Jump to content

Gimlin's 1999 Admission Clinches It


smokingdino
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

 

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.

 

you have clearly  never watched a documentary, because locations and documentation is kinda the whole point. without it the subject matter just falls flat. who wants to watch a documentary about pandas filmed from someone's back yard in Oklahoma? no one. if you making a documentary about a subject you go to the hottest spot for said subject to be observed or had been observed recently . there were reported trackways in bluff creek roger wanted to find and document ( the root word of documentary surprisingly). there's a literal mountain of film analysis and PGF threads that explain the answers your after, but it seems that your mind is made up and your trying to convince us of the same. this is the BIGFOOT forum, not sure if you misses the name here, but your talking to a collective who most of us have met or know Bob personally and the PGF is directly or indirectly responsible for just about all of us even batting an eye at the subject this thread just seem very agenda driven.

 

there are a bunch of reasons Bob went off the radar beside a falling out with roger. it nearly ruined his life being one of the "bigfoot film guys". it was nothing like today where there is fame attached, there was harsh public scrutiny back then for anyone who had any kind of unusual encounter or experience, it was hyper taboo. thats one of the other reasons he went dark, plus the man has a life and works for a living.  

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

2 hours ago, smokingdino said:

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

 

All you have accomplished is to show your total ignorance of the circumstances of that day and afterwards. You should educate yourself better on it before commenting. Patterson never told Gimlin not to shoot. There was never any thought to shoot one. In fact, Patterson yelled at Gimlin to cover him, meaning draw his rifle in case, as Patterson ran across the creek while filming. You're basically wrong about everything else as well.

19 minutes ago, norseman said:

skeptics dont call themselves deniers bud.

 

A denier or scofftic can call themselves a skeptic, but that doesn't make them one.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also....my whole child hood has no sound. And most of it is a box of slides and a slide projector.

 

The PGF was shot in 1967 by two cowboys driving a stock truck...... a no budget film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, smokingdino said:

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?

 

 

Smoke,

 

I feel your passion in your Q's

 

I would say there are a lot of really good threads on the BFF which explore each topics you asked here.   Others have already done an excellent job on this thread answering your Q's so I would have nothing to add there.  Try to understand there is a frustration with some of us where Q's are asked which- by no intention of your own- come from a place where basis of the Q has been debunked years and years ago.  There used to be a radio guy named Paul Harvey who featured a segment called, " The Rest of the Story"   In the case of the PGF, the rest of the story really needs to be understood in order to understand most of these smoking gun points you are mentioning are really just blowing smoke.  There is nothing to them.   Only by understanding that story in an objective way can one fairly weigh out what we might be looking at in the CONTEXT of the the whole story.  That context is critical in that understanding.  So without having a better understanding of the Rest of the Story it will be harder to make your skeptic points or your believer points of view.   

 

I mention this so you don't take any offense if there is a bit of pushback from a few of us on your Q's.  Many of us have been down this road before.   I also mention this because I have asked some of these same Q's and more-here and there.  It is only because of the patience of many of the posters on the BFF I now have a better understanding.   I am thankful of the many posters who helped clarify things I asked or wondered as a newbie to the issues.  Thanks to many poster's patience was I able to more fully understand the issue behind Q like the ones you present here and further form my views.    It is worth the process to learn more about puzzling film called the Patterson Gimlin film.  This doesn't mean you have to adopt someone else viewpoint just because they know what Bob Gilmins favorite color or favorite flavor of ice cream might be and you don't.  Not at all.  We have skeptics, believers, and many in between who are not sure.  Consider the BFF is also a bit like an old school house.  You have all the grades mixed in under one roof.  If there are Q's put out which to the higher grade skeptic and believers there could be a bit of frustration in that, "we have been over this before"    Don't take offense.   It is how we all learn.  I have benefited by higher level skeptics and believers and I think you will as well.  

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, smokingdino said:

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?

The answer to your third question is pretty obvious...there were reported Sasquatch sightings from the Bluff Creek area and had been for nearly a decade prior to the film being shot. What wildlife documentary wouldn't want to obtain actually footage of the animal being researched? The location offered the most practical chance to capture one of the creatures on film. 

 

That's pretty much a no-brainer there. And I honestly don't understand how that casts doubt on the film's authenticity. 

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

18 hours ago, norseman said:

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.

 

To be fair, doesn't this works both ways, Norseman, specifically when it comes to debating the PGF?

 

Many proponents of the film wish to exclude any witness evidence entirely. We are told to "stick to the film" as if it exists in a vacuum.

 

Yet, the same proponents will tout witness accounts as important when it comes to the larger bigfoot question.

