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

Twist

Hard to argue those points Okie and I’d agree, he would be able to fill in a lot of holes.  Thanks Okie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Gimlin's in too deep to come clean about the hoax at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
15 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Gimlin's in too deep to come clean about the hoax at this point.

 

Agreed if it is in fact a hoax.  I’m curious though how many proponents are so entrenched in their belief that they would not believe the man himself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I can think of at least 3 or 4 on this board that would not believe a Gimlin confession.

 

But, as I said yesterday, the PGF reveal will not come from Gimlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
47 minutes ago, Twist said:

Agreed if it is in fact a hoax.  I’m curious though how many proponents are so entrenched in their belief that they would not believe the man himself.  

 

Not automatically.   It depends on how the purported confession came to my attention.   I would not accept it if it came via a scoftic source with a track record of spinning information into disinformation. 

 

If i were able to sit down with Bob, in private, and have a lengthy conversation, ask a lot of questions .. maybe.   The film does not stand alone in a vacuum, if it were a hoax there are many, MANY details that require counter explanations that currently have not been provided.   Without those counter-explanations provided in a satisfactory manner, in appropriate context, no, I would doubt the confession were honest, I'd figure someone "got to Bob".  

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I think your question does not contain enough detail to even consider, Twist.  If BG just came out and said "Oh, btw, it was a hoax" and refused to say anything else at all (a scenario which I give exactly zero chance of ever happening) then I would have a difficult time believing that.  After-all, that would have to mean that he had been lying for over 50 years and suddenly decided to tell the truth, but not back it up.  If, however, it had been a hoax (no way) and if BG had been involved in the hoax (no way) then he would certainly have enough information to make almost anyone believe just that.  So, it's a hypothetical question which, imo, just doesn't work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Both very fair points MIB and Xspider.  I did not want to lay out to strict of guidelines in the scenario other than Gimlin was of clear mind.  No illness or dementia that would tarnish a confession.  I agree that simply saying it was a hoax would be insufficient and details would need to be provided to bolster the claim after so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Yes, I'm glad you see our point, Twist.  If that were to ever happen (again, zero chance, imo), one question then would again be: How did they develop, or come up with a costume which defies recreation and in fact defies even an explanation to this day?  Movies are huge (or, 'UGE': ) business as we all know.  Monster movies are popular and the subject of Bigfoot is a pretty big deal in and of itself.  So, why in the world would Hollywood (and everyone else) not want to make a Bigfoot monster as realistic as Patty if they could?  The answer to me is simple: they would if they could, but they can't, so they don't.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

The developing timeline question is at the top of my list.  The suit I can see as a good suit and poor camera quality and catching the right light/shade when filming.  The proportions I’m puzzled on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling
2 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ Yes, I'm glad you see our point, Twist.  If that were to ever happen (again, zero chance, imo), one question then would again be: How did they develop, or come up with a costume which defies recreation and in fact defies even an explanation to this day?  Movies are huge (or, 'UGE': ) business as we all know.  Monster movies are popular and the subject of Bigfoot is a pretty big deal in and of itself.  So, why in the world would Hollywood (and everyone else) not want to make a Bigfoot monster as realistic as Patty if they could?  The answer to me is simple: they would if they could, but they can't, so they don't.  

 

The problem is only two or three people (the hoaxers) have ever seen the suit up close. The rest of us have had to put up with shaky, grainy and 'say what you think you see.'

 

Closer scrutiny would make even those who claim zero chance of a hoax see what the rest of the world sees. And no, that's no 'hernia.'

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
5 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Agreed if it is in fact a hoax.  I’m curious though how many proponents are so entrenched in their belief that they would not believe the man himself.  

The P/G film has no relevance to my belief in the existence of BF.    I am not a film analyst,  film maker,   costume expert or anthropologist and I certainly was not present in 1967 when the film was made.   So as a scientist I cannot state with a high degree of certainly that the film and Patty are authentic.      Educated as a scientist I found the film interesting,  some of the arguments by scientist proponents had merit,  but the film and what documentation exists are hardly conclusive.   Certainly not to the standard of  acceptance of existence required by science.   The film alone cannot now or ever provide that.     I entered bigfoot field research out of curiosity with a great deal of skepticism, figuring that living in Washington State, surrounded by sighting report locations, if there was anything there,  I would either find something or nothing was there to find.    I expected to find nothing.  Certainly "Finding Bigfoot" was not having any luck.      Field work evidence alone has convinced me personally that Sasquatch exists and that is totally independent of the validity of the film.       I can see if all of someones belief in existence was based on the film, where a recantation by Bob Gimlin would be a serious problem.    My issue with Bob would be that he misled me in private conversations.  However at this point in time,   I cannot understand why he would do that, when it would have been far better for him and his family to declare it a hoax when Roger was showing the film and not sharing the profits,   and the town was laughing at the two of them for what they said they saw.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

xspider1,

 

Agreed, the movie angle is interestin'. How did he create a suit that Hollywood couldn't ?

 

Twist,

 

"..a good suit and poor camera quality.." We have to remember, the folks in the business at the time viewed the film, an I'm sure we all know what they said regardin' recreatin' it. 

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
6 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

xspider1,

 

Agreed, the movie angle is interestin'. How did he create a suit that Hollywood couldn't ?

 

Twist,

 

"..a good suit and poor camera quality.." We have to remember, the folks in the business at the time viewed the film, an I'm sure we all know what they said regardin' recreatin' it. 

 

Pat...

 

So what’s your take Pat IF Gimlin came out and said it was a hoax all along? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

 

still waiting for BobHieronimus to confess to that which should be obvious to everyone.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
16 minutes ago, Starling said:

 

The problem is only two or three people (the hoaxers) have ever seen the suit up close. The rest of us have had to put up with shaky, grainy and 'say what you think you see.'

 

Closer scrutiny would make even those who claim zero chance of a hoax see what the rest of the world sees. And no, that's no 'hernia.'

 

 

 

 

The clearest image we have from the pgf is an estimated hundred or so feet away. Of course the suit would look quite different up close.

 

Anyone who's ever ridden a tram through Universal Studios can confirm that Jaws looks much less realistic and menacing up close than it does on the big screen.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...