Jump to content

Gimlin's 1999 Admission Clinches It


smokingdino
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Bill said:

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. 

 

I generally agree with your thoughts on what Gimlin said and why, but a few questions arise as well.

 

Only a person with specialized knowledge can sort out 'truth from deception" or what is real and what isn't?

 

What does this say about the countless bigfoot witness reports that form the bedrock of bigfoot belief? "I know what I saw," etc.

 

Are we to dismiss them all because the witness is deemed as "unqualified," unless, he/she is a special effects expert?

 

In my life experience, the truth is usually fairly self-evident. Most often our own keen senses are sufficient and no specialized knowledge or extensive analysis is mandatory to validate one's own sensory experiences. If it were different I doubt that we would survive for very long.

 

Thanks for your fine work on the PGF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious that Bob was always a skeptic though kept an open mind about it. He would have been the first to chew in Roger's ear if their expedition came up empty.

 

It's not surprising people muse on the past and what ifs. Usually I ignore PGF threads that try to paint an incorrect picture of Bob. The guy is not a liar. He didn't accidentally blow a hoax 50 years after the fact. To the poster of this thread: It's just a repetitive, meaningless exercise to cherry pick his comments to suit your lame agenda.

Edited by Arvedis
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, smokingdino said:

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

 

You do know, don't you, that Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson had a serious falling out right after the PGF happened? Patterson was touring around showing the film, making money from the show and using a fake Bob Gimlin, to which Bob took serious exception. That's why they never spoke to each other again until Roger was on his death bed.

 

So if Gimlin knew the film was a hoax, why did he go along with it when he found out what Patterson was doing?

 

You are grasping for something that just isn't there with Bob Gimlin. The PGF might well be a hoax, but what you are proposing about Bob Gimlin is very weak.

 

 

20 hours ago, smokingdino said:

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.

 

Duly noted, but is nothing more than your opinion.

 

 

 

Edited by Rockape
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Mort:

 

Allow me an analogy, to answer your question.

 

Stage magicians are eternally popular (especially in Las Vegas) and people seeing the show are fooled to varying degrees.  Some people know enough about the mechanics of illusions to describe what's happening, step by step, and others are mystified.  The majority of the audience likely can't explain how an illusion was accomplished (the actual mechanics of it), because they've never given any particular amount of time and effort to learn how tricks are performed. It's not a line in the sand (on this side are the experts who can tell, and on the other side are the common people who can't tell), but rather a continuum of degrees of familiarity and knowledge, depending on how much time a person has put into becoming familiar with the illusion process. 

 

When faked "living creatures" are compared to real living creatures, the same goes. Ability to sort out one from the other is based on how much knowledge one puts into becoming familiar with the faking process. Bob had virtually zero familiarity with the process of ape suits, so I feel he was just being fairly honest to admit he might have been hoaxed, because he doesn't know exactly how to distinguish a real from a good fake. There's a video (I believe in the thread above this one) showing two models asked to pose for photos beside what they are told is a real trained gorilla, and they seem sincerely apprehensive about being close to the "animal". They seem fooled by the illusion. 

 

Now to your question about bigfoot sightings, and whether or not people can confidently say "It was real!" (paraphrasing you here), every person's capacity for deductive reasoning may vary, but many people can think through the circumstances of what they saw, and reach some conclusion as to their level of confidence what they saw was real. In Bob's case it might have been the described apprehensive behavior of the horses, maybe the smell in the air, maybe unusual vocalizations, subtle gestures real animals tend to make and keen observers of real animals might pick up on, where they were at the time (how far away from any other people), did anyone know they were there to plan a hoax on them, Roger's behavior (was Roger doing anything weird that day to make sure they were at an exact spot at an exact time to hoax Bob), these are just examples of what a person's brain might process in trying to deal with a strange encounter. 

 

There are also subliminal things we observe that make us feel confident something is real or is not. It's a phenomenon referred to as "The Uncanny Valley" in robotics and digital animated characters, where they seem almost human, but some subliminal perception tells the brain it's not real, and the experience actually disturbs people. People experiencing bigfoot encounters may also be reacting to subliminal clues that suggest what they witnessed is real (often called a gut feeling). And that feeling can be powerful and correct, even if a person couldn't explain why they are sure something is real (or conversely, why they feel something is fake). 

 

I guess what I'm getting to is that yes, an "expert" is needed to analytically explain why something is real or a fake (to offer a point-by-point descriptive analysis of what is real or fake), but people have intuitive perceptions and "gut feelings" which may correctly appraise a situation, even if the person could not explain why their brain processed the sensory data from all the senses and concluded something is real or fake. It's not an analytical process they can describe, but it's a powerful guide to their deciding if what they saw is real or fake. I think most bigfoot witnesses fall into this category. 

 

I hope I've answered your questions.

 

Bill

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

I generally agree with your thoughts on what Gimlin said and why, but a few questions arise as well.

 

Only a person with specialized knowledge can sort out 'truth from deception" or what is real and what isn't?

 

What does this say about the countless bigfoot witness reports that form the bedrock of bigfoot belief? "I know what I saw," etc.

 

Are we to dismiss them all because the witness is deemed as "unqualified," unless, he/she is a special effects expert?

 

In my life experience, the truth is usually fairly self-evident. Most often our own keen senses are sufficient and no specialized knowledge or extensive analysis is mandatory to validate one's own sensory experiences. If it were different I doubt that we would survive for very long.

 

Thanks for your fine work on the PGF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


I thought you were a skeptic? Because from what Im reading? Your validating every anecdotal Bigfoot report from A-Z?

 

Not something Michael Shermer would agree with. Right?

 

But the PGF isnt a memory, its not a Tiger viewing at a Zoo either. Its a film plus we know the film site. We dont know where 99.9% of bigfoot films are filmed. We cannot measure trees and stumps and rocks against the film subject. Nor measure its tracks. Ask Todd Standing or Melba Ketchum were they filmed their bigfoot films? You will hear crickets chirping.

 

So there is data in the film that could not be reproduced from a memory.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bill said:

I hope I've answered your questions.

 

 

Yes, Thanks.

 

I was unclear about a few things and appreciate your explanation. (the role of the expert analyst etc.)

 

I think we can both agree on the importance of trusting our own sensory data and intuition which was my main point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

I thought you were a skeptic? Because from what Im reading? Your validating every anecdotal Bigfoot report from A-Z?

 

It is just part of my character to question almost anything! I have always been open to listening to and reading about various sightings and accounts. That's what brought me here.

 

The fact that I questioned Mr. Munn's opinion that it takes special knowledge by a witness to ascertain the difference between fake and real in that regard is neither a validation or repudiation of those accounts. It was merely an observation.


Some accounts have merit - others not so much.  Yes, I was "skeptical" of Bill's assertion that it takes special qualifications for a witness to determine what is real or fake.  I agree with Bill's explanation that often an expert analyst is needed in order to ascertain the accuracy of the witness account. Better yet, more than just one... 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Mort:

 

The "Uncanny Valley" phenomenon I mentioned is exactly what you said, the importance of trusting our own sensory data and intuition. Maybe the perception is subliminal, literally below our conscious rational thought, but we feel it and it can be powerful, and we need to trust it.

 

So, yes, I agree with you.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

It is just part of my character to question almost anything! I have always been open to listening to and reading about various sightings and accounts. That's what brought me here.

 

The fact that I questioned Mr. Munn's opinion that it takes special knowledge by a witness to ascertain the difference between fake and real in that regard is neither a validation or repudiation of those accounts. It was merely an observation.


Some accounts have merit - others not so much.  Yes, I was "skeptical" of Bill's assertion that it takes special qualifications for a witness to determine what is real or fake.  I agree with Bill's explanation that often an expert analyst is needed in order to ascertain the accuracy of the witness account. Better yet, more than just one... 

  


Im not calling you out. This is not personal but a generalization.

 

But It’s the skeptics hard line that humans make bad observers. I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment. But we hear it time and again. I could post Michael Shermer videos or Skeptical Inquirer articles to make my case further.

 

But if Bob Gimlin shows some uncertainty with his sighting? He isn’t a bad observer like every other eye witness. He is now a hoaxer and complete fraud.

 

So it seems to me the skeptics want their cake and eat it too.

 

I personally believe that most skeptics after 50 years cannot find the zipper. So in frustration they just commit character assassination on anyone who is still alive and associated with the film.

 

This of course does not excuse the believers for not providing physical evidence that science requires. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, norseman said:

So it seems to me the skeptics want their cake and eat it too.

 

Wait a damn minute, you're labeling deniers as skeptics. A skeptic questions, and even with serious doubt will keep an open mind unless proven beyond a doubt. I'm a skeptic, but I'm here defending Bob Gimlin. I'm a skeptic on the PGF because I have no hard proof it is real. I have no hard proof it is not real either however. So while I'm on the fence, I lean towards it being a real BF based on what I see with my own eyes, plus what I know about the circumstances that surround it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's go through this, step by step.

