Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Check Out The First Nationally Broadcasted TV Interview With Bob Gimlin


From the youtube channel of Sasquatch Central:

A Bob Gimlin interview and reenactment from Mysterious Encounters TV series 2001, Shot by Doug Hajicek, also features Owen Caddy and Dr. Daris Swindler comment on possible facial movements near the end of clip.

185 comments:

  1. Interesting that he got caught in a massive condradiction when rictor interviewed him and asked him about his horses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You see... In the crazy world of the amazingly logical pseudosceptic, the poor memory of an old man equates to an SFX defying magic monkey suit.

      Delete
    2. So what is it? Is Bob Gimlin the dumbest hoaxer in the world, or is he a hoaxing genius able to fool people for 47 years? Some people need to make up their minds and keep train of their excuses when approaching an irrelevant alleged contradiction, to what is in fact an innocent old man with a memory slip.

      Delete
    3. ^ hasn`t the faintest knowledge of Gimlin but desperately needs to pretend he has some kind of handle on his psychology...

      the truth is Iktomi has NO idea of the cause of Gimlin`s error,NONE at all

      You`re scrabbling in the dirt as ever and no nearer to finding any of it to be pay-dirt

      you wanker

      hahahahahahahahaha

      now after giving us a good laugh you can feck off

      Delete
    4. Where's your counter argument, kid?

      You lose.

      Delete
    5. ^ has no argument of his own so tries distraction ...that doesn`t work,you wanker

      your own falsehoods are apparent to all and sundry

      now feck off for your afternoon gay session with the local unemployed wankers you know..the other fools with no life you follow

      ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    6. Did you just have the audacity to suggest distraction on anyone else's part?

      Where's your counter argument, kid?

      Delete
    7. Joe is truly melting down today. This is great!!!!

      Delete
    8. Actually, it turns out that Bob Gimlin IS a liar.

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gimlin-lied.htm

      Delete
    9. As it turns out, fake Iktomi... Nobody is a bigger liar than Greg Long;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      ... Now how's that monkey suit coming along?

      Delete
    10. That has nothing to do with Bob Gimlin being a liar.

      Delete
    11. Bob Gimlin telling a lie about being in trouble with the police has nothing to do with him allegedly hoaxing the PGF. How many times have you lied in your septic existence? You're in no position to take the moral high ground, you dirty snake, and expecially when you use a Greg Long source who's been exposed hoaxing a hoax.

      Delete
    12. Court records do not lie. Signatures do not lie. Bob Gimlin lies. So much for "honest Bob".

      He also lies through his teeth about the PGF. In exchange he gets the adoration of morons. I guess it's worth it for him.

      Delete
    13. Bob Gimlin lies to a stranger about being in trouble with the police = a magic monkey suit is found.

      Nargh! Man up and find a god damn magic monkey suit, for crying out loud.

      Delete
    14. ... And tell me, considering Bob Gimlin took Patterson's wife and others to court over rights of the film and ultimately money, why didn't he blow the lid off the "hoax" then?

      Thinking isn't your forte, is it?

      Delete
    15. poor little joe joe is getting mad because gimlin's credibility was blown the f#ck out above. Thats got to hurt Joe, so much for Gimlins testimony

      Delete
    16. Credibility?

      Your "version" of Bob's integrity is provided by someone like Greg Long; who's been caught putting words in the mouths of people he interviewed for his book. You see... There's money in hoaxing a hoax, especially when your target audience are largely sceptical of the subject already. Author David Murphy has spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson that includes a lot on Bob Gimlin (as yet unreleased). In this time he has interviewed over 70 people who have had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time he came across not one person who didn’t think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature. This is in direct contrast to Greg ‘Liar’ Long who’s book was an attempt at making money from hoaxing a hoax;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      Delete
    17. Joe likes to act like he knows bob gimlin and greg long. Although he has never met them, nor talked to them. He bases his feelings solely off of his desire for bigfoot to exist. Joe doesn't know anything about what these men are like and who lies vs who doesnt. But thats okay, if you support bigfoot, joe supports you.

      Delete
    18. Yet you know Bob G's a hoaxer, right? You only have to know the facts about Greg Long and his methods, which are in that Bill Miller link... Greg's an author and an author that lies and bends the truth should be prejudiced against in sincere scepticism. But you need to find a monkey suit or your accusations about Bob G, and every irrelevant angle you can conjure in totally irrelevant.

      Delete
    19. Bill Miller is a moron and so are you.

      Delete
    20. We would be... We prevent you from sleeping soundly at night.

      Delete
    21. Why does anyone need to find a monkey suit? The film looks fake and that is good enough for me.

      As for the larger question of bigfoots existence? There is insufficient evidence to proof that bigfoot exists at the moment. I doubt that this will change since the type of evidence that should be present, such as scat or hair, is conspicuously absent. This type of evidence is not going to suddenly, and retroactively, accumulate in places one would expect to find it. That this evidence is not present is a very strong indication that bigfoot is not real. Also, there seems to be no species ecosystem impact. Biologists can determine what species are in an area by examining the area itself for positive identifiers.

      Evidence and methodology for every other large mammal in North America is consistent and repeatable and successful. But not bigfoot. Only bigfoot leaves nothing behind and has no impact on its environment. Now, does that sound like a real creature to you?

      Delete
    22. Is someone suggests that the subject in the PGF is not organic, then that means they are obligated to demonstrate how. And if the subject in the PGF is not organic, what is it? The subject in the footage was as obviously as fake as you imply, it would have been put to bed by now.

