Alone with Bigfoot
From Sstories channel on youtube. Imagine being stuck in the woods alone with a bigfoot creature. How scary.
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
Bob Gimlin has stated in interviews that he had nothing to do with the 16mm camera that Roger Patterson rented in Yakima before they headed to California. Gimlin said that the camera was only with Roger and that he (Gimlin) never used/worked the camera.
ReplyDeleteHere's the question: If Gimlin didn't use the camera, who was filming Roger Patterson? You can see Roger in some of the footage on his horse. And their is also
That’s a bit of a sad old case you’ve dug up there Rum? Have you really away and scraped every barrel that clean?
Deletehttps://youtu.be/H5fxVmrHfsU
Go down to the YouTube comment posted by Chris Bennett.
Christ Bennett's comment directly contradicts what Gimlin said in that interview. Gimlin was there. Gimlin knows what he did and didn't do in regard to using the camera.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBennett’s comment perfectly articulates how meaningless the point you’re rehashing is. If there were magic monkey suits to be referenced for the time, then your rehashed case against impossible SFX and decades old hominin trackway studies might seem plausible.
DeleteThere isn’t. And this is your biggest issue.
It really is as simple as that.
You just can't admit that this is a significant hole in Bob Gimlin's story. Either Gimlin filmed Roger Patterson or someone else was with them on that trip (as Bob Hieronomous claims).
DeleteGimlin said that he did not work the camera at all. Gimlin even joked that he still doesn't know how to work a camera.
You are so entrenched in the idea that the Patterson footage is not a hoax that you cannot look at the situation objectively.
When someone presents any point whatsoever that questions the validity of this footage, you always respond with "Got monkey suit." As if that is the be all and end all argument against the footage being a hoax.
The truth is that Patterson may have pulled off a hoax that happened to turn out better than he could have ever dreamed. The lighting, the angle, the distance, and the slight 16mm graininess may have all worked together to pull of a very convincing hoax.
I am not saying that the PGF is a hoax, but I am not convinced that it may not have been. I believe that sasquatches exist, but not because I am convinced by the Patterson footage.
“Bob said he was there to help Roger with whatever needed to be done and that Roger was the cameraman. I’m this scene Roger needed Bob to film him on the pack horse for documentary footage. So, this pack horse scene was filmed by Bob Gimlin under the instruction of Roger Patterson. There is also another clip that has Bob Gimlin leading the pack horse. But, Roger kept the camera on his horse because “he” was the cameraman.
DeleteThis is the type of nonsense that drives me nuts. You may as well say “but Bob said he was leading the pack horse and here is footage that proves Roger led the pack horse, so who did? Both at different times.......though Bob was leading the pack horse when they encountered the Sasquatch.
Now, if the interviewer had asked Bob if he took that footage of Roger and Bob said “no” then and only then would your question of “then who did” apply.””
- Chris Bennett
Being objective, at best you have the potential for an old man’s 60 year old memory having influence over a statement regarding informal roles being taken literally. In the face of impossible amounts of data aligned with that footage that you can’t even begin to dent, that’s not even subjective... that’s down right desperate. And this is what the PGF hoax cultists are left with in the end... hearsay and desperate holes from word-play taken literally to piece together a much needed contradiction. To repeat, what you’ve managed to rehash up (it’s not even your own argument) is not even a decent “question about the validity of the footage”, but a mere lapse in consistency about informal roles given to each other by two cowboys in Northern California.
DeleteYes... to read that back, it really does seem all that desperate.
Anything to deflect from just doing what should be easy to do given Roger Patterson was a broke cowboy who apparently couldn’t get his timeline straight... Find a god damn magic monkey suit.
So Roger Patterson managed to get the “lighting, the angle, the distance, and the slight 16mm graininess” all in order to somehow work together to pull off the “hoax”... for what? The original footage is jumpy and shaky? Why would someone put all that Hollywood know-how and super-human professional effort into something that couldn’t be seen for years and years later through stabilisation? Why would someone invest in impossible SFX that would have graced Hollywood for decades ahead of its time? Wouldn’t Roger Patterson have a job working in Hollywood with that type of “genius”? To someone who needs an angle all this might seem plausible... but you seem to not only believe that Roger would have a crystal ball to know that his footage would be stabilised and digitalised decades ahead, but that he somehow predicted that future cameras would be “less grainy” and used the current standard of camera of the time to his advantage?
And no, you are saying the PGF is a hoax. You have done for over ten years. And all that incoherent narrative and trash rehashing proves you really are that desperate for it to be a hoax. Nobody would risk using such a pointless argument that didn’t work the first time it came around otherwise.
Again, Bob Gimlin said that he did not work the camera at all. This directly contradicts what Chris Bennet is saying. So, Chris Benmet who was not there is contradicting Bob Gimlin and knows better than Gimlin regarding what happened?
Delete(Can’t believe I have to spell this out...)
DeleteChris Bennett is working off the theory that Bob DID use the camera, and his statement that he didn’t have the role of “cameraman” is being taken literally by people like you.
You can’t argue one minute that Bob’s word is fraudulent and then the next, claim that his statement about his role is gospel (LOL), that’s not remotely logical.
If Bob Gimlin is wrong about his comments that he did not use the camera at all, then everything he said about the famous film can be disregarded as being questionable.
DeleteIf painting Gimlin as an old man with a faulty memory is being used an excuse for him not remembering that he did use the camera, then his memory about other aspects of his story may be erroneous as well.
Unfortunately Rum... such a leap of faith regarding everything that he’s said being thrown out for a small lapse cannot be substantiated because we have the actual footage.
DeleteAnd actually we already know that Gimlin’s memory is a little faulty regarding much of what happened leading up and after the filming. What has held up every time is the actual event of filming the PGF subject. As I’ve said a million times, hearsay and lapses in memory from 60 years ago isn’t enough to challenge actual data.
LOL. Bob Gimlin himself could look you in the eye and tell you that Roger Patterson hoaxed the footage, and you would tell Gimlin "Got monkey suit?"
DeleteDid you even listen to Gimlin talk about not using the camera? He specifically states that he did not use the camera. Yet, you keep making excuses for Gimlin because you can't concede that Patterson may have fooled you as he may have fooled the many other people who believe that the footage shows an actual bigfoot.
DeleteYes Rum, I have acknowledged what Gimlin has said and it’s just that. A statement. By your logic Gimlin couldn’t have been hoaxed by Roger if he’s that sincere in everything he says, because he would be describing a living, breathing hominin walking through the sandbar... See how futile this is? We can cherry pick what are accurate statements and those that we feel aren’t until the cows come home.
DeleteIf Patterson fooled Gimlin and the world, then please show how he made impossible SFX detail with no budget. He couldn’t even afford to pay for the camera.
The irony here is whilst you’re looking for holes... the biggest are within your own narrative. And you had the audacity to refer to the alleged objectivity to others?
DeleteLOL. You're that desperate to cling to your beloved Patterson film that now you're hypothesizing that Patterson may have hoaxed Gimlin.
DeleteI got news for you. The term con man is short for confidence man. Confidence men con you by gaining your trust. You just can't accept that Patterson may have conned you (and many others).
(Oh dear)
DeleteThat’s the total opposite of what I’m doing. I’m encouraging you to look at the actual reliable data, and that data is in the footage. There is no question that the footage exists. There is no question that there is something in front of the camera. Essentially, what you are relying on is an alleged hole in 60 year old anecdote. Haven’t you spent over ten years telling people anecdotes aren’t reliable?
It’s not a matter of trust, even Roger Patterson himself said he was probably the least most credible person to film a hominin. It’s about what’s in front of your eyes, and what you are able to study from what was left by the subject in the footage. You will never convince anyone to ditch decades of scientifically solid hominin trackway studies, comparable with what Patty left behind... and impossible SFX detail that nobody in a hundred years of the field can point to... For The sake of a lapse of consistency with informal roles on an expedition.
LOL. The reliable data is Gimlin saying point blank that he did not use the camera.
DeleteThen I can argue that a genuine hominin walked through the sandbar and it trumps your claim based on the same logic.
DeleteSo, if Patterson and Gimlin were lying about how many people were there, who was filming, what happened etc, that wouldn't call into question in your mind the veracity of the film? Really?
DeleteBut that could just be (and in my opinion is) your version of what happened. At the very beginning of this exchange you were presented with an argument that rendered the whole matter pointless. For example, based on the fact that Roger switched roles and led the pack horse, we can then safely say that what Bob said about their allocated roles has been taken literally. You have evidence in the footage in front of you that what Bob said cannot be taken literally. There were no military-style assigned roles at Bluff Creek, Rum. Just two cowboys looking for a Bigfoot.
DeleteAnd nope. There has been YEARS of hearsay, conspiracies and conjecture about everything except what’s in that footage. You cannot hoax biological tissue. You cannot hoax repeatable science. End of.
Hilarious. "...what Bob said cannot be taken literally."
DeleteYou mean when Bob Gimlin said point blank that he did not use the camera he is not to be taken literally.
Aaaaand when Gimlin tells his Patty story, then he is to be taken literally?
Based on what Gimlin said about the specific roles of both of them, and over the course of the expedition which was a couple of days... PLUS the fact that Roger is actually documented via footage doing other things rather than just filming... it is my opinion that Bob shouldn’t be taken literally when talking about their specific responsibilities.
DeleteAnd in trying to project your shortfalls on others, might I remind you that I am not merely leaning my argument against the mere word of Gimlin. I am referencing the data in the footage. What Bob then says about the actual sighting is corroborated with evidence, both in footage and physical sign.
I’ll be back in the morning.
DeleteIn other words, when Bob Gimlin says that he did not do any of the camera work, he doesn't really mean that.
DeleteLet’s just pretend that he’s totally and rather knowingly outright lying... you still don’t have a magic monkey suit.
DeleteThat’s why nobody jumped all over this stuff the first time it came about. And that’s how pointless this whole exercise has been for you.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Hahahahaha - now you've done it! You have attacked icktomi's religion and furthermore have questioned Saint Gimlin's honesty and integrity. Such blasphemy! It's always amusing to watch icktomi come up with some explanation to dodge the facts such as the film's timeline which basically reveals that the events could not have happened as they said it did. Well here's one "fact" that icktomi cannot dodge - there is no biological tissue of a Bigfoot. None, nada, zero. But I do agree with one thing he has said above " You cannot hoax biological tissue" and THAT is why Bigfoot has never been proven because none exists.
DeleteNow watch him try to explain that CASTS OF FOOTPRINTS is biological evidence. God he makes me laugh!!!
Sockpuppeting now Rum? Have you no confidence in your own stance man?
DeleteAgain, as I’ve said before... the timeline is shady. But again... it’s all hearsay, decades old reflection and people desperately trying to fill in gaps. No reliable data, as opposed to the footage that there is no denying exists.
The PFG “impossible timeline” is peddled by those setting up clever little strawmen. And fundamental to that strawman is that it takes “36 hours to process Kodachrome film”. Bill Munns destroyed this, Kodachrome not only doesn’t take 36 hours to process... but that's assuming that the Kodak film couldn't have been developed in that part of California. And we already know that the idea that it couldn’t have comes from someone who's attempts at "research" are so embarrassing that even sceptics have come to point out major holes; Greg Long. Just like "Roger Patterson isn't credible because he lied"... It is a double standard to then ignore a multitude of lies and god awful research in Greg Long's ideas.
And Rum... I’m not sure if you are aware what biological evidence would entail but there are many hair samples that have been studied by reputable primatologists that are linked to activity and instances where physical evidence has been retrieved. If you cannot hoax that, then multiple samples proving morphological congruency should seal it for you, should it not? “Bigfoot” can easily be shown to exist through the physical sign that it leaves, which is consistent across decades and even continents, before replica casts were even in production.
Footage of Patterson casting Patty's prints.
ReplyDeleteBob Hieronimus claimed that he was the one who took the footage showing Roger Patterson.
ReplyDelete“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 organzied 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 assocation with Roger.”
Deletehttps://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp
The PGF and the documentary are not the same thing.
Of course heronmous was there. He's in the picture of roger and gimlin with his Indian wig. He knew roger and bob back in the day. Heronumous past 2 lie tests. Gimlin won't even take one. What does that tell you. Roger supposedly took a lie test but there is zero proof of that. It's a just story going round about bigfoot. Heronomus knows who filmed roger because heronomus did the filming when he was there with roger and bob.
