Gimlin's Yakima Bigfoot Party

Thank you for the welcome.

So you were just speculating? Should you have said so then? What does speculating about someone's motives or profitmaking accomplish? I thought this board was about facts?
 
I thought this board was about facts?
Click to expand...
Are you just speculating ?

I think most of the regulars in these discussions would have inferred the speculative nature of my comments..

Speculation is pretty much all we have when it comes to these matters .. ( Bigfoot et al )

Please feel free to share any facts you may have ... Keeping in mind, when you actually claim that something is a fact, this board is all about, asking you to back it up ..
 
The little agreement thing I got when I signed up clearly stated that opinions are to be stated as such and facts are to be stated as such. You posted your opinion and did not state so, it doesn't matter what regular posters know about you or not. I can understand the speculation as to motive for the conference, but since it appears to be easy to ask Bill or even the conference organizer the facts, why not do so?

edited to add: I will email the person listed as the contact to find out the facts.
 
Last edited:
I heard back from the organizers. Here is what they said:

The idea as far as Bob is concerned, is that the speakers were folks who he likes, likes their work and ideas, and could come w/o major expense or any out of pocket expense on their part. All are participating w/o asking any fee. Right now, we're helping with gas (up to a certain amount), lodging and dinner on Sat.

And this is being run as a not-for-profit event. The reserved seating is to cover additional expenses. As for sales by the presenters, no, at this time, we are NOT expecting any percentage.

I know based on the folks WE KNOW that are coming, that we'll be asking for help at the event, donated drinks, a pot-luck on Friday and possibly sponsors to cover any expenses (if we can’t with ticket sales.)

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
I would ask Bob Gimlin the following:

How could he and Patterson do all the things they claimed at the times they claimed and still have time for him to drive to the post office in Eureka before it closed (Gimlin said it WAS the post office and NOT some air field as others have tried to turn it into) and then drive all the way back in time to meet Al Hodgson just after 6 pm? This is physically impossible to do.

Funny that. Unless Gimlin still has his time machine and can demonstrate it I'd have to say the man is lying outright.
 
I suppose, since others here are posing hypothetical questions for Bob Gimlin, one might hypothetically ask him how he feels to be vindicated after enduring 41 years of cruel and false accusations that he's a liar about what he saw that day?
 
Bill Munns said:
I suppose, since others here are posing hypothetical questions for Bob Gimlin, one might hypothetically ask him how he feels to be vindicated after enduring 41 years of cruel and false accusations that he's a liar about what he saw that day?
Click to expand...

Vindicated? When did that ever happen? Did someone shoot a Bigfoot and not tell me?

No. The story he tried to sell doesn't fit reality. It's a suit and he's stuck with the tall tales he's told. That's where it's at.;)
 
It is a hypothetical question. Nothing has happened yet.


Added:

"D":

I just had a neat idea. Since you and I tend to see this from opposing perspectives, maybe we could make dual presentations in an impartial setting. I'm currently working on my application to present a technical paper at SIGGRAPH ( http://www.siggraph.org/s2009/index.php ) next August, based on my research. Maybe you could submit a companion application for presenting an opposing technical discussion of your 4 years of dilligent research?

My application working title is " A CGI Forensic Analysis of the Patterson (Bigfoot) Film"

No rush. Applications for presenting papers closes Jan 18, 2009, so give it some thought.

:)

Bill
 
Last edited:
Bill Munns said:
I suppose, since others here are posing hypothetical questions for Bob Gimlin, one might hypothetically ask him how he feels to be vindicated after enduring 41 years of cruel and false accusations that he's a liar about what he saw that day?
Click to expand...

You see, the thing to note here, Bill, is that in the case of the questions suggested by Diogenes and myself, we have valid questions based on facts. You are simply speculating based on what you believe to be the truth.

1) Contradictions by both Patterson and Gimlin regarding Patterson being fell on and pinned by his horse and offering a crushed stirrup as evidence and alternately doing a one-handed Legolas off the back of the horse while at the same time smoothly extracating his camera.

2) By Gimlin's own admission he is a longtime friend and neighbour of Bob Heironimus.

