Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

And another thing, if I pro-kill gang had a body, they'd surely hand it over to the scientific community.

Not if they ate it first, or think the government's out to get them or sent it back on the UFO.

 

[RayG]

The statement from Gimlin's attorney:

"I'm authorized to tell you that nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit and that Mr. Gimlin's position is that it's absolutely false and untrue."

Gotta love lawyers. Isn't that the same as saying, "In Mr. Gimlin's opinion..."?

Mr. Gimlin has already said "...and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger."

His attorney's statement carries no weight.

RayG

 

[Yeah_Right]

Not if they ate it first, or think the government's out to get them or sent it back on the UFO.

Or the animal doesn't exist, and there is nothing to kill.

 

[LAL]

That's pretty out of context, don't you think, Ray? How about citing the rest of it?

 

[LAL]

I don't know where Perez gets his material, but, according to Chris Murphy, they air-shipped the film to Seattle:

"On this point, Gimlin has stated, "We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sandbar and getting up and running...we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on the film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything." They therefore decided to airship the film to Al De Atley, Patterson's brother-in-law in Yakima, for immediate processing. It appears the mens' plan was to wait for word from De Atley as to what, if anything, was on the film. This information would dictate their next move. In other words, if they had not captured the creature on film, they would stay longer and try again. The men decided they would both travel to the airport to make the shipment. This task accomplished, they would then return to their campsite. Leaving their horses tethered at their campsite, the two men started out in their truck for a local airport, probably Murray Field in Arcata. On their way, they stopped at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek to talk to their friend, Al Hodgson. As it was after 6:00 p.m., however, the store was closed. Patterson therefore telephoned Hodgson at his home. Hodgson and other friends, including Sly McCoy, thereupon met with Patterson and Gimlin, presumably at Hodgson's store. Patterson and Gimlin then related their experience to their friends. Also, during this time Patterson telephone Al De Atley to inform him of the pending film shipment. Patterson shipped the film to the Seattle, Washington airport for pick-up by De Atley the next day.

Patterson and Gimlin then headed out to an air shipping facility and shipped the film to Al De Atley. As far as we know, only one film roll was shipped to De Atley. It is reasonable to assume Patterson still had the second roll in his camera with sufficient unexposed film for a possible second sighting. The two men then contacted a reporter for The Times-Standard newspaper at Eureka, to whom they related their experience in considerable detail. It is not known if this was a telephone contact or a personal contact. We do know, however, that it took place at about 9:30 p.m. The article appeared in the newspaper the following day, October 21, 1967. The men then immediately headed back to their campsite. By the time they arrived, bad weather was closing-in. By about midnight, it was raining heavily."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

DeAtley had some pretty big memory lapses on this, but thought he must have chartered a plane. He knew about how much it would have cost.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, you answer a question with a question? Just answer the question and leave the drama for someone else.

I would really like to hear the answer. If RP or anyone else is not credible, then why in the world would anyone believe a word that came out of BH's mouth? He has backtracked and had more problems keeping his own story straight.. I would just like an answer.

No, I made no attempt to answer any question. I just pointed out the absurdity of not questioning the stories told by the person who made the claim of filming Patty. That person's consistency and integrity is what matters most here, imo.

Personally, I don't actually put much stock in BH or use him much in any arguments. I basically stick to questioning the stories told around the creation of the PGF, particularly the ones told by RP and BG around the time of the event.

In my mind, the whole thing rests on Patterson's credibility. It matters little to me who may or may not have been in a sasquatch suit. Things like when the film was shot, the flooding, what happened at the initial encounter, etc., are far more valuable in evaluating the story of the film to me. It is RP's and BG's initial stories and other initial stories that make me think the film is a hoax.

In that recent show, it was very interesting to see how quickly the actor duplicated Patty's stride.

 

[William Parcher]

"Roger told my brother Howard he made the whole thing out of horsehide. Roger had skinned a dead, red horse and attached or glued fur from an old fur coat onto the horsehide skin."

