Jump to content
xspider1

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

You people forget that some of us know and have talked to Bob before about all of this.    He is not going to admit hoax.     I am surprised he has not decked a few people for calling him a hoaxer.    Squatchy I did not say you were stupid but what you did was a stupid act.    You submitted evidence not knowing what it's true origin was.     I am at a distinct advantage compared with skeptics.        My pictures are mine.   I do not have to root around and look for other peoples pictures to support my arguments.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

What if he did SWW?  What if contrary to your opinion that he not going to, what if he goes on official record tomorrow that it was in fact a hoax.  Do you believe him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I find it amazing that people who have never met Bob are such experts on him.   The thought of him in a Patty costume is ridiculous.    He is so short that he would look like a big teddy bear compared to Patty.   When he talks privately about the years immediately after the film was released and his treatment by the local townspeople, there is a lot of hurt there.    He and Roger were not exactly on good terms in that time frame either.    If Roger had been part of a hoax he would have told all because Roger had cut him out of the money the film made.   It did not happen then and it will not happen now.     

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

So you are unwilling to even imagine the scenario and respond?  It’s ok if you choose not to.  

 

Who in their right mind ever suggested Gimlin was the one actually in the suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

I read somewhere the "Confessions Exist"     Guess not.

 

Roger is gone

Gimlin isn't going to be around forever.

 

The film is 50 years old.  We are running out of suspects who could confess to anything.

 

Apart from the actual suit appearing in a convincing way I doubt there would be any confession.  

 

I will make this prediction-  Shortly after Bob Gimlin passes away some day, others will "confess" all matter of lies about Gimlin who wont be around to defend himself.  You just know there will be some 'friend' who will say how "Bob one night told me the whole thing was a hoax Yadda yadda"

 

Not Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Gimlin in the suit has been suggested so often on this thread that I am really surprised you said that.    But you are correct about anyone being in their right mind to suggest that.        If Bob knew it was a hoax he would have stated that to hurt Patterson when Roger was making money from the film and he was not.  That is how human nature works.   It is a testament to Bob's integrity that he did not lie about and call it a hoax it when it would hurt Roger the most, when the money was coming in showing the film.     He had nothing to gain about supporting a hoax and would have been treated far better by the local townspeople if he had accused Roger of hoaxing.  Through it all his story was the same:    they saw a large ape like creature in the woods near Willow Creek.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Guess I have to read this thread again because I don’t recall Gimlin in the actual suit being an option.  Guess I must be mistaken though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Response from earlier point:

 

If Gimlin admitted a hoax Gimlin could tell more to the story.  Those additional details of the rest of the story would convince most people.   

 

I am sure we are both assuming Gimlin would be in decent health/ sound mind and not under heavy meds. 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
8 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

Response from earlier point:

 

If Gimlin admitted a hoax Gimlin could tell more to the story.  Those additional details of the rest of the story would convince most people.   

 

I am sure we are both assuming Gimlin would be in decent health/ sound mind and not under heavy meds. 

Correct, healthy mind, thinking clearly.  Just curious how most proponents would respond.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

So by your own admonition you presented a 1963 picture as evidence for the P/G film debate not knowing what the source of the picture was?     I don't think stupidity is a defense against hoaxing.   I think you just blew any credibility you had left.  

 

 

If Squatchy had any credibility, at all....then, I feel sorry for those folks, who gave him any.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Gimlin in the suit has been suggested so often on this thread that I am really surprised you said that.    But you are correct about anyone being in their right mind to suggest that.        If Bob knew it was a hoax he would have stated that to hurt Patterson when Roger was making money from the film and he was not.  That is how human nature works.   It is a testament to Bob's integrity that he did not lie about and call it a hoax it when it would hurt Roger the most, when the money was coming in showing the film.     He had nothing to gain about supporting a hoax and would have been treated far better by the local townspeople if he had accused Roger of hoaxing.  Through it all his story was the same:    they saw a large ape like creature in the woods near Willow Creek.  

 

Gimlin in the suit has not been mentioned even a single time in this thread, let alone often.

 

More empty footer rhetoric.

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Guess I have to read this thread again because I don’t recall Gimlin in the actual suit being an option.  Guess I must be mistaken though.  

 

No need to re-read the thread Twist.

 

Just search 'Gimlin' within this topic. 110 search results over 5 pages.

 

Not a single mention of Gimlin wearing the suit, let alone "suggested often" as swwasas has claimed.

 

Honest mistake or fabricating a claim? You be the judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I am sorry I am again a victim of logic.  Something this thread seems to lack at times.      How many times does "bloke in a suit" come up?    Some people claim others wore it but you said,   " I never said BobH was Patty. I'm using him as a human example."  Rule him out then.   Morris is mentioned but Bob H and Morris have no evidence they were at the film site other than decades later claims.   Claimed suit wearers have pretty much flunked fact checks about the film site.      We are instructed to ignore witness claims anyway.         Roger is accepted as the one behind the camera.     Most people even skeptics,   acknowledge  Bob Gimlin as present.      Bob is proclaimed by several to have to have been in on the hoax.     If Roger and Bob were the only ones there,   it had to have been Bob in the costume especially if the the film was hoaxed.   I think that is stronger than suggested often.       I read most of the thread and now have a headache.     I am out of here.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
36 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I am sorry I am again a victim of logic.  Something this thread seems to lack at times.     

 

 

The thread sure doesn't lack scoffers.  :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

I am sorry I am again a victim of logic.  Something this thread seems to lack at times.      How many times does "bloke in a suit" come up?    Some people claim others wore it but you said,   " I never said BobH was Patty. I'm using him as a human example."  Rule him out then.   Morris is mentioned but Bob H and Morris have no evidence they were at the film site other than decades later claims.   Claimed suit wearers have pretty much flunked fact checks about the film site.      We are instructed to ignore witness claims anyway.         Roger is accepted as the one behind the camera.     Most people even skeptics,   acknowledge  Bob Gimlin as present.      Bob is proclaimed by several to have to have been in on the hoax.     If Roger and Bob were the only ones there,   it had to have been Bob in the costume especially if the the film was hoaxed.   I think that is stronger than suggested often.       I read most of the thread and now have a headache.     I am out of here.      

 

A victim of logic? Poor you :(

 

Swwasas: in your post 4 hours ago you claimed that "Gimlin in the suit has been suggested so often on this thread..."

 

Perhaps you were confused and meant to type 'Heironimous' instead of Gimlin. That would be a perfect example of an honest mistake, if that's the case.

 

But let's be clear that no one has suggested Gimlin was in the suit. 

 

Your statement about "claimed suit wearers" intrigues me by it's plurality. BobH is the only person who claims to have worn the suit. No one else has made the claim.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Introducing....the BOB-sey Twin... :lol:  ...

 

Bobsey_Twin1.jpg

 

 

Note the "identical" contours of the right legs. 

 

I'll be posting more about this aspect of Patty......someday. :) 

And......a little somethin' special, just for Squatchy......."A Bloke in a JOKE".... :lol:  ...

 

 

Blokeina_Joke1.jpg

 

 

Share this post


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

×