a few fossils of them as well. Back on subject. Bob Gimlin is the one who could convince me the film was an elaborate hoax.

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Glad it works for you. But it doesn't work for everybody.

Tell me about it. There are those who have a need to 'believe' it was Bob H in a suit and they have a need to 'believe' he can't be ruled out. They just won't listen to the facts and the facts are he isn't telling the truth. This is completely proven. I can't see why anyone still gives him the benefit of the doubt, even if they think the film was a hoax. If I were a hoax proponent I would have abandoned Bob H many years ago.

I can't agree that we can write off Bob 100%. I just don't know.

We can proclaim that Bob is 100% out of the picture and we can be convinced that Bob is 100% out of the picture, but that's not the same as proof. What we can do in any scenario (in my opinion) is make an informed choice based on the evidence. In this case I can't make one on what has been presented.

It's a PROVEN FACT that Bob H is not telling the truth.

I won't even mention the physical differences in proportion, or the many story changes concerning the 'suit' or what he did before or aftewards.........but it is a FACT that the creek wasn't dry, that they were not off the road in a spot where people coming up the road couldn't see them, that Patterson was not sitting on his horse deliberately shaking the camera while filming, that summer 1967 was not the first time Bob H knew and worked with Roger Patterson concerning bigfoot etc etc etc. All these are 100% confirmed facts and mean Bob H was not telling the truth.

Bob H has clearly never been to Bluff Creek in his life and doesn't have a clue about the film site or the layout of events. He worked with Roger Patterson on Patterson's abandoned spring 1967 movie and that was all.

Edited by Kerchak
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a PROVEN FACT that Bob H is not telling the truth.

Than you for the bolded proclamation. I see possible untruths on both sides of the story. I also see misinformation, deliberate misdirection and ill-informed opinion. My informed choice on Bob is that I'm undecided as a result. Nor do I particularly care to be honest. Neither do I claim to have all the answers.

Edit - apologies for carrying on the derail.

Edited by John
Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, I just don't know. And personally, it seems any scientific view would come to the same conclusion at this point with the evidence presented to date.

Emotionally, I want the film to be real. Objectively, there are attributes of the film that I think help substantiate the film to be genuine. Looking at just the film on its own and nothing else, I'd say I am 80% convinced it is real. The 20% is predicated on the diaper illusion I see, and hairy breasts.

The circumstantial evidence on the other hand...mostly leads me to believe the film could be an elaborate hoax. The timing issues with film development. The whole thing seeming too good to be true. I am not sure what Bob H has to gain, other than media attention. And I do see what Mrs. Patterson and Gimlin have to lose financially if the film is a hoax.

In just my humble opinion, and trying to put myself in Bob G's shoes, I would think I'd adamantly want to publicly expose Bob H if he's lying. On the surface, I cannot think of a valid enough reason to deter me from doing this. If I believe what I saw to be real, I'd be pi*@ed if someone was calling me a phony. And I'd expose them.

I just want the truth. Even if it isn't the truth I'm hoping it is. If it's real, without question it is the single most important piece of film in human history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Than you for the bolded proclamation. I see possible untruths on both sides of the story.

It's not 'possible' untruths on Bob H's side John. They are 100% PROVEN untruths. It's a FACT that Bob H has been caught out not telling the truth many many times.

If you chose to not accept that, then you really aren't looking at this objectively. Bob H has ZERO evidence he was ever even in Northern California in 1967.

In just my humble opinion, and trying to put myself in Bob G's shoes, I would think I'd adamantly want to publicly expose Bob H if he's lying. On the surface, I cannot think of a valid enough reason to deter me from doing this.

Bob Gimlin has already stated that Bob H was not in any suit at Bluff Creek. Most people don't believe him (Gimlin) anyway and he can't 'prove' Patty was a sasquatch so what on earth can he do? Besides, he's long since given up trying to persuade the skeptics. He really no longer cares any more. He's already had nearly 40 years of people disbelieving him even before Bob H and his claptrap came along.

I just want the truth

Then ignore Bob H for starters because he certainly ISN'T 'telling the truth' and has been caught out many many times.

The skeptics need a new 'suit guy'. Good luck with that.

Edited by Kerchak
Link to post
Share on other sites

For non believers to believe the film depicts a genuine unknown species?

For believers to believe the film to be nothing more than an elaborate hoax?

for the skeptics, a real specimen that looks similar the to PGF creature.

for the believers, admissions from Bob Gimlin and Patty Patterson

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you chose to not accept that, then you really aren't looking at this objectively. Bob H has ZERO evidence he was ever even in Northern California in 1967.

My apologies - I had forgotten what a paragon of objectivity and even-handedness you are regarding the PGF. Always willing to consider both sides of the argument rather than only accepting information that supports your preconceived beliefs and rejecting 100% anything that runs contrary to that. Feel free to post another machine-gun full of bolded proclamations to prove your point.

Death to the Unbelievers!

Apologies to OP for derail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

My apologies - I had forgotten what a paragon of objectivity and even-handedness you are regarding the PGF.

Talk about not grasping the point. You CANNOT be 'even handed' when comparing Bob H to Patterson and Gimlin.

Bob H's DOZENS of flubs, self contradictions, untruths and downright physical impossibilities are in a league of their own. He has been PROVEN to not be telling the truth about many many things. Patterson and Gimlin haven't been. There is no serious evidence Heironimus was ever anywhere near Northern California in 1967.

Tell me John, do you seriously still give Bob H the benefit of the doubt when he claims silly things like the creek was dry and Roger Patterson was sitting on his horse deliberately waving and shaking the camera while filming him?

Seriously? You think he might be telling the truth?

:o

Does it truly seem to you more like he is relating personal events that he himself experienced or does it seem more to you that he is simply looking at the PGF on his t.v and coming up with his claims based on that and that alone and that's why he thought Patterson was on his horse waving the camera, that the sand was 'white as snow', that the creek was dry and that they were off the road a ways in a spot where peeps coming up the road couldn't see them? Etc etc.

Always willing to consider both sides of the argument rather than only accepting information that supports your preconceived beliefs and rejecting 100% anything that runs contrary to that.

How about you try arguing the point and not the poster for a change?

Again, answer me this question. Forget pointing fingers at me and lets talk about the PGF. Do you think Bob H was telling the truth when he claimed the creek bed was dry, that Patterson was filming from his horse waving the camera, that they were off the road always in a spot where nobody coming up the road could see them yadda yadda yadda? If so, what do you base your 'belief' on? Because the actual film proves otherwise.

You can take it to the Bob Heironimus threads if you wish. That is what they are there for.

Feel free to post another machine-gun full of bolded proclamations to prove your point.

Proclamations that are proven fact you mean?

LOL, and what have you got against bolded words anyway? That's what the function is there for. To highlight the point.

Death to the Unbelievers!

Um I don't advocate death to anyone. I'm not akin to an Islamic Extremist. You seem to be getting your transcript from Kitakaze. He hated bolded words and likened 'footers to Islamic fundamentalist as well. Too funny!!

Apologies to OP for derail.

Why keep apologizing for something you are continuing to do over and over again. It's clear you aren't really sorry haha.

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Um I don't advocate death to anyone. I'm not akin to an Islamic Extremist. You seem to be getting your transcript from Kitakaze. He hated bolded words and likened 'footers to Islamic fundamentalist as well. Too funny!!

No, it's not funny at all. I never mentioned religion or any particular kind of religious fundamentalism. I wasn't even thinking about it. It was meant as a humorous comment at imaginary and exaggerated bigfoot belief. I imagined folks would see that rather than attempt to twist it to mean something far more sinister in implication. I take great offence at that. Though perhaps I should have had more sense in the first place.

I'm certainly not interested in furthering this 'argument' in another thread. It's been rehashed over and over for years. Apparently you are not satisfied that I say (in posts #14 & #17) that I'm not a Bob supporter and that my opinion is that I am undecided on the evidence I have read over the years. It appears to me that to be objective I must agree with your 100% cut and dried rejection.

Yes I meant that I was sorry for the continued derail, but you were the one that wouldn't let my opinions drop until I agreed with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here we go. I knew that my quip was intended harmlessly and was likely from some obscure comedy reference stuck in my mind. It's from Monty Frikken Python for goodness sake!

ARTHUR: This is the Messiah, the Chosen One!

SIMON: No, he's not.

BRIAN: Aaaagh!

ARTHUR: An unbeliever!

FOLLOWERS: An unbeliever!

ARTHUR: Persecute! Kill the heretic!

FOLLOWERS: Kill the heretic! Kill him! Persecute! Kill!...

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Evil Ken wrote:

In just my humble opinion, and trying to put myself in Bob G's shoes, I would think I'd adamantly want to publicly expose Bob H if he's lying. On the surface, I cannot think of a valid enough reason to deter me from doing this.

Bob Gimlin could have exposed this "hoax"...(or at least threatened to)...after being cut-out of the profits from the Film, by Roger......yet he didn't.

Can you think of a valid reason to deter Bob from doing that?? :)

The fact of the matter is....if the Film is a hoax, then Bob Gimlin would have been working from 'a position of strength'....and, if the Film is legit....he would have been working from 'a position of weakness'.

Bob Gimlin's actions, and non-actions, many years ago...speak much more strongly towards the latter...that he was working from a position of weakness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

No, it's not funny at all. I never mentioned religion or any particular kind of religious fundamentalism. I wasn't even thinking about it. It was meant as a humorous comment at imaginary and exaggerated bigfoot belief. I imagined folks would see that rather than attempt to twist it to mean something far more sinister in implication. I take great offence at that.

And you couldn't see that I was being sarcastic and humorous in response? I was chuckling at your comment, not getting angry at it. It amused me as it sounded like the same spiel Kitakaze always pulled. That's why I wrote "too funny".

But anyway I saw no smiles and no "LOLs" in your comment. Nevermind.

I'm certainly not interested in furthering this 'argument' in another thread.

Now why doesn't that surprise me? None of you Bob H defenders/those that think it's possible he might be telling the truth ever do. You all stay well clear of his flubs and proven untruths. You just up and leave when you are asked pertinent questions. You still haven't given me straight answers to perfectly reasonable questions regarding what is proven by the film itself.

Apparently you are not satisfied that I say (in posts #14 & #17) that I'm not a Bob supporter

But you still give him the benefit of the doubt, clearly. Or at least think it's possible he was telling the truth, don't you? Or am I wrong here?

Yes I meant that I was sorry for the continued derail, but you were the one that wouldn't let my opinions drop until I agreed with you.

I'm just pointing out that you are wrong. We can 100% prove that Bob H has not told the truth about many many things concerning the PGF and the fact that you don't appear to want to accept this tells me everything about your non objective standpoint when it comes to the Bob H claim.

Edited to correct really bad spelling mistakes.

Edited by Kerchak
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...