Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

PBeaton

 

^ He's back to his basic game...try to discredit, make'em look guilty, yada yada, attack their character...thus... ;);)  Do you remember when kitakaze tried to suggest he had a recordin' of Gimlin confessing it was a hoax, to try an cast doubt an make Bob look guilty. It's a game he plays.   

 

"It's his used car salesman routine. Gimlin is no stranger to deception." I don't know if kitakaze was a used car salesman at some point, because we know he's no stranger to deception either.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Yep.  Casting aspersions is a desperate attempt to dis-credit evidence for which there is apparently no argument.  Most PGf scofticism seems to center around a fictitious "diaper-butt", never heard "confessions", never seen suits and failed replication attempts (which are denied later as ever having been replication attempts at all).  it's too funny   

 

kitakaze - do you remember when you told us years ago that you and morris were collaborating on a PGf suit replication and telling us all about your face-melting mockumentary?   That all went by the way-side like every other hollow promise to debunk the film.  Just block that from memory and carry-on I guess. 

que cera cera  8   )
 

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
10 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

What does any of the above have to do with the PGF? And how does it help prove the PGF was faked?

 

Kitakaze just wants people to believe that used car salesmen are snakes and cannot be trusted. It appears that Kitakaze feels that he can judge a persons integrity by the work they do or in this case - did. That is sooooooo whacked in my view!

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I have no personal objection to any of the various jobs Gimlin has done in his life. Being a used car salesman certainly utilizes skills and character traits that Gimlin has no lack of.

 

The claim was made that he has zero deception in him. This is simply not true. He lied, flatly, to Greg Long...

 

Long: "Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you?"

 

Gimlin: "No. Not me. There's about five Robert E. Gimlins."

 

Long: "So you've never been arrested for accepting stolen property."

 

Gimlin: "I've never been arrested for anything, you know. In fact, I'm a good Christian man and I live a Christian life."

 

He could have given the same information that BH shared. He could have simply clarified he was unaware that he had stolen property and wasn't charged. Instead he lied and suggested like it was some other Robert E. Gimlin when he knew full well the case Long was asking about was him and no other person.

 

So much for zero deception.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

If we're going to talk about lying and being deceptive, then we're talking about the wrong Bob. ;)

 

Not to mention that Kitakaze assumes that Long is being honest as to what Gimlin said or that Long actually had spoken to Bob.  The accounting that Gimlin gave me is the same one he has always given and certainly the one he gave the police during their questioning of him. It makes no sense for Bob to say anything differently, but then again it all relies on whether Long has got it right. Maybe Kitakaze can get Long to share the recording that proves that Long even spoke to Gimlin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WV FOOTER

                                                                      MODERATOR STATEMENT

        A Word of Warning, The Personal Attacks will end on this topic or it will be shut down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2016 at 0:06 AM, kitakaze said:

3K bond for stealing plywood? Something isn't right with that story in itself

On 9/4/2016 at 3:24 AM, kitakaze said:

I have no personal objection to any of the various jobs Gimlin has done in his life. Being a used car salesman certainly utilizes skills and character traits that Gimlin has no lack of.

 

The claim was made that he has zero deception in him. This is simply not true. He lied, flatly, to Greg Long...

 

blah blah blah......

 

So much for zero deception.

 

 

 

 

So when are we ever gonna see this "suit" that was allegedly used? So much for that as well.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's not the question which needs to be asked, Aaron. :)

 

Instead, it's a question of what kitakaze saw....or did not see. If kit's story is true, then it should be verifiable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Long states that he's "got a case" where a Gimlin accepted stolen plywood and nails then he immediately asks Gimlin if he was arrested for "stealing stolen property"??  Those are two different things entirely.  Amazing how that story telling is all screwed up from the get-go.  Did Long bother to print the case records or the signed sureties that he claims to have in his book?  Not that any of that would make a hill of beans to me in terms of the PGf, but it would probably have been convincing to anyone who likes to dig up old dirt. 

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 9:34 PM, xspider1 said:

 

kitakaze - do you remember when you told us years ago that you and morris were collaborating on a PGf suit replication and telling us all about your face-melting mockumentary?  

 

I thought Kit did not think Morris had anything to do with any PGF suit.

 

BD

 

???

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

Long states that he's "got a case" where a Gimlin accepted stolen plywood and nails then he immediately asks Gimlin if he was arrested for "stealing stolen property"??  Those are two different things entirely.  Amazing how that story telling is all screwed up from the get-go.  Did Long bother to print the case records or the signed sureties that he claims to have in his book?  Not that any of that would make a hill of beans to me in terms of the PGf, but it would probably have been convincing to anyone who likes to dig up old dirt. 

 

 

Should be something which can be proven by some document which should appear in the book.  Interesting such proof does not appear in the book. How hard should it be to get this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Not sure, BD.  I quit paying much attention to kit's rhetoric years ago because there is apparently nothing to substantiate any of his "face melting" claims.  Still think that Patty is a modified, Halloween quality Morris costume, kit?  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xspider1 said:

Not sure, BD.  I quit paying much attention to kit's rhetoric years ago because there is apparently nothing to substantiate any of his "face melting" claims.  Still think that Patty is a modified, Halloween quality Morris costume, kit?  :lol:

 

 

I would have to find the quote but I more or less asked Kit flat out on one of the BFF topics if he thinks Morris had anything to do with the PGF suit (as he assumes it was some sort of suit). To paraphrase Kit, my impression was he indicated something like Morris was a nice man who just happened to convince himself it is his suit when it is not.  I can't remember where we had the exchange and don't remember the exact quote.  It was mostly my impression.  I don't know how one could find such a response easily on the BFF but it is out there.

 

Obviously if Morris has a suit that was the basis of the suit, it should be easy for him to show one of his catalogs as well as one of the suits. Then show how he thought it was probably altered.  If someone thought they saw one of their 'children' (suit) on TV then it must be obvious.  It should be easy to demonstrate. 

 

One funny side note on this:  When Bob H had the Morris suit offered to him in the Walking Ewok Bigfoot Demo, you would think Bob H would have said, "No this is not the suit  The suit I wore was <Like this or that, or Hand this or that type of whatever>"  In fact, in the Walking Ewok Demo Bob H puts on black eye makeup.  I don't know if he ever even claimed he did this in the original PGF filming event.

 

Chris Walas guesses -but in no way demonstrates at all-- the PGF has a suit which uses hip waders and a snap crotch. Someone needs to tell Walas this is NOT what Hoaxing Heironimus stated and not what Morris stated.  Obviously Morris disagrees with Bob H but he wore the Ewok anyway, and they both disagree with Walas or Walas disagrees with them.

 

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...