Jump to content

Gimlin's 1999 Admission Clinches It


Recommended Posts

Wooly Booger

@smokingdino you keep claiming the film and prints are fakes without presenting evidence to back up your claims. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. 

 

On the contrary, numerous books have been written by individuals infinitely more qualified than you and I to analyze these matters (for instance William Munns, Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Bindernagel etc...) which present an abundance of overwhelming evidence which suggests that both the film and the prints are genuine. Are you a physical anthropologist? Are you a Hollywood costume designer? How about a wildlife biologist? I think the answer is pretty obvious lol. 

 

By the way, you have still neglected to explain how such a realistic ape suit was made using 1960s technology. An issue that skeptics seem to avoid like a vampire avoids crosses. 

Edited by Wooly Booger
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

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?

 

I'm sure the subject came up as to what they would do if they did actually encounter one. They were not out there to shoot a movie or documentary necessarily. Patterson wanted to go there to see the prints that had recently been found, wanted to press deep into the forest, knew Gimlin had the needed gear, horses and know how to do it. You seem to be under the impression they went out there for one day and filmed a bigfoot. They had been out for close to a month when this happened. It was a well planed and well provisioned excursion. They were just a couple of cowboys but they both had a lot of experience with the outdoors.

 

 

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

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?

 

That those prints are fake is merely your opinion, I have no idea if they are fake or not, but either way, it doesn't prove the PGF to be fake.

 

 

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

Your bulls!t meter should be way over in the red by now, if you look at it objectively.

 

I've made it clear I don't know if the PGF is a hoax or the real thing. If like yourself, I ever decide it is a hoax I will never spend one more minute on it and always wonder why someone like yourself would. You're mind is obviously closed so any further debate with you is pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
John B

I have yet seen a scientific debunking. Also it is on film vice digital. Even harder to fake. A peer reviewed analysis would have to be presented. I do not see one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

explain how such a realistic ape suit was made using 1960s technology

 

And made by an old rodeo cowboy with no prior experience. One thing that keeps me in the group that thinks the PGF could be real is that no one has been able to replicate it. Even professionals with a large budget have only been able to make pathetic attempts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

John B:

 

Welcome.

 

You have not seen a scientific debunking, because none exists, and likely never will. People intent on debunking the PGF never go to the real evidence, the film, but rather try to claim the film is low resolution and thus unable to reveal "the costume", and then proceed to dredge up the usual "red flags" (skeptic talking points) of circumstances in Roger's life and behavior that can be labeled "suspicious".  

 

I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the person who opened this thread is simply trolling the forum members, and so I, for one, have decided to not feed the troll any longer.

 

Bill

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
John B
23 minutes ago, Bill said:

John B:

 

Welcome.

 

You have not seen a scientific debunking, because none exists, and likely never will. People intent on debunking the PGF never go to the real evidence, the film, but rather try to claim the film is low resolution and thus unable to reveal "the costume", and then proceed to dredge up the usual "red flags" (skeptic talking points) of circumstances in Roger's life and behavior that can be labeled "suspicious".  

 

I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the person who opened this thread is simply trolling the forum members, and so I, for one, have decided to not feed the troll any longer.

 

Bill

I investigate many things as part of my work. I hate it when people come to the table with nothing but preconceptions. What we may be dealing with is a rare animal (very) with a unique number of skill sets. What we have to remember is not to establish lore over fact. Or impose bias on an unknown. Some people also like to ensure others can not derive joy or fun doing what they love to do. Sasquatch is also supposed to have some fun in the study. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

The skeptics all aim at the PGF for one reason..... It’s NEVER been debunked. And it’s the most well documented. Ivan Marx was debunked when his film location was revealed and measurements were taken at the location. Todd Standing won’t tell you were his film locations are. And there are hundreds of more films out there.

 

But, I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The PGF in the larger scheme of things doesn’t matter. The Bluff creek trail has long grown cold. Patty is dead. Almost everyone associated with the film has passed. This is ancient history. And unfortunately no matter how convincing, the film does nothing to move the scientific yard stick. 
 

It’s the skeptics job to debunk the film. And it’s the believers job to provide physical evidence the species is real.

 

Not sure which job is harder. Patty and her kind could have been walking right off the film and into extinction. Cities have been built, freeways, roads, farms, dams have blocked salmon runs. The west coast has been transformed in the 50 odd years since the film was shot. Millions upon millions of people have flocked in. The great Bear on the California state flag no longer exists.... It happened and continues today. And yet some of us go still look. I’m not really sure if I’m searching for an animal or just the last vestiges of wilderness left.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
smokingdino
3 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

@smokingdino you keep claiming the film and prints are fakes without presenting evidence to back up your claims. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. 

 

 

For discussion, here's a screenshot of a frame of that film. Take a good, hard look at this print:

 

uoRZCo6.jpg

 

Now for comparison, take a look at these human prints:

 

barefoot-footprints-on-the-beach-in-the-

 

Admittedly the human prints are on a wet, soft surface, but they illustrate my point. A real footprint is going to exhibit evidence of a heel strike, toe pushoff, and toe kick. The heel will be noticeably deeper than the rest of the print because the walker's weight and forward momentum will drive the heel deeper into the surface. Then, as the walker takes the next step, the toes will press deeper into the surface as the walker pushes off. There will often be toe kick and scatter, as you can see in this photo.

 

Now, as a bigfoot is allegedly a very large and heavy creature, you would expect the depth of the heel and the toes to be especially pronounced.

 

Now look at this picture:

 

bare-footprints-embedded-in-paving-with-

 

We don't see evidence of heel strike or toe pushoff because the subject placed his feet there; he didn't step there.

 

Now look back at the bigfoot print. Study it very closely.

 

Very obviously a fake. Someone placed a foot shape onto the soil and pressed.

 

Quote

On the contrary, numerous books have been written by individuals infinitely more qualified than you and I to analyze these matters (for instance William Munns, Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Bindernagel etc...) which present an abundance of overwhelming evidence which suggests that both the film and the prints are genuine. Are you a physical anthropologist? Are you a Hollywood costume designer? How about a wildlife biologist? I think the answer is pretty obvious lol. 

 

 

 

No offense, but this is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy.

 

 

Quote

By the way, you have still neglected to explain how such a realistic ape suit was made using 1960s technology. An issue that skeptics seem to avoid like a vampire avoids crosses. 

 

I can't speak for all skeptics; I can just speak for myself. The insistence that the suit is "realistic" begs the question. Whether it is realistic or not is simply a matter of opinion.

 

I've seen many posts where people compare the subject of the BGF to laughable attempts at recreations and cite that as evidence of realism. It isn't.

 

1 hour ago, Rockape said:

...and always wonder why someone like yourself would. 

 

Because discussing interesting topics is fun? It's a discussion board!

 

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the person who opened this thread is simply trolling the forum members, and so I, for one, have decided to not feed the troll any longer.

 

 

It's an unfortunate reality of internet discussion boards that if someone questions a dearly-held belief, that person is quickly dismissed as a "troll." 

 

I don't think the points I'm making or the questions I'm asking are unfair, unreasonable, or unworthy of discussion.

 

It's your choice, of course, and I mean no offense, but if you're so quick to dismiss the skeptic as a "troll," maybe you've become too emotionally attached to your conclusions? That's not the way science is done. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
17 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

For discussion, here's a screenshot of a frame of that film. Take a good, hard look at this print:

 

uoRZCo6.jpg

 

Now for comparison, take a look at these human prints:

 

barefoot-footprints-on-the-beach-in-the-

 

Admittedly the human prints are on a wet, soft surface, but they illustrate my point. A real footprint is going to exhibit evidence of a heel strike, toe pushoff, and toe kick. The heel will be noticeably deeper than the rest of the print because the walker's weight and forward momentum will drive the heel deeper into the surface. Then, as the walker takes the next step, the toes will press deeper into the surface as the walker pushes off. There will often be toe kick and scatter, as you can see in this photo.

 

Now, as a bigfoot is allegedly a very large and heavy creature, you would expect the depth of the heel and the toes to be especially pronounced.

 

Now look at this picture:

 

bare-footprints-embedded-in-paving-with-

 

We don't see evidence of heel strike or toe pushoff because the subject placed his feet there; he didn't step there.

 

Now look back at the bigfoot print. Study it very closely.

 

Very obviously a fake. Someone placed a foot shape onto the soil and pressed.