DeleteActually... comparing Bob H’s polygraph test to Roger Patterson’s is almost non-comparable.
DeleteJim McCormick who did Bob H's first polygraph died in 2009 and Bob H’s attorney, Barry Woodard, refused to reposnd to requests from another local polygraph expert for a peer review of those test results. The “Lie Detector” show’s credibility took a hit concerning his second polygraph, when host Ed Gelb was accused of exaggerating his own academic credentials and the show was victimized by a guest who made up a story, aced Gelb’s polygraph and then bragged about it in a magazine.
Roger Patterson’s was arranged by National Wildlife magazine on the basis that if he past then Patty would make it in the magazine.
There is evidence to suggest that Bob H had a minor role to play when Roger Patterson was making a documentary on historical sightings reports. There is nothing to link him to Bluff Creek, and he’s never even been able to begin to show people how to get there.
The logical conclusion is that you footers don't want to see the logical conclusion. Patterson and Gimlin were there with at least one other person, likely the person who played the role of bigfoot. And that person is the one who filmed Patterson.
DeleteGimlin slipped up in his story when he said that he didn't use the camera at all. He should have said, "Yeah, I did some filming when we were there." It is heard as plain as day in that interview in Bob Gimlin's distinctive voice that he did not use the camera, even joking that he still doesn't know how to use a camera.
This is a hole in the Patterson-Gimlin story that points to a third person, which points to fibs and a hoax.
Who are you calling “footers” Rum? You’re Todd Standing’s biggest fan aren’t you?
DeleteLogic requires coherency. Arguing one minute that Bob’s participation is fraudulent and then the next that his statement about his role is gospel lacks even a shred of coherency and is therefore illogical.
When you are trying to convince someone that a mere anecdote from a 60 year old memory is better evidence than easily pointed out biological tissue and comparable corroborating decades’ old hominin trackway studies that have had the contribution of some of the best anthropologists ever... you are not being scientifically logical.
The muscle tone & flexing muscles reported by Gimlin are also heard “plain as day” in not just one interview... but across many conventions and innumerable interviews for the past 20 years, backed up by science and expert opinion. If you want to play top trumps and compare our hands... as it stands you have the word of one person and no actual evidence to go with your claim. In contrast I have the word of the same person YOU insist is accurately portraying events, PLUS evidence.
Remember, Bob Gimlin’s anecdotes are gospel from this point onward.
This is what happens when you rehash old arguments that not even hardcore sceptics thought debunked the footage first time around.
Nighty night.
Gimlin himself said he never used the camera. But this interview where he said it has quietly disappeared.
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5YwsP4NcBBw
MK Davis is of the school of thought that there was a massacre at Bluff Creek. Now I haven’t seen the video you just linked but I would be happy to assume at this point that he’s referring to the numbers needed behind the camera to accomplish that.
DeleteAt the end of the day, finding a hole in the designated roles of two cowboys in 1967 whilst tracking a hominin, retold by an old man, is not getting anywhere near the fact that the subject in the PGF has impossible detail that can’t be replicated by today’s SFX standards. And that the physical evidence left behind by that subject is consistent with hominin trackways studies and published for the past half a century.
The subject in the PGF is obviously real, the rest is deflection. Unable to refute the imagery they choose to attack the periphery.
ReplyDeleteCouldn’t have put it better myself.
DeleteObviously real to those who want to make it real.
DeleteGo make your magic monkey costume real and change everyone’s mind Rum.
DeleteTypical. Always end with "Got Monkey Suit" when you don't know what else to say.
DeleteWho filmed Roger Patterson if Gimlin didn't use the camera? Gimlin said he didn't use the camera.
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5YwsP4NcBBw
Pro Tip - if you’re going to try and reference ideas that support the notion that the PGF is fake, it’s probably better to not reference the research of someone who’s spent the last 10-15 years showing that the PGF subject has impossible biological detail, and thus a genuine hominin.
DeleteWho filmed Patterson? It's a fair question. If Gimlin did not use Roger's camera as he clearly stated, then someone else was with them.
Delete-Joe
Did you ever consider that Bob Gimlin has been telling a tall tale to make a few bucks?
Delete-Bill