 

Patterson claims that he and Gimlin were out to shoot some sort of "documentary" with flashbacks, but while they were shooting for that, lo and behold! They stumble upon a real sasquatch. So...the questions:

 

1. So they set out to shoot a documentary film...using how many reels of film?

2. They set out to shoot a documentary film...using film with no sound? And using an awful 16mm camera?

3. If the film is a documentary and not an expedition to attempt to film a sasquatch, why was Patterson so intent on filming where claims had been made that one had been seen? Any woods would do for a documentary.

4. So they set out to film some sort of documentary...and just happen on a real sasquatch? The chances of that are...what...one in a trillion?

5. Why did Patterson tell Gimlin to not shoot the sasquatch if they were filming a documentary?

6. Was this documentary going to show a scene or two of a sasquatch? If yes, how where they going to do that?

7. DeAtley conveniently doesn't remember where he got the film developed?

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

So let's go through this, step by step.

 

Why not just attack the evidence, the film itself?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smokingdino:

 

in reply to your notes above:

 

1. So they set out to shoot a documentary film...using how many reels of film?

 

Roger had been shooting a documentary for most of the year, bit by bit.  I've got six other reels of footage he shot, and I'm sure there's more.  And Roger set out to Northern California specifically because of the Blue Creek Mountain trackway reported two months before, which he hoped he could film. Other than the trackway, he was simply exploring, as he had done on numerous other expeditions. He had two 100' rolls of film stock on this trip. That's about 8 minutes of film, plenty to film the trackway if he could locate it, and film anything else he found of interest.

 

2. They set out to shoot a documentary film...using film with no sound? And using an awful 16mm camera?

 

Wildlife photographers never try to shoot with sound. It's added in post production as ambient nature sound effects. You only shoot sync sound when you are filming people talking, as Roger did for Al DeAtley to speak about the film they finally released and showed to the public. The Kodak K-100 isn't an awful camera. to the contrary, it's the finest spring wind camera of it's time, widely used by engineers and scientific film studies, aside from the high end home movie crowd. It has the most powerful spring mechanism ever put into a 16mm camera. Maybe you should learn a thing or two about cameras.

 

3. If the film is a documentary and not an expedition to attempt to film a sasquatch, why was Patterson so intent on filming where claims had been made that one had been seen? Any woods would do for a documentary.

 

As said above, Roger specifically went to a location where a trackway had previously been found, with hopes of filming that trackway. And Roger shot a lot of other woodland footage in his other documentary reels. 

 

4. So they set out to film some sort of documentary...and just happen on a real sasquatch? The chances of that are...what...one in a trillion?

 

On all his other trips, he found nothing.  On the other hand, something is more likely to be found by people who go into the woods, again and again, than to somebody who just goes once. Roger went again and again. 

 

5. Why did Patterson tell Gimlin to not shoot the sasquatch if they were filming a documentary?

 

They agreed to a "no kill" policy, which is widely embraced by many researchers. 

 

6. Was this documentary going to show a scene or two of a sasquatch? If yes, how where they going to do that?

 

We don't know exactly what Roger's scene breakdown for his documentary was. But documentary filmmakers often just film a bunch of footage and then edit the production based on what they had the good fortune to capture on film. So that's what Roger was doing, filming scenes and anything he might encounter that might help his planned doc.

 

7. DeAtley conveniently doesn't remember where he got the film developed?

 

What DeAtley did after the filming doesn't impact on the authenticity of the film itself. Al's memory loss is a separate issue discussed widely in other threads of this forum.

 

It would appear that you are making bold assumptions based on minimal factual information. Maybe you should try more facts and less assumptions. Just a suggestion.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockape said:

 

Wait a damn minute, you're labeling deniers as skeptics. A skeptic questions, and even with serious doubt will keep an open mind unless proven beyond a doubt. I'm a skeptic, but I'm here defending Bob Gimlin. I'm a skeptic on the PGF because I have no hard proof it is real. I have no hard proof it is not real either however. So while I'm on the fence, I lean towards it being a real BF based on what I see with my own eyes, plus what I know about the circumstances that surround it.


skeptics dont call themselves deniers bud.

 

But I stand corrected sir!

 

Yes. No one has proof the film or the creature truly exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...