• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

The Shrike said:
Extraordinary how key words and phrases can so often be ignored.
Click to expand...

Talk about pot/kettle!

What part of: "I'm not sure I would consider such a claim even remotely valid without some sort of hard evidence." did you take as me ignoring your bit about taking Kit at his word?
I was obviously referring to my opinion about Kit's veracity - not yours.
 
Cervelo said:
Agreeded I was just trying to clarify what the story was. No doubt that the faithful at BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) didn't buy into it.
Wild claims....meh if you say so, the way you compare the two is pretty dramatic/disingenuous.

Giant monkey man roaming the U.S.!
Well regarded rich dude, who was the brother in law who funded a film that was peddled by Roger Patterson as a real Bigfoot, hiding evidence that it was fake!These two things are the same in your mind....okey-dokey.


Your saying there's no evidence that DeAtley didn't fund PGF and it's subsequent national tour?
Click to expand...

Not saying those things I hi-lighted are false - but perhaps you could provide proof of those claims? Cancelled checks, cash withdrawals and/or deposits, sworn statements by people who were there; or, are you just going to take someone's unverified stories as proof?
We seem to have a different standard of scepticism in these threads when the narrative fits into our own beliefs that is a little hypocritical - to say the least.

Edit - I'm not getting into a debate about the PGF and the events surrounding it. It was a fake - no doubt about it. But I am also not willing to be part of lynch mob denigrating DeAtley's life because of some unproven allegations bandied about by unknown posters on an erroneously named Sceptics forum.
 
Last edited:
rockinkt said:
Not saying those things I hi-lighted are false - but perhaps you could provide proof of those claims? Cancelled checks, cash withdrawals and/or deposits, sworn statements by people who were there; or, are you just going to take someone's unverified stories as proof?
We seem to have a different standard of scepticism in these threads when the narrative fits into our own beliefs that is a little hypocritical - to say the least.

Edit - I'm not getting into a debate about the PGF and the events surrounding it. It was a fake - no doubt about it. But I am also not willing to be part of lynch mob denigrating DeAtley's life because of some unproven allegations bandied about by unknown posters on an erroneously named Sceptics forum.
Click to expand...

Your criteria for establishing DeAtelys participation in the PGF is absurd. While I fully appreciate what your trying to say, I'm not sure I understanding your emotional reaction to the subject, but hey that's your gig.

DeAtley supporting PGF is well documented. If one believes it's a hoax, then all parties participated in that fraud. It's just a matter of to what extent.

Money was made off PGF, is that not self evident or are you looking for cashed checks, and bank deposits?....thats the absurd part again.

Kits claim that DeAtley having the suit would make sense, he had the most to lose if the fraud was exposed, impacting his reputation and legally if sued. I'm not sure who would sue anyone for committing this type of fraud. Certainly any legal issues have long since become a none issue.

Kits declaration about the suit while premature was very interesting to see play out over at BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends). Bill Munns, the has been make-up artist/PGF head doofus in charge was offered the chance to examine the suit, if Kit could pull it off. He declined claiming poverty, go figure, a dude who's life appears to revolve around this one subject couldn't scrap together the money to make a 300-500 mile journey, to examine a suit used in one of the greatest hoaxes in history.

Lynch mob denigrating some dead rich dude.....your perception of reality is fascinating, way to take a stand.
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
Your criteria for establishing DeAtelys participation in the PGF is absurd. While I fully appreciate what your trying to say, I'm not sure I understanding your emotional reaction to the subject, but hey that's your gig.

DeAtley supporting PGF is well documented. If one believes it's a hoax, then all parties participated in that fraud. It's just a matter of to what extent.

Money was made off PGF, is that not self evident or are you looking for cashed checks, and bank deposits?....thats the absurd part again.

Kits claim that DeAtley having the suit would make sense, he had the most to lose if the fraud was exposed, impacting his reputation and legally if sued. I'm not sure who would sue anyone for committing this type of fraud. Certainly any legal issues have long since become a none issue.

Kits declaration about the suit while premature was very interesting to see play out over at BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends). Bill Munns, the has been make-up artist/PGF head doofus in charge was offered the chance to examine the suit, if Kit could pull it off. He declined claiming poverty, go figure, a dude who's life appears to revolve around this one subject couldn't scrap together the money to make a 300-500 mile journey, to examine a suit used in one of the greatest hoaxes in history.

Lynch mob denigrating some dead rich dude.....your perception of reality is fascinating, way to take a stand.
Click to expand...

"Well documented" in this case means many people repeating the same story. There is no direct evidence supporting any of the claims that you are repeating.
In real life - "well documented" means that there is hard evidence in the form of official or semi-official paperwork. Bank statements, written/signed agreements/ tax statements, statutory declarations, etc.

I am not stating that many different story-lines about the hows and whys of the hoax are not possible. Some are even probable. Some might be very close to the truth. I am just stating that as sceptics we should be cognizant about the need to not state things as fact if they do not meet the basics of what one would consider evidence.

Please do not try and lecture me about Bill Munns. I was the first to call out Bill Munns as a fraud way back when he first started. His approach to the people at BFF fit all the classic con-man moves and as a former cop specializing in fraud investigations for 7 years I recognized the pattern.