      Nobody is claiming to have proof that Sasquatch exists, but there is evidence to suggest that enthusiasts are warranted their stance... And one of those evidences are hairs that show repeatable morphology across many different samples. There are plenty of scat samples that don't appear to have come from any known animal. Is it not plausible if you're a wild human that invests everything on your ability to evade detection, that you would naturally bury your poop? Sasquatch would naturally be at the top of the food chain, can we account for vegetation, fish, white tail deer who's numbers are soaring, etc?

      The impact Sasquatch has on it's environment is the physical sign of track impressions which are in abundance for study and used as repeatable evidence, as well as hair samples, even large, heavy stick structures that are found literally in the middle of nowhere. Every time someone brings evidence of Sasquatch sign on the environment people claim it isn't by reason of circular logic and then rhetorically claim it's none existent.

      Delete
    23. Simply having an opinion on something carries no obligation. It is impossible to view the film and not form an opinion. Even if that opinion is uncertain. Just because I think it looks fake does not transfer a burden to replicate it. I am not trying to demonstrate anything, nor am I claiming my opinion as fact. I am merely saying I think it looks fake to me.

      Delete
    24. There is no circular logic or rhetoric involved. No trackway or stick structure has ever been proven to be the result of a sasquatch. So by both common sense and formal logic, you cannot state that these things are evidence of bigfoot. They could be, but that has never been proven yet. They are putative bigfoot evidence, at best. Yet you constantly make bold claims that simply cannot be supported.

      Delete
    25. "The subject in the footage was as obviously as fake as you imply, it would have been put to bed by now. "

      "Is it not plausible if you're a wild human that invests everything on your ability to evade detection, that you would naturally bury your poop? "

      Argument from incredulity.


      "Sasquatch would naturally be at the top of the food chain,..."

      Where is the evidence of this? We can study an area and describe the species that live there, including the top of the food chain. This is done in places with top predators like bears. Scientists can tell you what lives in an area just by studying the area. There is nothing that indicates any creature resembling bigfoot exists in any area that bigfoot has been reported to inhabit.

      Delete
    26. Dmaker just blew Joe the F#ck out, for the millionth time!!!!!!

      Delete
    27. Opinions are like rear ends, we've all got them... But if someone religiously approaches this topic in cynicism then it is up to them to face the burden that comes with doing that, and there are ample ways of testing if the subject in that footage is organic or not.

      No trackway has ever been proven to belong to a Sasquatch, but all methods of proving that such trackways did not come from a living, breathing, currently unclassified, bipedal primate have failed... Therefore paired with other evidences that point to an unclassified primate existing, enthusiasts are warranted to keep plugging away. If something leaves it's physical sign, then it exists and though that doesn't prove that Sasquatch is real, nobody cynical can argue about people looking to get to the bottom of that.

      I cannot prove that these evidences come from a Sasquatch, but one must beg the question, what other currenlty unclassified bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates is residing in the wilderness of the US?

      Delete
    28. "The subject in the footage was as obviously as fake as you imply, it would have been put to bed by now. "
      - that is in fact simple logic. To imply that the footage is obviously fake, is ignorant of the fact that no obvious traits of costume can be presented from the footage.

      "Is it not plausible if you're a wild human that invests everything on your ability to evade detection, that you would naturally bury your poop?"
      - again, though speculative; basic logic. Why would you poop in the open when you are trying to evade detection?

      "Sasquatch would naturally be at the top of the food chain."
      - again, basic logic. Mammals in the same weight range are considered top of the food chain.

      "Scientists can tell you what lives in an area just by studying the area. There is nothing that indicates any creature resembling bigfoot exists in any area that bigfoot has been reported to inhabit."
      ... Don, this is rhetorical. You have been presented in comments prior to this that there is physical evidence for a large bipedal primate leaving it's physical sign on the environment. This is found in remote areas, 30 miles into wilderness interiors where something like this is reported to exist and would naturally have to exist to successfully evade civilisation.

      Delete
    29. The evidence that you mention has not been proven to have come from any bipedal primate other than homo sapiens, i.e. hoaxes. Any unproven instances remain putative at best. You can play semantic games all you want, but saying you can prove there is evidence for a giant, bipedal primate is no different than saying you can prove there is evidence for bigfoot. The evidence that you reference either has a proven source, hoaxing, or remains putative evidence of either more hoaxing or some animal, perhaps a known animal or an unclassified one.

      Not a single piece of evidence that you mention has ever been conclusively linked to a bigfoot or a giant biped. It is all conjecture and opinion. You think you can bridge the gap between opinion and fact by choosing a different descriptor, but it does not work that way. Something is evidence of something when it can be conclusively demonstrated, not when some people happen to think it might be. Bigfoot, or giant biped, evidence needs to go from "could be" to "is". This has not happened yet.

      Delete
    30. You're not making a point at all, Joe. You are simply repeating your assumptions and suppositions along with some editorializing of your thinking. This is not necessary. We all know why you feel the way you do. Your opinions, and the reasons for them, are repeated here daily.

      Delete
    31. No Don... That is very untrue. The evidences that I reference have both been shown to have morphological consistency across different samples, with one source being tested to share the same DNA as a feral human. These hair samples bearing this result were in fact accumulated via a sighting, and track accumulation, and consistent with 11 different other samples all
      linked to their own circumstances revolving around Sasquatch activity. For people who are aware of repeated instances that DNA has come back this way, and who acknowledge that Sasquatch are human, there is no surprise here. The other, as you well know, shows species traits across track impressions divided by States and decades; virtually totally ruling out any method of hoaxing.

      "saying you can prove there is evidence for a giant, bipedal primate is no different than saying you can prove there is evidence for bigfoot."
      ... Or is this you falling into basic logical thinking Donald. I'm sorry Donald, but you have always been invited to prove that the evidences I reference are a mere matter of conjecture, and I've only ever read messy explanations that are meant to counter consistent scientific testing.

      Delete
    32. Don 12:08... The difference is, I can support my opinions with that of scientists who are waiting on theirs to be debunked.

      Delete
    33. Feral is not something that DNA can detect.

      No one has to prove that the evidence presented is mere conjecture. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The burden of proof has not been met. It is perfectly fine to acknowledge that fact. There is no associated burden. I don't think bigfoot exists because the evidence supporting this claim is insufficient to prove the case. It's as simple as that.

      Delete
    34. Now, if only someone proponents could get their hands on an actual bigfoot. Then you could match up all that evidence that you think came from a bigfoot and thereby validate your assumptions and conjecture. But until that point, assumption and opinion is all you have. Even though those opinions may be from some educated people, they remain opinion nonetheless. Opinion becomes fact when it can be proven with evidence.

      Delete
    35. Try to think of it this way:

      You say this and that is evidence of bigfoot (or a giant biped, makes no difference). But there is no proof that bigfoot exists, so you cannot conclusively say the evidence is from a bigfoot. The best you could do is say this evidence looks like it came from a bigfoot. If bigfoot is ever proven to exist, the evidence, and claim, will be validated.

      If bigfoot exists then it is very likely that a large part of the evidence that you say came from a bigfoot, is indeed bigfoot evidence. But that connection cannot happen until there is some proof of existence. Otherwise, all that evidence still remains putative.

      Delete
    36. Notice that as Joe takes his beating from dmaker, that Joe is not calling dmaker names or putting him down like he typically does. I think me and dmaker both know why... Joe is desperate for someone to come on this site and debate him about bigfoot. Since daniel and dmaker hardly ever post anymore, it has been joe and his group of freaks making a few comments everday. The rest are all troll comments, and Joe hates it. He wants someone to show up so that he can make long copy and paste comments too. It makes him feel intelligent and wanted. Dmaker, i suggest that you don't engage in any more debate with Joe whatsoever. He wants this and craves it. Instead, please hit him with Joerg jokes, abholi jokes, and maybe a little racism.

      Delete
    37. Don, the DNA result did not state that the subject was feral, but the genetics on that sequence were a match on an obscure database for a feral human from Uzbekistan. It is my burden to present evidence for which I can convince people there is reason to investigate further... With the ultimate goal of proving that Sasquatch exists. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant. If a critic asserts a negative hypothesi, for instance "there is no evidence for Sasquatch", he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

      If someone could get their hands on an actual "Bigfoot", then I could match up all the evidence that appears to come from a creature that bears anatomical similarities and PROVE SASQUATCH EXISTS, YEEEY!!! But because I haven't got that specimen, that doesn't mean I don't have the evidence of a creature that has anatomical similarities to what is being reported... That's a supression of evidence fallacy. Until then, I have the scientific backing of those scientists who have actually analysed the data, that stands for the evidence of an unknown primate leaving it; their opinions validated by the readily observable repeatable evidence. Opinions are important in science Don, the whole peer review process rests on it.

      There is no proof that "Bigfoot" exists, for that I would need a body... So I cannot conclusively say the evidence is from a "Bigfoot". But I've never claimed to have had the proof for "Bigfoot", only what the current state of evidence points to... And that's a currenlty unclassified bipedal primate that is twice the size of non-human primates.

      Delete
    38. " Joe and his group of freak's "

      HAAA HAAAA HAAA LOL !!

      Delete
    39. I know you are probably going to come back with a response about rhetoric and circular logic, but it's really not. The following example may illustrate my point:

      Someone says hey look this track was made by a bear. How do we know this, and how can we say this with such confidence? Bears are familiar animals. They are known to science and have been studied for many years. When presents something with the claim that it came from a bear, this can be confirmed because we have many examples of bears to compare the evidence to and confirm the claim. This can be done with hair, with tracks, with bones, with scat, etc.

      Now, someone points to some tracks and says these were made by a bigfoot. Are you starting to get where this is going? How do you confirm that claim right now? You cannot. We have no bigfoots to validate supposed bigfoot evidence. This is not circular logic. This is not saying the evidence cannot be from a bigfoot because bigfoot does not exist. This is simply saying the evidence cannot be confirmed to be from a bigfoot because we have no bigfoot specimen or, in some cases DNA, to confirm the evidence. So the evidence must remain putative. If bigfoot is some day proven to be real, then when people point to something and say that came from a bigfoot, there will be a means to confirm that. Right now, that cannot be done. All bigfoot evidence right now remains putative until, or if, bigfoot is proven.

      Delete
    40. I've never said opinions are not important, Joe. I said they are not proof.

      Joe, what is the difference between a bigfoot and a "currently unclassified bipedal primate that is twice the size of non-human primates"? I think we can agree that there is none. This is a rather silly word game that you think makes a difference when it really doesn't. I suggest dropping it. It's not doing your argument any favors.

      Delete
    41. The hair sample from some russian immigrant?
      Is that the hair sample you are refering to Joe?
      Lol,
      Dr BS

      Delete
    42. Someone says, "hey look this track was made by a very large human, twice the size of the average human!" How do we know this, and how can we say this with such confidence? Because it looks like a very large human print. Very large human track impressions are familiar by what is linked to Sasquatch pop culture and an area of fringe science encompassing anthropology, evolutionary bipedalism and wildlife biology. These impressions are known to these scientists and have been studied for many years. When one presents these very large human casts, something with the claim that it came from a bipedal primate that is currenlty unclassified to science can be confirmed because we have many examples of primate species traits to compare the evidence to and confirm the claim. This in turn has been done with hair and audio. This is not circular logic, it's a thing called falsifiability. By this, we cannot say that it came from a "Bigfoot"; but we can say that it came from bipedal primate that is currently unclassified... That is the current state of research. Research does not appear at it's conclusion.

      It's really not difficult to understand... And that's the thing Don, there is no difference between a "Bigfoot" and a bipedal primate, only the means to classify that bipedal primate and have it acknowledged by mainstream science.

      Delete
    43. Nevermind, you're never going to get it.

      Delete
    44. Don... We've had this exchange a million and one times and with all due respect, I feel exactly the same.

      Delete
    45. ^ trying to kiss dmakers butt so that dmaker might come around more. Sorry Joerg, its not going to happen

      Delete
    46. dmaker keeps getting spanked by Iktomi and yet even though he has stated in the past he wont come on here again he does . The lad is a glutton for punishment , perhaps into S & M

      Joe

      Delete
    47. that sure is a gay sense of humor you have there mike B

      Delete
    48. yes its sounds very queer

      Delete
    49. and you two guys would not all about that ? Wouldn't surprise me if you guys are also into the bondage and pain. The fact that you come on here daily and get blown away just further reinforces that notion

      Ta ta

      Joe

      Delete
    50. ^ Leave our pets alone "BONDAGE BOY" !!

      Delete
  2. The following is a major bust and self contradiction for the story-telling of Bob Gimlin. Bob Gimlin knows very well the controversy that has arisen with the 2004 revelation that he was riding Bob Heironimus' horse Chico at Bluff Creek. Gimlin's original account for this was that he was breaking in the horse for Heironimus as a favour. This was later abandoned as it conflicted with early statements by Gimlin that the horse he was riding didn't buck because it was a trailwise, older experienced roping horse. Gimlin now puts everything on Roger saying Roger acquired the horse even though this contradicts both his interview with John Green and his court case in which he sued Pat Patterson and Al DeAtley where he makes it crystal clear that he provided his horse, not Roger.

    This year being interviewed by Thom Cantrall Gimlin was specifically asked to comment on the issue. The question came from myself and others asked that he not be asked this question, not wanting anything "disrespectful" being asked. The question however did make it through and this was Gimlin's response...

    "15) Kitakazee – Mr Gimlin, there were sources that said you had Bob Heironimus’s
    Horse name Chico at Bluff Creek, can you confirm that?

    Bob: Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous. 'Cause I never got the horses together to go. Roger gathered up the horses... I had the transportation and I knew the horse. I'd been around the horse before... Big, stout... good roping horse and I think Bob used him back in those days to rope on but Bob Heronimous actually had that horse early in some of the work he was doing for Roger as well as myself where Roger was trying to get together a film to generate revenue to go on an expedition."


    Bob Gimlin is acutely aware of this situation and the horse Chico which he was well familiar with, belong to his close and trusted friend Bob Heironimus. In the following video also from this year made by Rictor Riolo in an excellent interview with Gimlin, Gimlin completely contradicts himself and pretends as if he has no idea about the horse, even when directly asked about it by Rictor Riolo... (30:00 mark)



    "I was riding a big, tall 16 hand horse that Roger had borrowed from another guy."

    Gimlin gives detailed descriptions of all the horses and the names for only the ones he was not riding. Gimlin knows perfectly well whose horse he had and what its name was. Rictor then asks...

    Rictor Riolo: "And what about yours? What was the name of the big horse?"

    Bob Gimlin: (shakes head, gives confused look) "The big horse. I can't remember his name. You know to me back then unless I was real familiar with a horses, I just called them horse."

    Total gobbledy-goop! He knows exactly whose horse he had, what it's name was, and was definitely familiar with it by his own admission in the earlier interview above. For all his wooing and calling Tammy beautiful and special as is his regular habit on the conference circuit when doing the charmer routine, he has just completely dropped the ball, feigning ignorance about something he has acknowledge on numerous occasions he is acutely aware of. At the very least he acknowledge the one who supplied him his horse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low budget documentary about the subject. He organized some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his association with Roger. Hieronimous is, in fact, one of Bob Gimlin's neighbours, but Gimlin had little social contact with him over the years. Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbours. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967. If Hieronimous had felt left out of Patterson's project by 1967, it would have added insult to injury to learn that his own horse was used by Gimlin on the horse trip that made them both famous. Yakima folks say Bob Hieronimous, by contrast, was always an under-achiever, since he was young. His bare-minimum work ethic won him no admirers in the community. He didn't have many friends, compared to Gimlin. Gimlin had a rather large circle of friends in the Yakima Valley. Compared to the Hieronimous property, the Gimlins seem to have done nicely for themselves. The Gimlins' home has always been well maintained, and nicely painted, and the landscaping nicely manicured. The Gimlins always had nicer, newer vehicles in their driveway too. The Hieronimous family could never keep up with those Joneses. It was a formula for envy in a small western town. Hieronimous had been telling people in Yakima bars for years that he would someday find a way to make money off the Patterson footage, like his famous neighbour did."