Gimlin has never been vindicated of accusations of being involved in a hoax. There is on, on the other hand, considerable circumstantial evidence pointing towards a hoax.
 
Last edited:
Kitakaze;

"Gimlin has never been vindicated of accusations of being involved in a hoax."

I never said he was vindicated. I posed a hypothetical question.


There is on, on the other hand, considerable circumstantial evidence pointing towards a hoax.

When push comes to shove, scientific and mathematical evidence tends to overrule circumstantial evidence, because circumstantial evidence almost always relies of complex variables with can't be fixed in quantifiable and precise form. Scientific and mathematical evidence, on the other hand, tends to lend itself well to quantifiable and precise form.
 
Bill Munns said:
Kitakaze;

"Gimlin has never been vindicated of accusations of being involved in a hoax."

I never said he was vindicated. I posed a hypothetical question.
Click to expand...

Based on your personal convictions rather than established facts such as Diogenes and I did. Yes, I know. Pointed it out.


There is on, on the other hand, considerable circumstantial evidence pointing towards a hoax.

When push comes to shove, scientific and mathematical evidence tends to overrule circumstantial evidence, because circumstantial evidence almost always relies of complex variables with can't be fixed in quantifiable and precise form. Scientific and mathematical evidence, on the other hand, tends to lend itself well to quantifiable and precise form.
Click to expand...

Mathematical and scientific evidence does not support the assertion that Patty is more likely to be a real sasquatch than a man in a suit. By your own measurments Patty does not exhibit proportions outside of human range. We are left to examine the question if Patty could really represent a North American giant bipedal non-human primate. The scientific evidence does not support that either. What scientific evidence we do have shows hoaxes and misidentifications. When we look at the circumstances surrounding the filming of the PGF the situation becomes very suspicious.

You disregard those things and commit to focusing on the film. I don't think that's preposterous but nor do I think it's the most reasonable track of investigation. In my opinion, I haven't seen anything to change my assessment of the film being a hoax. IMO, I haven't seen anything to invalidate the opinions of master creature fx people who have had a good look and disagree with you. The information does not support Bigfoot as an animal over a social construct and activity. If it did, so would I. That's just basic skepticism.
 
Bill Munns said:
Kitakaze:

Things change.

Have a good night.

Bill
Click to expand...

For those of us who are fond of the Bigfoot myth, one would hope that things might change for you to be able to ask your question to Gimlin based on reality. Sadly no such indications exist.

Good night to you also.
 
GT/CS said:
Bob Gimlin is gathering a group of friends for a get-together next May 16th in Yakima, Washington for the First Annual Yakima Bigfoot Round-up, in Yakima, Washington.
Click to expand...

Presumably not the old friend and neighbour who alone says he was Patty. Might get rowdy.
 
Just Reading said:
Really? Where did you get that information? My understanding is that while their travel costs are covered, the people you listed are never paid a speaking fee.
Click to expand...

Your understanding is incorrect. Some high profile speakers are paid speaker fees. Some of the standard BF speakers are paid airfare and room and board.

Perhaps Nefarious1 can clarify this, she is a JREF member, and one of the organizers of the TBRC.
 
Last edited:
You could also ask Mr. Gimlin, why he waited 20 years to admit that BobH's horse was at bluff creek during the alleged filming.

Also- Bill, does this membership in the bigfoot club, affect your objectivity in any way?
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, I am skeptical of objectivity on Bill's part. He came into the PGF thinking it was real. His Bigfoot interest is not some recent development by any stretch.

Best let Bill's own words reflect his beliefs:

Statement of belief and intent

There is specific anecdotal evidence that weighs on his predisposition to Bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Bill Munns said:
I suppose, since others here are posing hypothetical questions for Bob Gimlin, one might hypothetically ask him how he feels to be vindicated after enduring 41 years of cruel and false accusations that he's a liar about what he saw that day?
Click to expand...

Huge slip-up.

Looks like someone's research is not quite as unbiased as he wants us to believe.

Edit; Ah shoot, Kit and Drew beat me to it again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom