Jump to content

Gimlin's 1999 Admission Clinches It


smokingdino
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now...and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger."

Robert Gimlin, 1999

 

Imagine, if you would, that you and a friend were out deep in the woods somewhere when suddenly a huge silverback gorilla came walking out of the forest right before your eyes. A real, live silverback gorilla.

 

Now, 30 years later, if you truly saw a silverback gorilla that day, would you ever admit that it was possible you were hoaxed that day? Seriously. There would be no hoaxing a silverback gorilla. No matter the circumstance or who you were with, that gorilla would be forever burned into your memory.

 

Apply the same to Gimlin. He admits maybe it was a hoax. If what he saw was a genuine sasquatch, there is NO WAY he would ever suggest it was possibly a hoax.

 

Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smokingdino said:

 

Imagine, if you would, that you and a friend were out deep in the woods somewhere when suddenly a huge silverback gorilla came walking out of the forest right before your eyes. A real, live silverback gorilla.

 

Now, 30 years later, if you truly saw a silverback gorilla that day, would you ever admit that it was possible you were hoaxed that day? Seriously. There would be no hoaxing a silverback gorilla. No matter the circumstance or who you were with, that gorilla would be forever burned into your memory.

 

Apply the same to Gimlin. He admits maybe it was a hoax. If what he saw was a genuine sasquatch, there is NO WAY he would ever suggest it was possibly a hoax.

 

Thoughts?


A) A “real” silverback Gorilla is a REAL scientific extant species. Bigfoot has not yet been confirmed by science. So the hypothetical comparison is a moot point. It’s not the same. If I saw a African Gorilla knuckle walking around the PAC NW, the wrong continent? No matter how real it looked? I would be looking for a zipper. 

 

B) Your logic seems to make a loop. Bob believes he saw a real creature that day. But it’s never been confirmed by science. After roughly 30 years at the time of his statement. Bob isn’t allowed to have some doubt creep into his mind? I’m not sure how his doubt somehow proves it to be a hoax. In my mind it lends support that Bob had a real experience. And it’s possible that something more recent around 1999 swayed his mind to the possibility of a hoax. By now? His opinion may have changed again.
 

C) Scientifically speaking photos and videos don’t make a small scratch in the evidence needed to prove a new species exists. We need all or part of a creature. A bone, a tooth, tissue, etc. So regardless of his opinion on his memories? They don’t amount to much. No offense meant to anyone. The film is 50 years old. It’s still very convincing. And will not move the scientific yard stick one inch. Done. Stick a fork in it. If real? Patty’s pinkie finger would be a slam dunk in today’s world by comparison.

 

D) If Bob is to be believed he pulled his rifle from his scabbard that day. Cowboys generally go into the woods armed. I always do. Was the guy in the suit praying that Bob didn’t shoot him? Was Roger? If real? Bob SHOULD have shot the creature that day. Game over. But in those days Bob and Roger believed it would be enough. The film. Today? No one should be under such illusions. And yet most Bigfooters still go out with cameras and dental resin.

 

In closing? Bob is well over 80 years old now. It’s perfectly natural for people to doubt their memories. It’s a cryptid in Northern California. Not a Congo jungle safari interacting with known species. If there is a breeding population of Patty’s and Peter’s out there? Where is the physical evidence? Tough question. And that needs to remain the focal point.

 

Ive met Bob personally and talked mule skinning with him. He is a genuine man. Can genuine men lie? Sure. Anything is possible. But I personally think Bob had a genuine experience. If he was hoaxed? He wasn’t in on it. And it’s hard to fathom a couple of cowboys pulled off such a convincing hoax. (Roger Patterson and Bob Heronimous) While their unsuspecting buddy is holding a rifle on the film subject.

 

A lot to go wrong.....

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread title rubs me the wrong way. This isn't the "gotcha" you were looking for.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, smokingdino said:

Apply the same to Gimlin. He admits maybe it was a hoax. If what he saw was a genuine sasquatch, there is NO WAY he would ever suggest it was possibly a hoax.

 

Thoughts?

It doesn't sound like he is 'suggesting' anything, rather he is making the allowance that there is a possibility, however slight, that Patterson could have hoaxed him.

 

Sounds like an honest man still trying to come to grips with a once in lifetime event decades later.  

 

And I am with Incorrigible here...your thread title screams AGENDA.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I'll repeat what I've said before.    Patty is the female appropriate to the male I saw in '76.   Patty is the mother appropriate to the juvenile I saw in 2013.   All were different, not identical, but biologically aligned with the correct differences and similarities.   They were not hoaxes.   I do not believe the PGF is a hoax but if it was, how did those cowboys manage to create a suit, out of materials that didn't exist yet, to so perfectly fit with what I saw?  

 

Until someone answers that to my satisfaction, I can't take the notion of the PGF being a hoax seriously in any practical way.  

 

MIB

 

I very much enjoyed this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, smokingdino said:

He admits maybe it was a hoax.

 

That's poorly worded. He acknowledged it could have been a hoax, that's not an admission of anything.

 

I don't know if the PGF is real or not, that's not me admitting anything, that's me saying I don't know with absolute certainty.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

Without any intention to belittle Bob's thoughts and statements, the film's empirical evidence conclusively afirms that the film is authentic and was not hoaxed, staged, or otherwise manufactured to fool people. The film itself, properly analyzed, affirms that it was a spontaneous and unplanned encounter with something biologically real, as it appears, and was not a human in a fur costume. So the film's authenticity stands solidly and conclusively, regardless of what Bob may have said, or thought.


I believe exactly what you just said Bill.

 

The problem is science does not. Not only does the PGF fail to prove the creature exists to science? It didn’t even motivate science to GO LOOK. Very frustrating. Quite the opposite. They belittled the film subject. Female breasts with a male sagittal crest ah hah! Hoax!
 

No one asked HOW two cowboys made a working suit with realistic breasts in 67! Why? Is it intellectually narcissism? What does the morphology of extant African ape species have to do with a bipedal cryptid ape species in North America? Other than obvious non ape like traits. Wings, a tail, scaly green skin. Nothing observed on Patty throws up giant red flags! 
 

Bill? Have you had any movement in the scientific community in general after you have presented all the evidence of the film? Is there any hope? Any calls from the UCLA anthropology dept? Because I would love to be wrong....

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is virtually zero chance the Patterson-Gimlin film could have been hoaxed. The technology to produce such an realistic ape costume just didn't exist in the 1960s. Heck it likely still doesn't as evidenced by be some recent Hollywood films. The only way the film could have been faked was if Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin somehow managed to develop CGI three decades before the technology was officially invented. To suggest that two unemployed rodeo workers could have come up with such a thing is patently absurd!

 

The movement of the film subject along with the highly detailed musculature render the possibility of a man in an ape suit highly unlikely. And even that is an understatement. Tracks recovered from the film site reveal the subject was rather large with estimates of around 7ft tall and 600lbs. Patterson was able to find and hire a 7ft stunt man weighing nearly 600lbs of solid muscle to tramp around the woods in a super high tech and highly classified ape suit? I believe the preponderance of the evidence speaks for itself. 

 

The film is genuine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, smokingdino said:

 

Imagine, if you would, that you and a friend were out deep in the woods somewhere when suddenly a huge silverback gorilla came walking out of the forest right before your eyes. A real, live silverback gorilla.

 

Now, 30 years later, if you truly saw a silverback gorilla that day, would you ever admit that it was possible you were hoaxed that day? Seriously. There would be no hoaxing a silverback gorilla. No matter the circumstance or who you were with, that gorilla would be forever burned into your memory.

 

Apply the same to Gimlin. He admits maybe it was a hoax. If what he saw was a genuine sasquatch, there is NO WAY he would ever suggest it was possibly a hoax.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Smoke,

 

Welcome to the BFF.  I look forward to your contributions.  

 

We need to look at the broader picture on your point:  It is true in an interview Bob Gimlin did allow the possibility  he could be fooled.  In that same interview (which was heavily cherry- picked to try to make it seem like Gimlin was saying it was a hoax) Gimlin states he is convinced what he saw was a real creature. If you watch the entire show Gimlin maintains what he saw was a real creature.

 

So in hundreds of hours of interviews and statements over 50 years Gimlin did allow one statement for that possibility it could be a that he was hoaxed.   

The 99.9999999% of the other times he has talked about the PGF he has never once changed his opinion on what he saw that day and has not done so to this day.   Even with his statement he might have been fooled, it comes from a perspective of a man who clarifies even he doesn't believe he was fooled.  

 

Issue one:   The show

 

The source of this statement comes from an interview from a show 1990's X Creatures.  In that show, Bob is called at home by a producer whose whole agenda is to say the PGF was a hoax.  After all they try to play the Bigfoot issue was invented or started with the PGF and it all comes back to that film.  Later the producer of the show goes to a Burbank costume studio to ask creature costume people what they think of the PGF.   We have no idea what theycollectively think since the other people shown never voice an opinion about the PGF.  Instead we do get to know the opinion of the one man we are allowed to hear from. He thinks it's a man in a suit.  (surprise)  Yet, does the show have him to make such a suit or show how some 1967 suit similar to the loos of the PGF would work?  No, they don't even address the materials were not around in 1967 and ask him to explain that.   Instead, they take a modern suit with fabric and methods FROM THE 1990s and show how that modern suit would work.  Then, they take that suit and make a recreation in a outdoor setting.  In that recreation they further miss their own point when they state, 'one thing is clear from this recreation, they (Bob and Roger) were right on top on the creature"  Ummmmmm yea that is the point!   Bob and Roger always claimed to be close to Patty and it is another point why bob so close he could not be EASILY FOOLED in the first place.    They even say "if you shake the camera on purpose" it's hard to make out the detail.  They never mention at the closest most detailed point of the PGF there IS NOT SHAKING at all but it is the closest and most stable part of the PGF.  There is no shaking other than at the beginning when Roger is frantically running to get closer before he plants himself and creates stability.  That explains why it was shaking vs indicating it was shaking by some sinister design.  X Creatures continue to say the creature walking away is 'unusual behavior' of some shy creature even though that is what animals in nature do and they never identify what normal behavior or expected behavior should be.  

 

The point is, the show goes out of it's way to hide all the points which are in favor of the PGF and magnify the editorializing of ideas they think makes their case.  This is the source of the Gimlin Quote on it being 'possible' he was hoaxed so just understand the context.   It was never going to be a show where you might hear from 2 sides in a more even and fair-minded way.

 

 

With this obvious blunt effort it is clear to see the cherry- picking X Creatures is doing here. 

 

Finally on X Creatures, to me the demonstration of their PGF filming all while using a modern suit makes an accidental case- more than ever- for the PGF being nearly impossible to fake.   They did not intend this obviously but that is the result.

 

 

Issue two:   Bob Gimlin

 

Gimlin states flat out what he thinks and over all this time there has just been very very little variation on what he has stated.  Certainly there is not any diff on any main point.  This does not mean the PGF is real it just means Bob comes across as a very strong or credible witness.


Issue three:    Full meaning

When a person has a conversation with someone esp someone you don't know too well - you know like when some producer calls you out of the blue and wants to talk about stuff you have avoided talking about for years- the tone of the conversation is going to be choppy.   That's why Gimlin has more of a  courtesy to the interviewer.  He is really saying something like this: "Yea I guess it's possible but let me essentially tell you why its not possible.  In this way I am really telling you I don't think it is possible."

 

 

None of this proved Gimlin is honest or a liar.  He may have seen a bigfoot, or it could be a hoax.  If it was a hoax to my mind there is just NO WAY a hoax could take place without Gimlin being in on that hoax. The idea Gimln was hoaxed is just a bridge too far for me.  If it is a hoax, Gimlin was in on it and not fooled.  I won't go into it here but there is a long list of reasons what it would take to pull off hoaxing Gimlin. 

 

Gimlin never has given me any impression other than a man who believes 100% what he saw (or claims he did), that Patty is a real creature he saw that day.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norseman:

 

I had hoped to make a formal presentation to the society of Physical Anthropologists, but the discussions about making that happen hasn't progressed yet to a workable plan. Efforts are still being made, but it's an uphill battle. Generally, the scientific community is happy to ignore the film, or any substative analysis of it. Sad, but it's the current situation.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bill said:

Norseman:

 

I had hoped to make a formal presentation to the society of Physical Anthropologists, but the discussions about making that happen hasn't progressed yet to a workable plan. Efforts are still being made, but it's an uphill battle. Generally, the scientific community is happy to ignore the film, or any substative analysis of it. Sad, but it's the current situation.

 

Bill


Im sorry truly. Thanks Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Smoke,

 

Welcome to the BFF.  I look forward to your contributions.  

 

We need to look at the broader picture on your point:  It is true in an interview Bob Gimlin did allow the possibility  he could be fooled.  In that same interview (which was heavily cherry- picked to try to make it seem like Gimlin was saying it was a hoax) Gimlin states he is convinced what he saw was a real creature. If you watch the entire show Gimlin maintains what he saw was a real creature.

 

So in hundreds of hours of interviews and statements over 50 years Gimlin did allow one statement for that possibility it could be a that he was hoaxed.   

The 99.9999999% of the other times he has talked about the PGF he has never once changed his opinion on what he saw that day and has not done so to this day.   Even with his statement he might have been fooled, it comes from a perspective of a man who clarifies even he doesn't believe he was fooled.  

 

Issue one:   The show

 