      Let me explain something to you; there are many inconsistencies between Bob Gimlin and Roger, this is nothing new. Bob Gimlin has been very open about where he can't fill the blanks in, what he never thought of before and even has appeared to transparently self-reflect that he could have been hoaxed (stupid considering he had a loaded weapon), but all this is the actions of someone with nothing to hide and unconcerned about cross examination. What's consistent, is the fact that this alleged suit has defied 47 years (and still rolling) of SFX with organic tissue not replicable even with modern materials. You hammer an old man and you'll find your inconsistencies. Bob's description of the event has never EVER changed. You'll only ever see one Bigfoot in your life (unless you're lucky) if you're a horse trainer you'll come across tens of thousands. I bet if you asked war veterans about their traumatic experience, their equipment, methods of transport, etc, keep pressing them and make them feel like lying criminals (that's putting it mildly considering the attacks Bob's had on his name) you'd find holes over time. It's only fishy if you want it to be fishy... Truth is the proof's in the pudding; and you cannot deny organic tissue once it's pointed out. At the end of the day... You hammer those war vets you'll fish your inconsistencies.

      Lastly... And this is courtesy from John W Jones, why would the horse go nuts if it was his owner in a suit?

      : )

      Delete
    2. ^ Courtesy of ?

      You`ve no authority to use another`s name to bolster your own shoddy arguments.

      Hurry up and feck off to the dole office for your signing on - aren`t you late ? ..but I don`t think you`ve anything an employer would want have you ...no need for a query there eh ? ..truth is you`ve noi life whatever as you clearly spend all your waking hours here - you utter tosser ,or you would be a tosser if only you could get a hard dick,but you can`t even get it hard any longer can you ?

      A-Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    3. I can use that name when I'm plugging the efforts of a person that obliterates your best arguments.

      Wow... Quite the angry little psycho aren't you? Where's your actual counter argument, kid?

      Now shut up and sit down.

      : )

      Delete
    4. ^ hahahahaha

      JokeTomi has no life whatever - spends every hour of each day "on patrol" over the bigfoot blog

      you`re a poor old man with nobody to talk to you sad old fool


      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    5. But you would know because... You're here every day of your life, right?

      Delete
    6. Lol, what a meltdown by Joe. And of course, Joe got blown the f#ck out!!! Big time!!!

      Delete
    7. I am just curious. If you don't believe in Bigfoot why do you come to a website and attack a guy who simply has an interest in the subject. And the sad thing is you brag about how fast you can comment on a new post. No girls in your life or better activities. Really kind of sad this is highlight of your day.

      Delete
    8. Actually, it turns out that Bob Gimlin IS a liar.

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gimlin-lied.htm

      Delete
    9. As it turns out, fake Iktomi... Nobody is a bigger liar than Greg Long;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      ... Now how's that monkey suit coming along?

      Delete
    10. I wonder... How does someone pretending to be someone else call the shots on who's a liar or not?

      Psycho.

      Delete
    11. "I wonder... How does someone pretending to be someone else call the shots on who's a liar or not?"

      Says Joe while pretending to be Iktomi.

      Delete
    12. Monkey suit is coming along fine. Just purchased one a few days ago from the halloween store. Probably will do some hoaxing this weekend. Blevins of course has the magic monkey suit, and he might rent it out to gimlin on the weekends i hear. And someone pretending to be someone else. Lets see what was that list again....joe, joerg, gerald, abholi falla, stonereader 1, lktomi. You have pretended to be a native american female, and a native american child for crying out loud.

      And chick, shouldnt you be out in the cornfields preparing for harvest?

      Delete
    13. Hey dmaker, check this out. Joe got caught plagarizing a few days ago and he relished it and admitted to it. He seemed proud of it.

      AnonymousSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:25:00 AM PST
      Also Joe, you did not cite your source. This is a blatant example of plagarism, and the authors need notified of your crime. You directly copy and pasted the credentials of these people from there websites, and not only didn't use quotation marks, but you didn't cite as well. You presented these thoughts as your own. Now try claiming you have never plagarized. You have been exposed, and the authors might just be notified.


      IktomiSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:29:00 AM PST
      How's this for context... You have been owned.

      : )


      AnonymousSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:35:00 AM PST
      Do you have any excuse for your plagarism Joe? Evident here for all to see. Ive copied and saved your conversation, so if you ever try and say you have never plagarized, that your lies come to light. I hope dmaker sees this.


      IktomiSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:44:00 AM PST
      I couldn't help myself and I have to admit, I loved it! It made me feel all naughty and wrong and I think I might even end up doing it again!

      As long as your arguments get smashed back in your face, I don't really give a **** kid. And why you gonna do about it?

      : )

      Delete
    14. Don... Who's pretending to be who? Who's Joe?

      Delete
    15. joe, joerg, abholi falla, stonereader 1, gerald, tim u.k.

      Delete
    16. AnonymousWednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:03:00 AM PDT
      Joe,John,and the rest of the Super Friends........

      You are the lowest of the low. It is very obvious you are all just 1 or 2 people posting under various names. The Super Friends are all posting from an IP leading back to the USA Air Force. Don't care if you don't believe me....look into it yourselves....I did. Look into Tavistock.

      http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=103996

      I WILL NOT REMOVE MY COMMENT!!!! iF THAT HAPPENS PLEASE COPY AND PASTE!!!!!!
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/top-5-incredible-stories-from-mulders_14.html?m=0


      ... Need anyone say anything else?

      Delete
  3. You can tell he is a liar by the way his eyes twinkle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your reply to 3:12 is completely off the subject. Liars use that technique to differ the issue

      Delete
    2. ^ uses the technique all the time himself

      Delete
    3. 5:44... When your main obstacle is finding a monkey suit instead of focussing on the eye twinkling of a witness, the only lie is your alleged intelligence.