Please do not continue the personal attacks. I am trying to discuss this in a reasonable way using arguments backed by facts and logical reasoning. You know - like a sceptic.
 
Last edited:
rockinkt said:
"Well documented" in this case means many people repeating the same story. There is no direct evidence supporting any of the claims that you are repeating.
In real life - "well documented" means that there is hard evidence in the form of official or semi-official paperwork. Bank statements, written/signed agreements/ tax statements, statutory declarations, etc.

I am not stating that many different story-lines about the hows and whys of the hoax are not possible. Some are even probable. Some might be very close to the truth. I am just stating that as sceptics we should be cognizant about the need to not state things as fact if they do not meet the basics of what one would consider evidence.

Please do not try and lecture me about Bill Munns. I was the first to call out Bill Munns as a fraud way back when he first started. His approach to the people at BFF fit all the classic con-man moves and as a former cop specializing in fraud investigations for 7 years I recognized the pattern.

Please do not continue the personal attacks. I am trying to discuss this in a reasonable way using arguments backed by facts and logical reasoning. You know - like a sceptic.
Click to expand...

I'm not making this personal but your near hysterics in regard to this subject can't help but be noted
Your claim of a lynch mob going after Al DeAtley is absurd
Your claim of me lecturing you in regards to Munns is absurd
Your request for any documentation for Al DeAtley's participation in PGF is absurd
You don't set the the bar for evidence supporting his participation in PGF or for skeptical inquiry but you seem to be pretty good at lecturing others about it.

I haven't seen you present anything remotely based on facts or logic just a lot of emotional hand waving, having seen this behaviour from others, I can't help but be reminded of this response that was posted to this style of debate.....I wish I could credit the original poster.

"It's as if you are a singularly fantastic presence on the planet. I'm skeptical of virtually everything that you say. You talk about yourself all the time here, so the arguments are drawn onto you rather than the object of your claims. It tests the forum guideline of "attack the argument, not the arguer" because you force the argument to be about you based on personal anecdotal experience."

Thx to Drew for posting the above, that's the tip of an iceberg of support for Al DeAtley's participation in PGF. Anyone with an Internet connection could verify it for themselves if they had an interest in the facts, but I'm not convinced that's what this is about.....I'm not really sure what it's about LOL!
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
...I can't help but be reminded of this response that was posted to this style of debate.....I wish I could credit the original poster.

"It's as if you are a singularly fantastic presence on the planet. I'm skeptical of virtually everything that you say. You talk about yourself all the time here, so the arguments are drawn onto you rather than the object of your claims. It tests the forum guideline of "attack the argument, not the arguer" because you force the argument to be about you based on personal anecdotal experience."
Click to expand...
Your wish has been granted.
 
Post #3430 on Page 86.

ETA: You should have known that the quote is Parcher-style. :D
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Amazing how close to the actual quote Cervelo was.
Click to expand...
Close? It's the exact same thing word-for-word. That's because it's a copy-paste.

I suspect that Cervelo saved what I wrote long ago and then couldn't remember where or who the words came from. Maybe there is another explanation.
 
William Parcher said:
Close? It's the exact same thing word-for-word. That's because it's a copy-paste.

I suspect that Cervelo saved what I wrote long ago and then couldn't remember where or who the words came from. Maybe there is another explanation.
Click to expand...

Indeed it's one of my favorites, I'll make sure your given credit in the future.
 
Cervelo said:
Indeed it's one of my favorites, I'll make sure your given credit in the future.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter to me if you credit or not. I wouldn't even have said anything if you hadn't mentioned that you wished you could give credit.

There were also three other occasions that you used that quote without credit but I said nothing.
 
William Parcher said:
There were also three other occasions that you used that quote without credit but I said nothing.
Click to expand...
Haha – No tricks missed by our own Willy Parcher!

In other news, the word "if" has only two letters but those letters can be really effective in saving people a lot of needless aggravation.
 
In Jan 2020 in Longview WA Gimlin made this claim. Is this new?
He stands by the story, though, along with a second encounter with Bigfoot he had about 10 years later while camping along the Pacific Crest Trail.

“I put my tent up that night. There was a half moon in the sky,” Gimlin said. “I looked up through the tent and a Bigfoot was standing right there (looking in). By the time I got my boots on, it was gone.”
Click to expand...
 
AFAIK, he had never claimed a different Bigfoot encounter before. I think he described seeing Patty as being his confirmation of their existence.
 
It certainly has a ring of truth about it though.

Why would bigfoot wait for him to get his boots on? That would contradict most of the published behavioral studies which suggest a more elusive creature.
 
How fitting that the man often credited with saying “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” most likely did not invent the phrase.

Commonly attributed to Mark Twain, that quotation instead appears to be a descendant of a line published centuries ago by the satirist Jonathan Swift.
Click to expand...
Link
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
It certainly has a ring of truth about it though.

Why would bigfoot wait for him to get his boots on? That would contradict most of the published behavioral studies which suggest a more elusive creature.
Click to expand...

I imagine it's because there is a certain comedy value in watching these overweight doofuses struggling to reach their feet.
Once BF realised Gimlin was in better shape than most of his peers, he would have wandered off in search of something more interesting, like a cabin he could throw rocks at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom