Jump to content

Gimlin's 1999 Admission Clinches It


Recommended Posts

Wooly Booger
1 minute ago, smokingdino said:

 

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.

 

 

Touche!

 

 

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?

 

 

It doesn't mean the tracks were hoaxes at all. John Green reported on these tracks and seemed to view them as genuine. It could simply have been a matter of multiple animals in the area. Bluff Creek at the time had alot of activity. At least since 1958 when Jerry Crew reported giant 17 inch tracks at a road construction site. 

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

It doesn't mean the tracks were hoaxes at all. John Green reported on these tracks and seemed to view them as genuine. It could simply have been a matter of multiple animals in the area. Bluff Creek at the time had alot of activity. At least since 1958 when Jerry Crew reported giant 17 inch tracks at a road construction site. 

 

The screenshot of the print I posted is a clear fake. It's not multiple animals; it's a fake print.

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite
BFF Donor

That's got to be a record - 12 posts and -12 points. 

 

The fundamental premise of this thread is flawed.  "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?" 

 

Yes I would.  Maybe my friend had the silverback gorilla trucked in, had in a cage, and had an animal trainer nearby who released the gorilla on cue, without me knowing about it.  Maybe my friend hired an actor who specialized in pretending to be an animal in a movie quality suit and paid him to rush out of the woods.  (By the way, this is another opportunity to learn that there's a lot you don't know in life.)  Maybe I saw something in an odd light and because my friend yelled "gorilla" I swore I saw a gorilla even though nothing was there. 

 

Unless he was part of a hoax and is still lying about it, Robert Gimlin saw something that most people "know" doesn't exist and while we don't know the context of the question, appears to have given the only honest answer he could - that yes, there is some very slim chance that his friend might have pulled one over on him because he's honest enough to admit that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. 

 

I also find it curious that someone would ignore 35 pages of threads on this single topic, along with Mssr. Munns' excellent report on why Patty isn't a guy in the suit (buy the book, I am not getting any royalties for saying that), and be certain that this one out-of-context quote is "THE" smoking gun in this debate.  It would be very difficult in any context to rely upon such an unsupported assertion as the rationale for making an informed decision.

 

Edited by Trogluddite
To add a thought.
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
51 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

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.

 

 

Touche!

 

 

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?

 

 


Swimmingly.....that’s British.

 

1) Exactly. You don't go to a guppie pond to film sharks for your shark doc.

 

2) Or? The tracks are legitimate because...... you know they later filmed THE CREATURE that made the tracks.

 

3) What is the more simple explanation? An elaborate hoax involving cowboys from Washington and loggers from California working in concert to falsify tracks and film the PGF weeks or months apart?

 

or

 

The loggers report the tracks they find of a large bipedal primate publicly and so cowboys who are studying the same phenomenon in Washington go down and with horses sneak up on the creature and film it? Following said tracks the loggers reported?

 

If I am Elk hunting? I go where I find tracks while scouting in summer. I don’t go in the opposite direction. You also pan for gold in cricks that show color, not ones that don’t. You pick huckleberries where you find huckleberry bushes...... shall I continue? Does this logic escape you?

 

Question for you.... if you believe the PGF to be a hoax? Do you believe Bob Heronimous and Phillip Morris? Do you have a theory of your own? How did two cowboys and a guy in a suit pull this off?

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

1968

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite
BFF Donor

Oh, Norse, you gave it away! :-)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

 

The screenshot of the print I posted is a clear fake. It's not multiple animals; it's a fake print.

By what criteria have you determined these tracks are fake? And what qualifies you to do so? 

 

It is also possible that the tracks are genuine as Bluff Creek had a lot of activity during the 1960s. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
3 hours ago, smokingdino said:

........Think about it.

 

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

 

As well as sightings and nest finds, and over a 9 year period of time. Patterson had found and casted prints in the area four years before his film was shot. Why don't you show us a pic of those prints?

 

Quote

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

 

Purported hoaxed prints in the area do not make Patterson's prints or film hoaxed regardless of how much you wish them to.

 

Quote

.......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?!?........

 

Actually, you have it backwards: are we really supposed to believe that it's just a wild coincidence that a hoaxer was hoaxing prints in the very area where a series of sasquatch events occurred immediately after the timber industry opened the area up, and which also had a long history among both aboriginal natives and gold prospectors regularly reported these creatures?!?........

 

Quote

 

.........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?.........


 

 

I think the most simple explanation is that a hoaxer tried having fun in an area that had been having lots of sasquatch activity over a nine year period of time and that was attracting interested people.

 

It's sorta' like you showing up here instead of a knitting forum.
 

Quote

.......If we were having this conversation at a bar with beer and wings, I'm sure we'd be getting along swimmingly..........

 

I'm really picky about who I drink with.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
On 3/20/2021 at 1:21 PM, 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.


True that.  Bob made it clear many times he would have shot it if it had turned to attack them or get aggressive.  Bob maintains he does not kill otherwise unless it might for food as is the ethic of many hunters.    Also, it wouldn’t matter what they felt they would do (not shoot) as Gimlin was in control of his choice and stated he Would have shot the subject if it turned on them.  He was not constrained by what anyone else might want him to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
On 3/20/2021 at 7:19 PM, smokingdino said:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Patterson was told by others about the tracks.  Only then, and because of that report, did he travel to Northern California.   

 

 

On 3/20/2021 at 7:19 PM, smokingdino said:

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

 

If the film is legit then Patty is a real creature.  Why would patty be legit ( if the film is legit) and yet there would be “some of the tracks” being the work of a hoaxer?

 

 

On 3/20/2021 at 7:19 PM, smokingdino said:

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?!?
 

 

 

Ummmmm no, you are supposed to consider a man who obsessed over bigfoot and devoted his nearly broke life after the obsession was willing to go to N California to see/film some tracks and go tracking.    If the tracks are real there is not a coincidence some bigfoot would be walking around.  It’s an expectation of certainty there would be.  See, legit tracks require something legit to make those tracks.   They go togather like smoke and fire.   To have you tell it, there is legit smoke and you say, “...and there is just a coincidence there just happens to be fire”.
 

 

On 3/20/2021 at 7:19 PM, smokingdino said:

 

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?

 

 

 

 

the explanation is this:   A person claims to have filmed bigfoot.   Secondary people documented the event like lyle loverty and others by also coming upon the tracks.   We know exactly then and now where it was filmed.   The film shows where they were just prior.  The film is there.   It is the presented evidence or case to be made according to Roger Patterson.   You are welcome to debunk that but you might try to do so discussing what is on the film.  Your points outside the film seem really lost to me.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor


Take this video.

 

Todd Standing proclaims this creature is “beastly huge”. But without knowing where the video was taken? And then putting a tape to every tree or Bush. Or having a 6’6” man walk the corresponding trackway at the film site out? It’s useless.

 

We can all speculate. But there is no data that can be had if you don’t tell where the X on the ground is.

 

The PGF is unique in that regard.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

BTW. The recreation isn’t at the spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Asking and answering

 

I always wonder about the concept of asking and answering.    When someone ask a Q about a subject, once they receive the answer shouldn't that usually eliminate the question as any point of contention?

 

Not to pick on any recent poster here, but take for instance the question -almost a challenging point- saying, "Roger's camera was of poor quality" or words to that effect.   Once it was pointed out Roger's camera was in fact a very good camera, shouldn't that eliminate the point?   Shouldn't that further bring a realization since the reverse is in fact true, maybe their opinion and overall impression might be a little weaker?  Once there is a really good factual reason offered, one would think that would result in a corrective response.  I get some points are things like our differing impressions on what a fur line might look like to two different people. But matters on fact should be somewhat agreed upon by skeptics and believers alike.  Once they are corrected, that should be enough to accept it and move on.   As these points of clarity pile up, perhaps this might even loosen the grip on opinions we hold on tightly initially. 

 

(I don't expect a skeptic or believer to change sides just because they find out Roger's camera was actually a very good camera.)

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Backdoc:

 

What you asked about is exactly the difference between a genuinely open-minded inquirer and a troll. The open-minded person does want to learn, and does embrace the new knowledge when it is provided. The troll just figures that strand of spagetti didn't stick to the wall, so the troll just throws more spagetti (ideas) to the wall, hoping one of them will stick.

 

As I was the person answering the question about Roger's camera, I was hoping the one who asked would show some willingness to learn about it and temper his skepticism at least a little, because his remark suggested he felt this was a strong argument supporting his idea the film was hoaxed. But apparently learning the truth didn't really matter to the person.  

 

Sad, but not uncommon.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...