      Delete
    4. ^ distraction from the real debate = which is that bigfoot isn`t yet even acknowledged to be real by ANY scientific community that matters.

      Not got any real evidence yet have you ?

      No !!


      hahahahaha

      Delete
    5. Distraction? The immediate subject matter is the PGF? Are you on drugs or just this stupid usually?

      It might be news to you that the best primatologists and conservationists in the world are a lot more enthusiastic than your little mind would appear to be able to fathom.

      Delete
    6. Jane Goodall, is all Joes got. He has no idea what the best primatologists and conservationists in the world think. And its only his own opinion that makes them "the best". Joe got caught plagarizing on this same subject a few days ago. He has no idea who the "best" truly are, nor does he know what these people truly think. Joe makes up huge portions of his argument every day. Its sad

      Delete
    7. Tissue Paper Flowers are simple, quick, and inexpensive. They are a thoughtful hand made gift that is easy to customize, looks beautiful, and can last a long time. You can whip up a dozen flowers in about an hour. It's a perfect gift or decoration for Valentine's Day!

      Les Stroud Survivorman.

      Delete
    8. is that all you trolls got ?
      Pfft, the cement heads are out in full force today. The skeptics will say it's a man in a suit - well i'm guessing it would be easy peesy for them to recreate it if a hick like Patterson could have done it with far less SFX technology .
      Go ahead, make a new costume that looks as good as the creature on the film. You truth is they can't and they know it and that is what angers them, they will never admit their blockhead mentality gets in the way every single time
      Schooled again lads !
      Pip pip cheerio !

      Joe

      Delete
    9. The believers will say its a real bigfoot - well i'm guessing it would be easy peesy for them to film another one thats strolling along in the open if a hick like Patterson could have done it.

      Go ahead, film another of the 1000s of bigfoots that as a species would have to exist that looks identical to the creature on the film. You truth is they can't and they know it and that is what angers them, they will never admit their blockhead mentality gets in the way every single time
      Schooled again lads !
      Pip pip cheerio !

      Delete
    10. ^ plays angry birds while sitting on the toilet

      Joe

      Delete
    11. 6:41... Here's that link to all those primatologists and conservationists that blows you out of the water;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dr-jeffrey-meldrum-removes-myth-out-of.html?m=0
      ... Weren't you meant to be phoning the police on me?? What happened???

      9:06... Here we go!
      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
      http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
      ... Plenty of video sources there to get your teeth into! Isn't Learning fun?!

      Delete
    12. AnonymousSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:25:00 AM PST
      Also Joe, you did not cite your source. This is a blatant example of plagarism, and the authors need notified of your crime. You directly copy and pasted the credentials of these people from there websites, and not only didn't use quotation marks, but you didn't cite as well. You presented these thoughts as your own. Now try claiming you have never plagarized. You have been exposed, and the authors might just be notified.


      IktomiSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:29:00 AM PST
      How's this for context... You have been owned.

      : )


      AnonymousSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:35:00 AM PST
      Do you have any excuse for your plagarism Joe? Evident here for all to see. Ive copied and saved your conversation, so if you ever try and say you have never plagarized, that your lies come to light. I hope dmaker sees this.


      IktomiSaturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:44:00 AM PST
      I couldn't help myself and I have to admit, I loved it! It made me feel all naughty and wrong and I think I might even end up doing it again!

      As long as your arguments get smashed back in your face, I don't really give a **** kid. And why you gonna do about it?

      : )

      Delete
    13. When are you phoning the police??

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    14. i hear through the grapevines that the authors have been notified.

      Delete
    15. I thought you were going to phone the police on me??

      Delete
    16. i head the feds have been notified too

      Delete
    17. There are some things that are a question of honesty, regardless of law.

      Delete
    18. Yeah... I understand you might fall back on that once your arguments come second best. Forgetting to put quotation marks in a comment is hardly a lapse in integrity pal... Anyone would think you're a little sore.

      Delete
    19. I'm not the one who made the accusation to begin with, but from what I saw you just brushed it aside to begin with. If you explained it was a mistake I apologise.

      Delete
  4. This morning in my Russia iam watching on my VHS my favourite potatoe movies and behind a family of many many potatoes I see the beegfoot running like mountain devil chasing the gypsies.

    cheechy
    the village rapist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ never mind .. you`ll get locked up soon .. or beaten to death by a caring parent

      Delete
  5. So since this movie or eyewitness account cannot be proof, we need more quality and reproducible evidence. That evidence is lacking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah... Like a million tracks, dermals, dozens of hair samples, audio recordings, thermal hits tens of thousands of eyewitnesses is anything toward "lacking".

      Delete
    2. ^ don`t get carried away with exaggeration you old fool - you can`t support your claim or if you can show us the "million" tracks and " tens f thousands" of thermal hits and witness claims...

      show us this "evidence"

      You can`t !

      Delete
    3. We'll... One of the native names for this creature is Shoonshoonootr, one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”? These cultures have been around for thousands of years... So do the math. "Million" a figure of speech, and the "tens of thousands" regarding eyewitnesses, I forgot the comma between that and the thermal hits... Chump.

      Delete
    4. That is Joes big evidece, and indian name. You do relize that indians had names for condors, that meant, giant wing. Were they talking about Pterodactyls Joe? That is the same argument you are making with this indian word. You have no idea what indians were talking about back then, nor do you have any clue how many eye witnesses were reliable. One of your main traits is to take a few facts and then add a huge helping of BS and your own opinions.

      Delete
    5. 6:12, yes all of that is lacking.

      Delete
    6. Daniella Campbell and Dressmaker extraordinaire think they are so tricky with their anonymous postings. Unfortunately they stink the place up with onion pits so identification is easy.

      Delete
    7. Actually, it turns out that Bob Gimlin IS a liar.

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gimlin-lied.htm

      Delete
    8. 6:45... Actually, that name for Bigfoot has come straight from the Native people that use it. That isn't an interpretation, that's FACT;
      https://accpaleo.wordpress.com/2011/12/

      And no... You idiot, your logic supports my stance. If they used "giant wing" to name a condor, then it makes sense that they use "big foot" to describe a creature that leaves it's physical sign that way.

      **** me you're dense?

      Delete
    9. Joe is seriously melting down today. Great job trolls.

      Delete
    10. Yes... So you keep saying... All the while your arguments are getting kicked back down the basement at you.

      Delete
    11. joe just got blown the f#ck out!!

      Delete
    12. bigfoot doesnt exist.

      YES YES YES!!!!!

      Delete
    13. ^ You have yet to prove the million tracks and thousands of thermal images/sightings etc you spoke of a while ago.

      YOU prove YOUR claim...but you can`t !!

      Delete
    14. Are you able to read? I'll post the comment again for you... Get an adult to help if you're struggling;

      IktomiWednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:23:00 AM PST
      We'll... One of the native names for this creature is Shoonshoonootr, one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”? These cultures have been around for thousands of years... So do the math. "Million" a figure of speech, and the "tens of thousands" regarding eyewitnesses, I forgot the comma between that and the thermal hits... Chump.

      Delete
    15. ^ "Millions" eh ?

      You had no such intention of using it as an analogy but now have changed your tune after being called out.

      You`ve no way to back up your claims and that is why you now change the meaning of your statement..ludicrous but typical of your evasive behaviours.

      Delete
    16. Nargh, I had the intention of using it as a figure of speech, but because you have repeatedly failed to support any of your cancerous ideas since the day you decided to dribble around this blog, you think it's in your best interests to twist words like you're clever without it.

      Evasive? How about you take a little looksy down below and see if you're man enough to to address the evidence that's been put your way.

      Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. ^ probably "lost" around JoeTomi`s limp dick

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. ^ negative proof fallacy

      ^ circular reasoning logical fallacy

      ... Not very bright.

      Delete
    2. ^ fantasist with no proof

      Delete
    3. ^ a denialist who's scared of the evidence.

      Delete
    4. ^The lovelock skull nucial crest's fall within lnca and all native american'perameters. WHY??
      Headbaskets !!

      UNO WHO !

      Delete
    5. Sorry AC... Take it from a PHD who couldn't find an equivalent in modern humans.

      You're a ******* drunk loon.

      Delete
  8. Lots of cement heads here today....keep up the good work Iktomi! It is a thankless job schooling these dense heads!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed! This mornings reading has been especially enjoyable. Ik has left crazy guy with extra red marks on his flabby flanks.

      Delete
    2. Hows abholi doing chick? AHHH HAHAHAHA

      Delete
    3. "hey both".........derp derp derp derp derp

      Delete
    4. Is "derp" a nervous twitch between contributing again to that hairy palm of yours?

      Delete
    5. ^ Joe likes foreskin with w triple cheese smegma topping on to slurp off at his leisure..of which he has hours and hours to while away..why not use it for slurping helmet he thinks to his queer self.

      Delete
  9. Its a fella in an ape costume

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. It is a modified suit however which is why joe uses his "got monkey suit" strawman.

      Delete
    2. 8:39... You claim it's a costume... You go get one to prove just that. Take some responsibility for your claims you spoiled little brat.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    3. yep, on ebay, and in every costume store. And of course at blevins house. AHHHH HAHAHAHA

      Delete
    4. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DiRWOLTsDyY/TY5X5k2O7fI/AAAAAAAADok/tiE7U9_Md_4/s1600/Blevins+BF+Suit.jpg

      Blevins helped prove that Patty is organic. Bless him!

      Delete
    5. The results of said "monkey suit" submitted would be subjective.

      Delete
    6. Just as Patty is subjective.

      Delete
    7. You test the premise that the subject in the PGF is organic by demonstrating it can be manufactured. Manufacturing something that can have the same texture and proportions with materials from the 1960's should be pretty straight forward, forget being subjective.

      Delete
    8. The Belvin rug is a joke... proves Patty is real hands down.

      Delete
    9. No, it proves it's a bad suit.

      Delete
    10. Sorry, I under the impression it was the "magic monkey suit". So where's the good one?

      Delete
    11. Perhaps we are just talking about different degrees of bad.

      Delete
    12. So far all the skeptics can do is babble on and fail to produce even a quality magical monkey suit that even comes close in their wildest imagination. Shakespeare wrote there are more things in heaven and earth , he should have also said there are more trolls that even I could have dreamt of which such weak arsed logic

      Joe

      Delete
    13. So far all the bleevers can do is babble on and fail to produce even a single verifiable piece of evidence that even comes close to being acceptable to rational people.

      We don`t need a fictional tale from Shakey to bolster any case.

      By the way,where are the "millions" of tracks and t"thousands of thermals/witnesses" that you claimed earlier ?

      No proof to back up your ludicrous claims eh ?

      That much is true...as the song says.