 

The reasoning has been that corroborating evidence provided by those such as Patterson, Gimlin, DeAtley, Hodgson any many others cannot be relied on and must be dismissed because of witness unreliability, faulty memory, old age, human frailty, character flaws, personal financial gain and on and on. That's fine, I get it. Personally I'm more fascinated by the backstory and the history of that period than the real/fake debate. A very interesting world existed outside of the imaginary confines of this short strip of film.  

 

The truth is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too - its what we do. 

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

The reason witnesses take a back seat to the film is simply the quality of evidence. Witness testimony is a lower quality of evidence, more anecdotal, less empirical, so when there is an abundance of empirical evidence, no conflicting witness evidence can overturn it, so it can be dismissed. Such is the case for the PGF. The empirical evidence is simply so strong, that any witness testimony (especially about peripheral issues, since nobody witnessed the filming except Roger and Bob) that conflicts with the film analysis is simply wrong. It doesn't have the strength to overrule the empirical evidence. Similarly, in a crime investigation, police might have both crime scene physical evidence and witness testimonies, and they will always side with the CSI physical evidence over any witness testimony, if the two are in conflict.

 

But for many bigfoot encounters, there's no significant empirical evidence to analyze. All you have is witness testimony, so you do need to evaluate it to try and determine how credible the witness is. If the witness is evaluated and deemed credible, then the witness testimony is considered reliable.

 

So if you have good empirical evidence and witness testimony, the empirical evidence prevails. If you lack empirical evidence and only have witness testimony, you grade it as to reliability and take it according to how reliable it's determined to be.

 

That's why circumstances differ with regard to how useful witness testimony is, with each sighting or encounter reported.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

To be fair, doesn't this works both ways, Norseman, specifically when it comes to debating the PGF?

 

Many proponents of the film wish to exclude any witness evidence entirely. We are told to "stick to the film" as if it exists in a vacuum.

 

Yet, the same proponents will tout witness accounts as important when it comes to the larger bigfoot question.

 

The reasoning has been that corroborating evidence provided by those such as Patterson, Gimlin, DeAtley, Hodgson any many others cannot be relied on and must be dismissed because of witness unreliability, faulty memory, old age, human frailty, character flaws, personal financial gain and on and on. That's fine, I get it. Personally I'm more fascinated by the backstory and the history of that period than the real/fake debate. A very interesting world existed outside of the imaginary confines of this short strip of film.  

 

The truth is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too - its what we do. 


I disagree. It’s my honest observation that proponents of the PGF? Don’t care much at all about other sightings accounts, photos or video, etc. When do you remember SY debating the Freeman film or Todd Standing photos? I could be completely wrong on this. But my perception of this is there is a PGF crowd and then there are Bigfooters. To me they are very different animals. SY isn’t going out into the forest armed with a camera and dental resin either. (Sorry Sweaty Yeti for using you as a example twice)

 

DWA and others back in the day had a “quantity proves existence” type of unscientific mindset. Todd Standing went to parliament with that same mindset trying to pass laws to protect a cryptid species. (My photos and video proves the creature exists) So your right that the mindset certainly exists. I don’t share it. I think I’ve been pretty unwavering in my call for real physical evidence. And going about it the right way.

 

I don’t want my cake and eat it too. I want a real chunk of the creature that proves it’s existence to science without question. I don’t think scientific standards should be lowered in any way, shape or form. 
 

Either way? I don’t understand the logic that if Bob Gimlin questions his experience thirty years in passing that that makes him a hoaxer? For me it says the opposite. It makes him honest. I had a experience when I was roughly 10 years old and I question it everyday. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's important to remember that the film as not shot on a movie set. There were good castable and photographed prints left, and those prints were seen and photographed by independent witnesses afterwards. This event had everything shy of a delivered carcass........and any kind of official comment, response, or comment whatsoever, which in and of itself literally screams for scrutiny.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Gimlin's quote sounds like a completely rational thing to say and does absolutely nothing to undermine the credibility of the film.  He has the honesty to acknowledge that he doesn't know what he doesn't know, but that doesn't meant that he's admitting that the P-G- film was a hoax.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

>> They were fooled because they had no specialized knowledge or experience with what special makeup effects can and cannot do.

 

No, I would contend that they were fooled by your expert, professional makeup effects. You had the specialized knowledge and experience to effectively pull off the illusion. Roger Patterson did not. Surely if this was an actor in a suit, Gimlin would be able to tell if he saw it in person.

 

The reason the costume is "convincing" in the film is because of the poor quality of the film. It's the perfect storm of a hoax -- it shows just enough to intrigue some people but not enough to prove or disprove it.

 

>> Why not just attack the evidence, the film itself?