 

 

No offense, but this is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy.

 

 

 

I can't speak for all skeptics; I can just speak for myself. The insistence that the suit is "realistic" begs the question. Whether it is realistic or not is simply a matter of opinion.

 

I've seen many posts where people compare the subject of the BGF to laughable attempts at recreations and cite that as evidence of realism. It isn't.

 

 

Because discussing interesting topics is fun? It's a discussion board!

 

 

It's an unfortunate reality of internet discussion boards that if someone questions a dearly-held belief, that person is quickly dismissed as a "troll." 

 

I don't think the points I'm making or the questions I'm asking are unfair, unreasonable, or unworthy of discussion.

 

It's your choice, of course, and I mean no offense, but if you're so quick to dismiss the skeptic as a "troll," maybe you've become too emotionally attached to your conclusions? That's not the way science is done. 

 

The prints from the Patterson-Gimlin Film site were analyzed by physical anthropologists. The very people with the expertise to determine the probability of the prints being real. These prints reveal a foot size of 14.5 long and the depth they sunk into the soil suggests whoever left these prints was very heavy. Grover Krantz estimated the weight of the subject at 640lbs. By contrast, John Green who mentioned he weighed close to 200 lbs could barely leave an impression in the same soil. Even after jumping off a ledge a few feet high. 

 

And like I said before, individuals much more qualified to determine a accuracy of the prints and the film have analyzed both and determined that there is no evidence of fakery. In all honesty, it doesn't really matter what you think about the prints and the alleged lack of heel strike or toe push off. You are not a physical anthropologist.

Edited by Wooly Booger
Link to post
Share on other sites
smokingdino
2 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

The prints from the Patterson-Gimlin Film site were analyzed by physical anthropologists.

 

These are not prints from the PGF film site. These are prints found just prior to the PGF event.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
11 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

These are not prints from the PGF film site. These are prints found just prior to the PGF event.

Those are tangential to this discussion and thus irrelevant. I was referring to the prints from the actual film site. 

Edited by Wooly Booger
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Smokingdino:

 

"It's an unfortunate reality of internet discussion boards that if someone questions a dearly-held belief, that person is quickly dismissed as a "troll." "

 

You are not a troll because you are questioning "dearly held beliefs" You are questioning comprehensive analysis based of real physical evidence, and failing to offer any comprehensive analysis based on real evidence to support your questions or opposing opinions. In a mere five pages of discussion, you've run through a multitude of conventional skeptic talking points, most based on flawed assumptions or misunderstanding of the evidence, and when one claim or remark is soundly defeated, you just throw more intellectual spaghetti on the wall to see if something sticks. 

 

You have yet to present a single coherent argument, structured with analytical clarity and supported by factual evidence, leading to a well-reasoned conclusion. So if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do with my time than repeatedly pointing out your errors, as you seem to have an abundance of them.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
4 hours ago, smokingdino said:

........The prints in this film are very obvious, laughable fakes........

 

Well, at this point we can see what Dino has been smoking, and we can also see where he has slithered in from. Give all the Randi folks my regards during your reports back on your activities here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
29 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

These are not prints from the PGF film site. These are prints found just prior to the PGF event.

 

That is why they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
smokingdino
59 minutes ago, Bill said:

Smokingdino:

 

...and when one claim or remark is soundly defeated, you just throw more intellectual spaghetti on the wall to see if something sticks...

 

 

Well, now, "defeat" on a discussion board is a matter of opinion. Guys, I mean no harm here. It's all just conversation for fun. I have a difference of opinion, that's all. If we were having this conversation at a bar with beer and wings, I'm sure we'd be getting along swimmingly.

 

53 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Well, at this point we can see what Dino has been smoking...

 

Touche!

 

49 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

That is why they are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

They're entirely relevant, if you consider the point with a very open mind.

 

Think about it.

 

1. Patterson was allegedly drawn here because tracks had been reported.

2. If this film is legitimate, it's evidence that at least some of the tracks are the work of a hoaxer.

3. So now consider...are we really supposed to believe that it's just a wild coincidence that a real bigfoot was wandering around in the very area where a hoaxer was operating?!?

 

I mean, seriously. What's the more simple explanation? That a bigfoot and a hoaxer were in the same area? Or that one hoax simply led to another?

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...