Jump to content

Gimlin's 1999 Admission Clinches It


smokingdino
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was rather surprised to learn that the authenticity of the film has finally been conclusively established.

 

I guess I haven't been following things much recently.

 

So be it. No more painful fence sitting for me then...

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the great replies so far!

 

No, I don't have any agenda. I'm just a skeptic, that's all. I've read a lot about the PGF. Probably not nearly as much as folks here on this board, but I've read quite a bit. It's fascinating.

 

Now allow me to propose a different theory.

 

Gimlin stopped commenting on the PGF and withdrew from the public eye for a very long time. Why? Was it because he knew it was a hoax and withered before the critics? Couldn't stand the heat? So he withdrew...

 

Then, many years later, when the Bigfoot community had grown huge and the critics had fallen away, he suddenly realizes that the Bigfoot conventions are jam packed full of friendly admirers. There's money to be made and fame to enjoy! So now that the daggers aren't out any longer, boom, he's back insisting the PGF is legit.

 

Now, as an example, when I was six, my mother took me to the zoo in Miami and I saw a huge tiger in a cage. The tiger was pacing from one end of the cage to other, enraged. That vision is burned into my memory. That was 45 years ago. There is and never will be any doubt in my mind that the animal I saw was a real tiger. I have never doubted my memory.

 

My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible.

 

And no I don't buy the notion that him questioning his memory of the event makes him more credible. It's just the opposite.

 

And I have to add that there's nothing spectacular about the suit in the video. Everything claimed to be "spectacular" is only spectacular because the true believers say so.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

Thanks for all the great replies so far!

 

No, I don't have any agenda. I'm just a skeptic, that's all. I've read a lot about the PGF. Probably not nearly as much as folks here on this board, but I've read quite a bit. It's fascinating.

 

Now allow me to propose a different theory.

 

Gimlin stopped commenting on the PGF and withdrew from the public eye for a very long time. Why? Was it because he knew it was a hoax and withered before the critics? Couldn't stand the heat? So he withdrew...

 

Then, many years later, when the Bigfoot community had grown huge and the critics had fallen away, he suddenly realizes that the Bigfoot conventions are jam packed full of friendly admirers. There's money to be made and fame to enjoy! So now that the daggers aren't out any longer, boom, he's back insisting the PGF is legit.

 

Now, as an example, when I was six, my mother took me to the zoo in Miami and I saw a huge tiger in a cage. The tiger was pacing from one end of the cage to other, enraged. That vision is burned into my memory. That was 45 years ago. There is and never will be any doubt in my mind that the animal I saw was a real tiger. I have never doubted my memory.

 

My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible.

 

And no I don't buy the notion that him questioning his memory of the event makes him more credible. It's just the opposite.

 

And I have to add that there's nothing spectacular about the suit in the video. Everything claimed to be "spectacular" is only spectacular because the true believers say so.

At 6 years of age, your mother took you to see an animal which, while exotic, can be repeatedly viewed in almost every metropolitan zoo across this country. You were among probably thousands of people that day and hundreds of thousands of people that year to see that particular tiger.  You were probably surrounded by dozens at the time of your viewing...all discussing its attributes and appearance.

 

You viewed an animal in captivity, for as long as you wished.  While it was probably thrilling, it was safely behind bars and you were secure in the presence of your mother.  You were able to stand and stare at it as long as you wished with no distractions or hindrances.  You went to the zoo that day fully expecting to see that tiger...you may even have returned to view it a second time that day.  

 

Years later, if you felt that your memory of the tiger might have been incorrect...you could jump in your car, drive to the nearest zoo, pay your admission, and gaze upon another tiger so similar to the one that you originally saw that you probably could never tell the difference.

 

That's about as apples to oranges example compared to Bob's sighting as you can get.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

That's about as apples to oranges example compared to Bob's sighting as you can get.

 

 

A comparison easily becomes apples to oranges when you want it to be.

 

A real bigfoot would never be mistaken for a man in a suit, particularly a suit, as it's so often pointed out here, that couldn't possibly have been all that good.

 

Whether you had seen such an animal before would be irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

At 6 years of age, your mother took you to see an animal which, while exotic, can be repeatedly viewed in almost every metropolitan zoo across this country. You were among probably thousands of people that day and hundreds of thousands of people that year to see that particular tiger.  You were probably surrounded by dozens at the time of your viewing...all discussing its attributes and appearance.

 

You viewed an animal in captivity, for as long as you wished.  While it was probably thrilling, it was safely behind bars and you were secure in the presence of your mother.  You were able to stand and stare at it as long as you wished with no distractions or hindrances.  You went to the zoo that day fully expecting to see that tiger...you may even have returned to view it a second time that day.  

 

Years later, if you felt that your memory of the tiger might have been incorrect...you could jump in your car, drive to the nearest zoo, pay your admission, and gaz

 

Oops. I quoted the wrong post. Sorry BlackRockBigfoot. I meant to quote the OP. 

Edited by Wooly Booger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

Thanks for all the great replies so far!

 

No, I don't have any agenda. I'm just a skeptic, that's all. I've read a lot about the PGF. Probably not nearly as much as folks here on this board, but I've read quite a bit. It's fascinating.

 

Now allow me to propose a different theory.

 

Gimlin stopped commenting on the PGF and withdrew from the public eye for a very long time. Why? Was it because he knew it was a hoax and withered before the critics? Couldn't stand the heat? So he withdrew...

 

Then, many years later, when the Bigfoot community had grown huge and the critics had fallen away, he suddenly realizes that the Bigfoot conventions are jam packed full of friendly admirers. There's money to be made and fame to enjoy! So now that the daggers aren't out any longer, boom, he's back insisting the PGF is legit.

 

Now, as an example, when I was six, my mother took me to the zoo in Miami and I saw a huge tiger in a cage. The tiger was pacing from one end of the cage to other, enraged. That vision is burned into my memory. That was 45 years ago. There is and never will be any doubt in my mind that the animal I saw was a real tiger. I have never doubted my memory.

 

My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible.

 

And no I don't buy the notion that him questioning his memory of the event makes him more credible. It's just the opposite.

 

And I have to add that there's nothing spectacular about the suit in the video. Everything claimed to be "spectacular" is only spectacular because the true believers say so.

The burden of proof is still on the skeptic to prove the film was a hoax. The technology to make such a suit didn't exist in 1967. And neither did CGI. So how then do you propose the film was faked? The ball is in your court. Go ahead. Bedazzle us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smokingdino:

 

In the matter of creature effects, ape suits and similar prosthetic illusions in the movie business, very few people actually have sufficient knowledge and experience to say with any certainty what is real and what is not, what can be done and what cannot. Bob has no practical knowledge of special makeup effects and creature work, and so he reasonably doesn't know (and didn't in years past) what can be done and what can't. There was a lot of talk about the film being hoaxed, and many people thought it was, so Bob was simply being realistic in the face of all this suspicion, acknowledging that he was certain he was not part of any hoax. If there was a hoax, he had no knowledge of such and he assumed it was a real encounter. To allow that maybe he was himself hoaxed is simply an honest man admitting his lack of knowledge on what can and can't be hoaxed, his lack of knowledge of what creature effects were capable of doing to fool people.

The truth of the matter is that in some respects, creature effects can be stunningly real, while in other respects, they are obviously fake. And only a person with extensive experience and knowledge of the technology and the actual accomplishments of the top practitioners of the craft can sort out the truth. 

 

You say in your post, above, "My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible."

 

You are incorrect. Many people can be fooled by something well done, even if they are seeing it for real (not just in a film) and even if they have some experience with the usual ways things are faked for movies. I speak from experience in this respect. I was hired to make a trained movie chimpanzee look like a laboratory animal with a shaved head and electrodes cemented through his skull into his brain, for a film called "Brainstorm" (famous as Natalie Wood's last movie). On the day of filming, the animal trainers first walked the chimp (named "Doc") out onto the set to familiarize him with the setting where he would perform, and then they brought him out to their trailer off stage to be made up. Once I applied the prosthetics, the chimp was brought back onto the stage to perform his scene, with a shaved head and electrodes protruding from his shaved skull. I was later told several of the movie crew were so concerned and upset by the sight, assuming the chimp's head really was shaved and electrodes really glued to his scalp with crazy glue, that they talked of filing a formal report with the animal humane society for cruelty to the chimp. Only after it was explained to them that the chimp was wearing a prosthetic skull-cap, a makeup effect, did they realize they'd been fooled by the effect. They were fooled because they had no specialized knowledge or experience with what special makeup effects can and cannot do.

 

So a person lacking such specialized experience and knowledge can be fooled to thinking something they witness is real. And inversely, a person can witness some truthful event of nature and have some doubt that maybe they were hoaxed. So a person having a real sighting can, in fact, have doubts about what they witnessed. And a person admitting maybe he can be fooled is reasonable for an honest person to admit, when they lack the specialized knowledge to sort out truth from deception.

The determination that what we see in the PGF is real cannot be made in a snap decision in a matter of minutes, and that was all the time Bob had as a witness to the filming. Determining it to be real takes extensive analysis, and using analysis technology that didn't exist in the old days. So Bob's remarks of doubt are reasonable, given his lack of knowledge in special effects and creature technology for movies. 

 

If I did a formal presentation as to why the PGF filmed subject (whom we call "Patty") is not a fake, not a costume worn by a human performer, such a presentation, in meticulous detail, would take the better part of a day. Someone who witnessed it in person in a frenzied and chaotic event for only a few minutes would never be able to make a determination with anywhere the accuracy of a formal analysis. 