 

The circumstances and events surrounding the film are also evidence. Why not discuss both? It seems PGF believers are very quick to dismiss and reluctant to discuss the events and circumstances.

 

>> Roger had been shooting a documentary for most of the year, bit by bit.

 

I have to back up and correct myself. I used the word "documentary." I believe a more accurate term would be "docu-drama" or "mockumentary," as the premise of Patterson's film sounds absurd. He was shooting a film that would depict some cowboys being led on an expedition by a Native American guide. The cowboys would tell their story of their encounter as flashbacks. Thus my comment about the film requiring a sound reel. Kind of hard to record flashbacks without audio. Also thus my comment about any woods would do. Honestly Patterson's project sounds more like a work of fiction than a documentary.

 

So how about it, Patterson? What were you doing? Documenting evidence for a serious presentation? Or filming a work of fiction, featuring Bob Gimlin in a wig?

 

>> The Kodak K-100 isn't an awful camera.

 

I admit I have never used this camera. But the film product speaks for itself. Granted, the PGF we see today is many generations removed from the original film in the camera and thus many details and film quality have been destroyed.

 

The original film was lost, correct? Add that to the pile of suspicious evidence. How do you lose something like that? Or was it conveniently "lost" for the very reason I just mentioned -- perhaps the original had too much detail that would expose the ruse?

 

>> 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.

 

Well that would improve his odds to, what, 1 in 900 billion?

 

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

 

I think you may be missing my point on this. If they were shooting that docu-drama about the cowboys and the Native American guide with the flashbacks, clearly they weren't trying to film the actual creature, correct? If they had no intentions of actually locating a creature, why would there be any discussion of not shooting it?

 

>> What DeAtley did after the filming doesn't impact on the authenticity of the film itself.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you strongly about that. Receiving a film shipped in haste and then hurrying off to get it developed would be a highly memorable event. Come on now.

 

>> Maybe you should try more facts and less assumptions.

 

The problem is, true believers tend to innocently mistake their opinions, faulty reasoning, and assumptions as facts.

 

>> The burden of proof is still on the skeptic to prove the film was a hoax.

 

No offense, but this is a classic logic fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the skeptic.

 

>> you have clearly  never watched a documentary, because locations and documentation is kinda the whole point. 

 

See my comments above about Patterson's "documentary."

 

>> You should educate yourself better on it before commenting. Patterson never told Gimlin not to shoot.

 

"Both Bob and I, we had agreed that we will not shoot one of these creatures..."

- Roger Patterson

 

>> Also....my whole child hood has no sound. And most of it is a box of slides and a slide projector.

 

Same here. But our parents were not purportedly shooting a movie with dialogue.

 

>> So if you have good empirical evidence and witness testimony, the empirical evidence prevails.

 

I agree with you on this. But I don't think you have any actual empirical evidence here. The film quality is just too poor.

 

Also, is the film legitimate? 

 

 

Is it true this film was shot shortly before the PGF event? And roughly in the same area? I'm not familiar with this film. If yes, this is even further evidence of a PGF hoax.

 

 

Edited by smokingdino
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

>> You should educate yourself better on it before commenting. Patterson never told Gimlin not to shoot.

 

"Both Bob and I, we had agreed that we will not shoot one of these creatures..."

- Roger Patterson

 

That's not Roger telling Bob not to shoot, which is what you claimed. That's them agreeing they saw no reason to kill one. And that was only if the creature did not act aggressive or try to attack them. Bob has been consistent in saying Roger asked him to "cover him" as Roger ran across the creek.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

this is even further evidence of a PGF hoax.

 

How the hell is that proof the PGF is fake? Never mind, I'm done with your idiocy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rockape said:

 

That's not Roger telling Bob not to shoot, which is what you claimed. That's them agreeing they saw no reason to kill one. And that was only if the creature did not act aggressive or try to attack them. Bob has been consistent in saying Roger asked him to "cover him" as Roger ran across the creek.

 

I think you might be missing my point. If your intent is to go out to shoot some flashback movie with actors retelling a bigfoot encounter, why would there be any discussion about what you'd do if you actually see a bigfoot? It's like, huh? Patterson doesn't seem clear about his motivations for the film. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Rockape said:

 

How the hell is that proof the PGF is fake? 

 

The prints in this film are very obvious, laughable fakes. So clearly a hoaxer was at work here. So we're supposed to believe that a real, live bigfoot was wandering around in the same area that a bigfoot hoaxer was operating?

 

Come on.

 

 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

If your intent is to go out to shoot some flashback movie

 

When you start divining intentions, you've lost the argument.

 

Try this, below is the evidence, why don't you tell us what's wrong with it?

 

patty1.gif

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...