The source of this statement comes from an interview from a show 1990's X Creatures.  In that show, Bob is called at home by a producer whose whole agenda is to say the PGF was a hoax.  After all they try to play the Bigfoot issue was invented or started with the PGF and it all comes back to that film.  Later the producer of the show goes to a Burbank costume studio to ask creature costume people what they think of the PGF.   We have no idea what theycollectively think since the other people shown never voice an opinion about the PGF.  Instead we do get to know the opinion of the one man we are allowed to hear from. He thinks it's a man in a suit.  (surprise)  Yet, does the show have him to make such a suit or show how some 1967 suit similar to the loos of the PGF would work?  No, they don't even address the materials were not around in 1967 and ask him to explain that.   Instead, they take a modern suit with fabric and methods FROM THE 1990s and show how that modern suit would work.  Then, they take that suit and make a recreation in a outdoor setting.  In that recreation they further miss their own point when they state, 'one thing is clear from this recreation, they (Bob and Roger) were right on top on the creature"  Ummmmmm yea that is the point!   Bob and Roger always claimed to be close to Patty and it is another point why bob so close he could not be EASILY FOOLED in the first place.    They even say "if you shake the camera on purpose" it's hard to make out the detail.  They never mention at the closest most detailed point of the PGF there IS NOT SHAKING at all but it is the closest and most stable part of the PGF.  There is no shaking other than at the beginning when Roger is frantically running to get closer before he plants himself and creates stability.  That explains why it was shaking vs indicating it was shaking by some sinister design.  X Creatures continue to say the creature walking away is 'unusual behavior' of some shy creature even though that is what animals in nature do and they never identify what normal behavior or expected behavior should be.  

 

The point is, the show goes out of it's way to hide all the points which are in favor of the PGF and magnify the editorializing of ideas they think makes their case.  This is the source of the Gimlin Quote on it being 'possible' he was hoaxed so just understand the context.   It was never going to be a show where you might hear from 2 sides in a more even and fair-minded way.

 

 

With this obvious blunt effort it is clear to see the cherry- picking X Creatures is doing here. 

 

Finally on X Creatures, to me the demonstration of their PGF filming all while using a modern suit makes an accidental case- more than ever- for the PGF being nearly impossible to fake.   They did not intend this obviously but that is the result.

 

 

Issue two:   Bob Gimlin

 

Gimlin states flat out what he thinks and over all this time there has just been very very little variation on what he has stated.  Certainly there is not any diff on any main point.  This does not mean the PGF is real it just means Bob comes across as a very strong or credible witness.


Issue three:    Full meaning

When a person has a conversation with someone esp someone you don't know too well - you know like when some producer calls you out of the blue and wants to talk about stuff you have avoided talking about for years- the tone of the conversation is going to be choppy.   That's why Gimlin has more of a  courtesy to the interviewer.  He is really saying something like this: "Yea I guess it's possible but let me essentially tell you why its not possible.  In this way I am really telling you I don't think it is possible."

 

 

None of this proved Gimlin is honest or a liar.  He may have seen a bigfoot, or it could be a hoax.  If it was a hoax to my mind there is just NO WAY a hoax could take place without Gimlin being in on that hoax. The idea Gimln was hoaxed is just a bridge too far for me.  If it is a hoax, Gimlin was in on it and not fooled.  I won't go into it here but there is a long list of reasons what it would take to pull off hoaxing Gimlin. 

 

Gimlin never has given me any impression other than a man who believes 100% what he saw (or claims he did), that Patty is a real creature he saw that day.

 

 


If your a bald faced liar? And the whole thing was a planned hoax you helped facilitate? Your never gonna budge from your official storyline. In fact your gonna be hostile to people even suggesting your lying. That’s how a guilty person acts. They will attack their attackers.

 

Bob has always seemed like a impartial observer to me. And the fact that he admits he could have been hoaxed is logical. It’s a once is a lifetime event. Replaying over and over again in your mind. Science has never confirmed it. Could there be doubt? Of course!

 

Which brings up another point. If something is out there? Science owes us an explanation. Versus condemnation and ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, norseman said:


If your a bald faced liar? And the whole thing was a planned hoax you helped facilitate? Your never gonna budge from your official storyline. In fact your gonna be hostile to people even suggesting your lying. That’s how a guilty person acts. They will attack their attackers.

 

Gimlin said some things diff than Roger.  Gimlin said by the time he saw Patty, patty was standing while Roger said she was stopped down.   Gimlin could have quickly changed his story to try to agree with Roger on things like this, or the height, or the arm length.  Instead, he just states things from his point of view as to what he saw.   He never seemed like a guy trying to great pains to remember under what version he last told some story.   He just seems like he is at a point where he wants to be believed but really doesn't care if you believe him as he, "knows what he saw"

 

 

50 minutes ago, norseman said:

Bob has always seemed like a impartial observer to me. And the fact that he admits he could have been hoaxed is logical. It’s a once is a lifetime event. Replaying over and over again in your mind. Science has never confirmed it. Could there be doubt? Of course!

 

Which brings up another point. If something is out there? Science owes us an explanation. Versus condemnation and ridicule.

 

 

Well he outright said his first thought was one of almost shock with, "Wow those things do exist".  He followed it a bit on his horse because he just, "wanted to see it again".   Being in disbelief and yet knowing what he saw it makes sense to me he might say, "yea I guess it is possible it was a hoax as anything is possible but let me tell you why I don't think it was a hoax..."

 

I am not surprised Gimlin answered like he did.  I take it to the questioner it is his way of saying, "I know what you mean, I get that, but it is not a hoax".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...