So Roger admitted the hoax to Howard Heironimus? Roger didn't have to tell the truth to anyone, and he seemed to be a man who might take credit for himself when it wasn't deserved. Again, BH had no reason to fully know or care about how the suit was made or any materials.

"My feet slipped into the feet of the suit I think the feet were made of old houseslippers you used to see around, that looked like big feet with toes in them."

Maybe they were the feet supplied with the gorilla suit. Again, it doesn't matter if BH was wrong about what the feet actually were. I guess Bob thought they looked like slippers with toes.

"The head fits on next. I think the head was made out of a, it seemed to me...like an old time football helmet."

An old-time football helmet is padded leather. Again, he's trying to describe what it seemed like to him. It's consistent with a Morris gorilla headpiece. Patterson made some modifications to it, but likely left the internal structure.

He describes the six-piece Dynel suit in detail on pg. 449 - 450. It had a 36" zipper running down the back. Heironimus described a slip-on torso, that was like putting on a T-shirt.

You left out the part where BH says P&G helped him put on the suit. He's confessing to a hoax that included Roger and Bob. Morris' suits did come with a zipper, and Morris explained to Patterson how he could hide the zipper by brushing the Dynel fur over it. It's possible that Roger didn't want the zipper used, and instead had BH put the top on like a t-shirt. According to BH, he needed help putting on and taking off the suit.

Shall I go on?

It doesn't matter. The "holes" in BH's story can be explained as taking his testimony to be something other than what he means, or faulty recollections, or faulty specific observations at the time of the filming. Your standard for evaluating the testimonies of Heironimus & Morris are quite different than those you apply to Patterson & Gimlin. Holes in their testimonies are really no big deal to you.

 

[RayG]

That's pretty out of context, don't you think, Ray? How about citing the rest of it?

Out of context? How so? The lawyer's tidbit was Gimlin's opinion, as was the snippet I quoted. Posting the entire quote, as presented elsewhere, does nothing to strenghten or weaken his opinion on the matter.

"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I’m an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."

Gimlin seems have come to the conclusion that maybe he could have been fooled, that there was the possibility of a hoax. With age comes wisdom perhaps. How is that out of context when discussing Mr. Gimlin's opinion?

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

In the earliest interviews with P&G (1967/68) they say that the encountered Patty at 1:30pm and (in some interviews, but not all) tracked her for 3.5 miles after she split. Then when Gimlin was interviewed by Green in 1992, he said that they encountered Patty "perhaps a little bit after noon time". No mention of 3.5 miles, and instead Gimlin said "Then we tracked on up the creek bed quite a ways. We saw one wet half of a footprint on a rock as it went up into the mountains and that was as far as we went with it."

Changing stories? Backtracking on stories? Bad recollection? Not caring anymore about what you told the world back then? Pattycakes are calling for Heironimus' head for these same "crimes" of testimony. But Gimlin gets a free pass.

 

[LAL]

So Roger admitted the hoax to Howard Heironimus?

No, Bob says he said that.

Roger didn't have to tell the truth to anyone, and he seemed to be a man who might take credit for himself when it wasn't deserved. Again, BH had no reason to fully know or care about how the suit was made or any materials.

I wondered how you were going to try to wiggle out of that.

He described the suit in detail and said it stank. He tried it on outside the shed with Gimlin there, and Patricia looking out the window, he said. He described the pieces and how he put them on. Morris was equally detailed in his description of the Dynel suit and Long even included the precise way the fibers were inserted and the head constructed. No helmet.

But Heironimus couldn't tell the difference between Dynel fibers inserted into fabric and horsehide when he tried the suit on? (Evidently, Long didn't notice a difference in the stories, either.)

Maybe they were the feet supplied with the gorilla suit. Again, it doesn't matter if BH was wrong about what the feet actually were. I guess Bob thought they looked like slippers with toes.

C'mon.

An old-time football helmet is padded leather. Again, he's trying to describe what it seemed like to him. It's consistent with a Morris gorilla headpiece. Patterson made some modifications to it, but likely left the internal structure.

Maybe you should read the book. Morris glued the mask to a hood.

You left out the part where BH says P&G helped him put on the suit. He's confessing to a hoax that included Roger and Bob. Morris' suits did come with a zipper, and Morris explained to Patterson how he could hide the zipper by brushing the Dynel fur over it. It's possible that Roger didn't want the zipper used, and instead had BH put the top on like a t-shirt. According to BH, he needed help putting on and taking off the suit.

I left out a lot. Just why should I have to type out the whole chapter?

In that part he specifically said it was a 3-piece suit and that they helped him slip the torso over his head.

The Morris suit had a zipper from neckline to crotch, 36" long (pg. 449).

Two different suits.

It doesn't matter. The "holes" in BH's story can be explained as taking his testimony to be something other than what he means, or faulty recollections, or faulty specific observations at the time of the filming.

Or out and out lying.

Your standard for evaluating the testimonies of Heironimus & Morris are quite different than those you apply to Patterson & Gimlin. Holes in their testimonies are really no big deal to you.

They have none by comparison. Can you suggest a name for people who believe Both Morris and Heironimus? Something with cakes, maybe? Skepticakes? Fruitcakes?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well of course! The suit was an actual sasquatch skin! That explains everything, including the stench.

 

[LAL]

Changing stories? Backtracking on stories? Bad recollection? Not caring anymore about what you told the world back then.

Reporter error?

Pattycakes are calling for Heironimus' head for these same "crimes" of testimony. But Gimlin gets a free pass.

I don't want his head.

It could be he did wear a suit for a reenactment for the documentary. Or he could just have started lying in hopes of selling his story to a tabloid for $50,000.

Gimlin has always maintained he's telling the truth and that it couldn't be a man in a suit because he could see the muscles moving under the skin. He was there. Morris was not.

 

[LAL]

Out of context? How so? The lawyer's tidbit was Gimlin's opinion, as was the snippet I quoted. Posting the entire quote, as presented elsewhere, does nothing to strenghten or weaken his opinion on the matter.

"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I’m an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."

Gimlin seems have come to the conclusion that maybe he could have been fooled, that there was the possibility of a hoax. With age comes wisdom perhaps. How is that out of context when discussing Mr. Gimlin's opinion?

RayG

Source, please, and date. That was during an interview, wasn't it? He considered the possibility a third party could have hoaxed them both at one point, didn't he?

The statement from the attorney was after the Heironimus story hit the news. It appeared in the Washington Post, among other papers.

 

[LAL]

Rick said Roosevelt Elk are further west in the coast ranges. He thinks the elk in Skamania County are a mix of Tule and Rocky Mountain Elk. Sounds like he checked it out. I could well have been misinformed.

 

[RayG]

Gimlin has always maintained he's telling the truth and that it couldn't be a man in a suit because he could see the muscles moving under the skin.

Always? You mean except for when he admitted the possibility he could have been fooled by a well planned hoax.

Source, please, and date.

Bob Gimlin spoke those words in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham. I provided the link to the webpage and the date in post #4860, which is a quote from this book (page 166).

That was during an interview, wasn't it?

Yes, and I stated that in post #4860 above.

He considered the possibility a third party could have hoaxed them both at one point, didn't he?

He reconsidered his belief that he could not be fooled, and that it may have been a hoax. Did he subsequently revert back to his firm belief that he could not be fooled?

The statement from the attorney was after the Heironimus story hit the news. It appeared in the Washington Post, among other papers.

Regardless of when it was released, or what paper carried it, it's virtually meaningless.

RayG

 

[LAL]

I didn't read most of post #4860. Sorry. I remembered Chris, but not the last name. I do have the book, but I haven't reread it all yet.

I was anticipating a request for my source on the attorney's statement. The Washington Post would be one.

In the Willow Creek Symposium in 2003 he sounded sure. Considering another possibility doesn't mean a person has to accept it. He'd be telling the truth 1999 when he said he considered a hoax.

The statement about the muscles can be heard here:

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/bf_pgfilm.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Could someone who is not being ignored by Lu, as why she thinks Gimlin needs an attorney to speak for him in these matters ?