 

Returning to your remark, "My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible."  I will close by saying simply, you are wrong. It is most emphatically possible, if the witness simply doesn't have the specialized knowledge and experience to sort fact from fiction, sort truth from deception.

 

Our society is dealing with a new issue that involves the same principle, truth or deception. They are called "deep fake" videos, and most people cannot say for certainty that a video they watch is real or fake. So a person might reasonably say, "maybe it's a fake. I don't know." Proving a video real or fake requires specialized technology and analysis knowledge. Same goes for the PGF, Patty, and Bob's remarks. 

 

Bob is simply being honest and recognizing and admitting to his own limitations. And he should be admired for that, not derided or subjected to suspicion or criticism.

Bill

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

2 hours ago, smokingdino said:

Thanks for all the great replies so far!

 

No, I don't have any agenda. I'm just a skeptic, that's all. I've read a lot about the PGF. Probably not nearly as much as folks here on this board, but I've read quite a bit. It's fascinating.

 

Now allow me to propose a different theory.

 

Gimlin stopped commenting on the PGF and withdrew from the public eye for a very long time. Why? Was it because he knew it was a hoax and withered before the critics? Couldn't stand the heat? So he withdrew...

 

Then, many years later, when the Bigfoot community had grown huge and the critics had fallen away, he suddenly realizes that the Bigfoot conventions are jam packed full of friendly admirers. There's money to be made and fame to enjoy! So now that the daggers aren't out any longer, boom, he's back insisting the PGF is legit.

 

Now, as an example, when I was six, my mother took me to the zoo in Miami and I saw a huge tiger in a cage. The tiger was pacing from one end of the cage to other, enraged. That vision is burned into my memory. That was 45 years ago. There is and never will be any doubt in my mind that the animal I saw was a real tiger. I have never doubted my memory.

 

My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible.

 

And no I don't buy the notion that him questioning his memory of the event makes him more credible. It's just the opposite.

 

And I have to add that there's nothing spectacular about the suit in the video. Everything claimed to be "spectacular" is only spectacular because the true believers say so.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, smokingdino said:

Thanks for all the great replies so far!

 

No, I don't have any agenda. I'm just a skeptic, that's all. I've read a lot about the PGF. Probably not nearly as much as folks here on this board, but I've read quite a bit. It's fascinating.

 

Now allow me to propose a different theory.

 

Gimlin stopped commenting on the PGF and withdrew from the public eye for a very long time. Why? Was it because he knew it was a hoax and withered before the critics? Couldn't stand the heat? So he withdrew...

 

Then, many years later, when the Bigfoot community had grown huge and the critics had fallen away, he suddenly realizes that the Bigfoot conventions are jam packed full of friendly admirers. There's money to be made and fame to enjoy! So now that the daggers aren't out any longer, boom, he's back insisting the PGF is legit.

 

Now, as an example, when I was six, my mother took me to the zoo in Miami and I saw a huge tiger in a cage. The tiger was pacing from one end of the cage to other, enraged. That vision is burned into my memory. That was 45 years ago. There is and never will be any doubt in my mind that the animal I saw was a real tiger. I have never doubted my memory.

 

My expectation would be the same for anyone who came that close to a Bigfoot. There is NO way anyone would EVER say "Maybe I was hoaxed." No way. Impossible.

 

And no I don't buy the notion that him questioning his memory of the event makes him more credible. It's just the opposite.

 

And I have to add that there's nothing spectacular about the suit in the video. Everything claimed to be "spectacular" is only spectacular because the true believers say so.


The motivation you place on gimlin doesn’t make a lot of sense.   Gimlin would be a superstar if he had come out and said the film was a hoax.  He could even cash in on a book: how we did it by Bob Gimlin ( or at least a higher level of ca$hing in than he is doing right now.

 

Gimlin isn’t  going to get rich from a bigfot convention.    The fact is most in the skeptic/ doubtful science community by default think he is a polite con man but a con man no less.  He took crap for years and didn’t even really cash in.  He has given his reasons for fading away for years and they seem reasonable.

 

This if we go with what you attribute as Gimlin’s motivation, you place him on the wrong side to have it make any sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 6:58 PM, smokingdino said:

........There would be no hoaxing a silverback gorilla........

 

 

Why not? People hoax everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, smokingdino said:

......Gimlin stopped commenting on the PGF and withdrew from the public eye for a very long time. Why?........

 

Because he was smart. Overwhelmed. Tired. Pressured. 

 

Fame and negative social pressure is a rough life. That's why lots of sasquatch encounters never even make it into a database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

Yup. Hahahaaa

 

 

I don't know about this one.  I think that those are real chicks.

 

That's a pretty good gorilla costume.  They being said, it honestly still doesn't move as realistically as a supposed costume from 1967.

 

 

Edited by BlackRockBigfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...