      Delete
    14. Biological dermals that have species traits across different castings, States apart and decades apart.
      Audio recordings that became the subject of a year-long University based engineering study, with the results determined that the vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges, that the recordings were spontaneous at the time of recording with no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed.
      Over a dozen unknown primate hair samples, verified by multiple camps of primatologists, all morphologically uniform and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure, found around sightings and tracks.
      Thermal hits, one that shows a subject in the region of 8.5 and another that shows two around 9 feet tall.

      All verified by a long line of very rational scientists.... Oh, and in case you missed it;
      IktomiWednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:23:00 AM PST
      We'll... One of the native names for this creature is Shoonshoonootr, one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”? These cultures have been around for thousands of years... So do the math. "Million" a figure of speech, and the "tens of thousands" regarding eyewitnesses, I forgot the comma between that and the thermal hits... Chump.

      Delete
  10. If someone were to make it more of a monetary gain for Gimlin to confess to the hoax than to keep up the charade he has indicated he would do so, but did not elaborate on what that number would be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No money is needed. Its known its a hoax. Even the people at the conferences are just going along with it now because its a bit of fun. No one REALLY believes in bigfoot. Well at least i hope not.

      Delete
    2. "Gimlin’s version of what happened that day, though, has never changed. And he has had plenty of incentive to change it.

      Documentary filmmaker Doug Hajicek was working on a television show called ‘Mysterious Encounters’ more than a decade ago when, while talking to Bob Gimlin for one of the episodes, happened to called the show’s producers. When he mentioned he was sitting with Gimlin, Hajicek said, the producers told him to offer Gimlin $1 million to tell how he and Patterson faked the footage.

      “It was instant. He didn’t even have to think about it,” Hajicek said. “I wasn’t floored by it. I’d gotten to know Bob and he’s just such a man of character. He doesn’t lie.

      “He said, ‘Well, that’s nice, and I’d like to take your money, but this is what happened: We came around this bend ...’”

      http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/latestlocalnews/94408-8/a-look-at-bigfoot-film-what-do-you

      Delete
    3. FFS! ^ Mr.Anonymous sorry but you're wrong...(no big surprise there) FFS!

      Delete
    4. A million dollars is not that much money now days. He obviously is holding out for a more substantial sum.

      Delete
    5. Oh right... It's "not that much money" now, right? You pseudosceptics will push the goal posts until you look so foolish it's lucky you're anonymous.

      Delete
    6. FFS! I bring nothing to the table and I'm annoying as hell FFS!

      Delete
    7. because he is on your side, not because of his arguments

      Delete
    8. The statement from hajicek is hearsay. No one can confirm that either the producers, or Gimlin said anything of the sort.

      Delete
    9. Sorry pal... There was a direct attempt from film producers to get to the bottom of the matter, it doesn't just come from Hajicek.

      $1M is a lot of money.

      Delete
  11. FFS! Still to this day no one, I mean no one has been able to duplicate Patty period. FFS!
    FFS! Who knows what it was but it's not a suit and why the hell would they put boobs on a suit? FFS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hows the collection harry?

      Delete
    2. FFS! Who is Harry? I am not Harry...FFS!

      Delete
    3. To this day there`s been no duplicate evidence of the reality either.

      Go figure.

      Delete
    4. Were you intending for anyone to understand that?

      Delete
  12. I've always been a big fan of pink and IMO there's no such thing as 'too much pink'

    Les Stroud Survivorman

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rattlesnake Pink is the shade i wear everyday like most might wear chap stick. it’s the perfect amount of pink to give your regular lips just a tiny bit of pop, and has a good amount of moisturizer, so i wear it everywhere.

    Les Stroud Survivorman.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I love to ride my bike. My bike has a pink frame with a white basket on the handle bars. My bike has two big white wheels .
    I love my Pink Bike. If you see me wave!

    Les Stroud Survivorman.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you lie in your sleeping bag on the ground the forest people will step right over your head, you can clearly see their scrotum as they walked by, breathtaking

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is BROADCAST. Not broadcasted.
    Learn English

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whut yous asain cawz we heers speeks amurkins heers

      Delete
  17. in almost 50 years still no magic monkey suit
    Tsk tsk. You lads are wetting your undies trying to say it was a suit but always fail to recreate one that even comes close
    Bigfoot 1 skeptics nil
    I like the sound of that football score

    Joe

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I almost 50 years still no verifiable evidence or corroboration from scientists.In fact the opposite is the case with the worldwide scientific and animal biological field ignoring it.The sole "evidence" seems to come from a multitude of youtube hoax videos.#

      Not much so far.!!

      Delete
    2. Sorry kid... But some of be very best primatologists and conservationists are enthusiastic about the existence of Sasquatch, and the evidence that accounts for every single source short of modern type specimen has been verified by reputable scientists.

      People like you who are too dense to actually acknowledge this do so as it makes the topic easier for you to approach, but the reality of the situation is that you are either in denial, misinformed or disinforming.

      Delete
    3. If that evidence is so good and verified by reputable scientists why hasn't anything become of it? Surely it must persuade other scientists.

      Delete
    4. A mainstream scientist isn't going to come out mid-career and state that he's got reason to believe the evidence is valid... He's got a career to maintain and doesn't want to be tarnished as a nut-job.

      The other reason is that not even enough enthusiasts are aware of the scientific evidence (they're too interested in crap like Finding Bigfoot), so how can we expect scientists who get bombarded with mainstream crap and hoaxes to know it's there?

      Delete
  18. I like Bob Gimlin but has he ever taken a polygraph test ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but Roger Patterson at the request of National Wildlife Magazine and past.

      Delete