 

[TjW]

Gotta love lawyers. Isn't that the same as saying, "In Mr. Gimlin's opinion..."?

No, it's not even that substantive. A position needn't be your opinion. It could be the opposite of your opinion, or even a complete lie. It's more like:
"That's my story, and I'm sticking to it."

 

[RayG]

Rick said Roosevelt Elk are further west in the coast ranges. He thinks the elk in Skamania County are a mix of Tule and Rocky Mountain Elk. Sounds like he checked it out. I could well have been misinformed.

.
What Rick thinks has no bearing on whether or not something is true. While Roosevelt elk make their home in Olympic National Park, Rick makes it sound like that's the only place they're found, and that it's "highly improbable" for Roosevelt elk to be found in the Mt. St. Helens area. That simply isn't the case.

From: http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/recreation/wilderness/wilderness-trapper-creek.shtml

Trapper Creek Wilderness [very close to Skookum Meadow] consists of 6,050 acres of diverse habitat located in the central portion of the Wind River Ranger District in the southern Cascades of Washington...Animals commonly seen in the area include blacktail deer, Roosevelt elk, and black bear.

.
From: http://www.mtsthelens.net/MtStHelensNet/wildlife.html

The Roosevelt elk cannot be mistaken for Rocky Mountain elk which are found on the other side of our state east of the Cascade mountain range. Roosevelts are bigger bodied, more massive and support racks with distinctive cluster points around the royal tine. The elk are still one of the main attractions for the Mount St. Helens area in the winter time. They can be seen more readily on the Toutle mud flow and there are many turnouts on the road up to Cold Water Visitors Center that offer great opportunities to view and photograph. Most shots will be long distance, but nevertheless, enjoyable.

.
From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7830509/

On a recent sunny day, a herd of nearly 100 Roosevelt elk lounged among black cottonwood and red alder trees a few miles from the [Mt. St. Helens] mountain.

.
From: http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/volcano-review/life-springs-eternal.shtml

...but the vast majority of plant and animal species that were found at Mount St. Helens prior to the 1980 eruption have returned. Some, like the Roosevelt elk have returned in numbers that far exceed pre-1980 populations.

.
From: http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/criticalecologies/volcanic

...but I am moved by the reappearance of plants and trees and animals and fish at Mt. St. Helens - the symbiotic reaching out of fungus filaments to plants roots deep beneath the volcanic ash, the herd of Roosevelt's elk returning to feed on grass sprouting from the earth of an apparently unwelcoming ashy, silica-infused but now media-hyped "miraculous mudslide."

.
From: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n3-4_v97/ai_10555214/pg_2

That afternoon, with Weyerhaeuser's chief helicopter pilot, Ron Wagner, I fly in a Bell LongRanger across the rolling shoulders of lower Mt. St. Helens. Within the new forest as we fly over, I see exciting lifescores of Roosevelt elk scuffing along in a new and welcome habitat.

.
Just some of the many examples of Roosevelt elk being found/observed in the Mt. St. Helens area.

Besides, if Roosevelt elk are NOT found in that area, why were they mentioned in the details of the BFRO expedition to Skookum Meadow?

From: http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

Native mammals & spoor observed during our stay included: Black-tailed Deer, Roosevelt Elk, Black Bear, Mountain Lion, Coyote, Townsend's Chipmunk, Hudsonian Pine Squirrel, Porcupine, White-footed Deer Mouse, Pine Martin, Bushy-tailed Woodrat, and possible Sasquatch.

So either Roosevelt elk ARE/WERE in the area and inadequate experimental testing was conducted to rule out [Roosevelt] elk as a possible culprit, or Roosevelt elk ARE NOT/WERE NOT in the area and the BFRO was careless with expedition details.

Neither option paints a professional picture.

RayG

 

[carcharodon]

What evidence would that be?

RayG

You know full well what it is. There is plenty of it. You have been shown it. However, you and ultra scoftics like you want the proof before you want the evidence. The evidence doesn't interest you. Only the proof does. You want proof first, evidence later. You have it bass ackwards, as our old friend SY is fond of saying.